1982D-1MM-009

Dick · Expert Member

Bob, is there another photo of this particular die? I have several coins that are similar, but the triangualtion says -009 is not that die. All the other MM's don't meet the criteria. The photo does not give enough info, ( visual, or date/MM relationship). Could there be an eleventh die? I used ratio, and proportion, along with basic measurements, to interpolate, and the numbers don't agree.
Dick

Bob P · Site Admin

Dick,
As you probably noticed from the pictures on the site, RPM #009 was a coin that was not in very good condition. The coin does not belong to me, so I can not take another look at it to determine if any other markers exist. I am sure you also noticed that on almost all of the RPMs for 1982, I included the statement that said there were many similar dies for the date, and that mintmark positioning was essential in determining which die you may have. I see no reason why your die would not be a new variety all together if attempts to match mintmark position were not conclusive. Most of these 1982 RPMs are very recent discoveries.

Dick · Expert Member

Bob, after having gone thru all 27 coins, and marking all but the last, (which insisted in being stubborm, like me), I "discovered" that not all the photos are the same "ratio". Since finding that fact, I began measuring them, and most will be pretty well equal. Let me clarify: I measure feom the left side of the base of the "1", to the left side of the base of the "2", due to the prevalance of these being in "sight", predominantly. So, these readings have come pretty well as 4-1/2", 4", and 3-1/2", with two exceptions: -007 is 3-1/4, -008 is 3-3/4. Not having the "overlay" ability, I use triangulation, and locate the MM thusly: 1. Left side of the "1", to the top of the MM. 2. vertical separation from top of MM, to bottom of tail of the "9", and to the bottom of the "8". (One other measurement, which is NOT reliable, is using the angle of the "2", to the bottom serif of the MM). This gives a very close position in each case. A final check is scross the left serifs of the "D", vertically to determine rotation, and or tilt. This was verified with the site info. -009, has not been included for the reasons stated. Now I have to go back thru the whole "shebang" and log them again! I have several rolls of these 1982-D's, (but not of this source), which I will also make "some" photos of, and log with the same data as these 27 coins, mentioned. If you would like these bits of info, let me know, and I'll PM, or email them to you for your files, and use. I use "vertical separation" for both the "9", and the "8", because the "8" has no specific point to measure to. I don't know oif this would work on any, or many other dates.
In case there are others "lurking", that DON'T have overlays, you might try this.
Dick

Bob P · Site Admin

Sometimes, it can be quite a chore trying to match up mintmark positions. I have learned to use overlays well enough to be pretty sure. You are correct in a very important point, and that is the aspect ratio. You seem to have a system that works pretty well for you, and I guess if I didn't know what I do now, then I would have had to come up with something similar. So...now the question is 'How successful have you been in identifying your varieties'?

Dick · Expert Member

Bob, my friend, that is due to find out! I had to go another strep,and re do all, but with the SAME size, thru-out. I now have 19 of one placement, and 8 of 5 other positions. Once those are done, then comes the FINAL step: Tilted, or rotated, CW/CCW, plus the "Cardinal displacement". They are: N, NE, E, S(3), SW(2). "T'ain't easy"!
How successful? With the markers, just fine, along as there is at least one, then state, and "milage" figure in for a "guestimate".
Dick