Mint Mark Location

hasfam · Veteran Member

It's hard for me to imagine how a MM could wind up in a vest area or on a rim unless someone was punching them with a blindfold on for a dare. It's not like a machine part slipped or notches weren't lined up just right. Someone took aim there and punched away. It doesn't even seem like it should be called an error or mistake unless there was an earthquake at the exact moment of hammering the punch and the die or punch moved. Then the guy looks at it and says oops, oh well better luck with the next one!? It's hard for me to grasp any logical explanation for the wide displacements.
Rock

wavysteps2003 · Expert Member

This variety has been explained as a possible dropped mint mark punch that made contact with the die face at that point.

Of course this is not the first example of a design element being that far off. If we look at the IHPs, we can find examples of misplaced digits in 1872, 1873, 1882, 1883, 1888 (numerous examples), 1890 and 1897 where some of the digits were in Liberty's neck or protruding from the base of the bust.

Also consider the 1956D lincon cent RPMs, 1956D-1MM-008 & 020 with doubled mint marks far out of place. While these may not be examples of dropped punches for the cause and were more than likely just poor eye sight in the placemenet, they should be considered. And while we are on this subject, particularly this date, the variety known as 1956D-1OM-001, wide S mint mark to the left of the D mint mark, has been de-listed (considered not a variety, but now an error) from CONECA files. For the explanation of why it was, please use this link:

www.varietyvista.com

BJ Neff

eagames · Expert Member

BJ,

That's interesting that they delisted the 56-D 1OM-001 along with the 80-D/S that we already knew about.

Sort of makes me wonder about some other D/S coins like:

1952-D/S OMM-001
1951-D/S OMM-001
1951-D/S 0MM-002

Does anyone know if they are leaning or studying to delist any of these?

wavysteps2003 · Expert Member

Ed - I believe that the reason this variety can under scrutiny was that it was a seperated secondary mint mark, which was unlike the other dual mint mark varieties that you mentioned.

BJ Neff