1960-D varieties

[Dick]

Bob, or anyone else who cares to comment, I have gone thru the 1960-D Varieties section, and have placed them, according to the vertical position of the MM, with relation to the tail of the 9. The increments are in 1/8" , up, even, or down, based upon an "Artists grid, whose lines are 1/8" divisions". Not knowing the scale of the photos on site, the measurements are, naturally, only '"relative".
Using a dual monitor setup for viewing, the "Magnifier", set at 2X. on the second screen, and also has a grid in place. The main screen has the photo on site, and the same size grid, for making the determinations. The second screen and grid, with the 2X setting, gives a bigger view, and each line is 1/16", but is not used as such. It gives a 2X view of the main view, and is quite accurate. Using this system, I can go thru a bunch of (1960-D), coins, and determine very easily, and rapidly, what it is. Out of 165 varieties, there is only one that could actually go to 1/16" for placement.
I believe one more step is necessary, (but I am not sure how to go about it. I want to sort by position, into the vertical placements, to group them). Then, using the position indicated, and the limited number of dies that fit, find the correct one. The photos on site would confirm, even without markers, IMHO, which die was used. The site is that accurate.
Chuck, If you could comment, or suggest, it would be very welcome. I am asking for this type assistance, because I can't focus on an area, and get enough info, now, that normally, one would be able to see the details. The same problem exists, also with the "overlay" procedure.
I would like to test the method, but with members posting one of the varieties, without identifying the variety, and then use my method to tell what it is. Thanks to any, or all who care to help,
Dick

[eagames]

Dick, One problem might be that there are probably many more dies without RPMs (that won't be listed) and they might have the same locations as the listed RPMs.

Where it might work is if you already know it's an RPM then use the grid to compare it to only the known ones in the same direction then if you get a match look for markers to verify it.
That way you're still following the rule for IDing RPMS by looking in the order of: "Spread-Location-Markers". The grid is helping with the "Location" part only. If you do the grid/"Location" before verifying the "Spread" it might give a lot of false alarms.

[justafarmer]

Hello - I just rejoined the forum a few days ago.
Dick - although both (spread and location) are important - I don't think it matters where you start or which route you take in your process of attributing RPMs. S-L-M and L-S-M will arrive at the same destination.

I start with mint mark location when attributing all mint marked varieties (RPMs, Doubled Dies, etc). I don't use a grid - I use a CAD system. I import pictures into a CAD system and use the tools available within the software to scale the picture to a standard size and plot the coordinates of the mint mark relative to other devices on the coin design. My process sounds time consuming and complicated but it is not. It can be done in a matter of minutes.

[Bob P]

There are some good comments here. Dick, that is quite an undertaking. The feasibility of your method is great, if it works for you. Almost everyone has their unique way of dealing with a date such as 1960D. It is not too difficult to reduce the number you are going to have to deal with significantly, just by how the RPM looks. If I have an RPM that has an extra vertical bar inside the primary mintmark, I can eliminate about 145 of the RPMs just looking for only those with a vertical bar. The remaining 15 or so are more easily searched using strength of the spread, mintmark placement and marker info. Of course, tilted or rotated RPMs are more difficult.
Basically, whatever works for you is the way to go. I am not without changing the order I look at things, however, by the very nature of having physically seen, and or photographed many of these RPMs, I have an advantage over the casual collector. It doesn't necessarily make it easier with more minor varieties, but it does help.

[coop]

Welcome to the forum Justafarmer!

[Dick]

welcome Justafarmer!!!
Good morning to all!
I just read the posts, and see where my method has merit. I started with triangulation, and using the grid, it did help a lot. not knowing CAD, I would not have the faintest, but If i could get my grandson to show me, maybe.....
I have not been able to see the "spread", in most cases, I do notice the width, overall, and knowing the difference between a hub doubling, and a "Machine-doubling", I don't have any problem there. As most of you know, my vision does not allow me to "see", and focus on a point, which we all normally do. I only see a part of what is there. An example: Looking at the TV news casters, I see a figure with only one eye, and a distorted face. I can look at a person, close by, and not see their eyes. This is due to retinal damage, where the images are formed, and sent to the brain, ( that is, those who have one. I'm not sure if I qualify, at times, but....).
I had to resort to this method,for that reason, and the fact that even though I have some ability in the overlays, the same problem exists, so the edges are fuzzy. With the triangulation, i would measure from the base of the "1", to thetop of the MM, (which rules out the "S"), and from there to the closest point on the "0", (zero). I found the measurements are now unable to see, and eliminated them. The vertical position, and the photo will usually make the ID. I still need to make more checks, to be sure of the nethod. That is why I asked for some posts with known, (but not to me) varieties, that I will ID,and see if I have wasted yours, and a lot of my time. Please excuse the length of the post, but I had to "set the table".
BTW, I do have to import a picture, unless I am able to use the camera software. Many thanks to all,
Dick

[Robert]

Dick,
I thought about doing something like that to categorize/quantify mint mark locations. I have to say that your methodology sounds better than anything I ever thought of. Go for it, I say.

On a slightly related note, the other day I saw a 1971-D nickel with the mint mark almost touching Jefferson's jacket. It was waaaay low. When you finish with Lincoln mint marks, there are lots of Jefferson nickels that would need attention too!

[Dick]

Robert, I believe you would be very old, and your beard would be down to your knees, before I could finish something like that! I have three strikes against me, from the start, so I can give the basics of what I did, including the last few steps, and then someone else could do it, much faster, I'm sure. I am a speed typist, I use one fonger on each hand, and can guarantee you that at least one other letter can, and most likely be hit, as well as the intended one. I broke it down similar to what Chuck has on the site, but not including the classes. If you care to try one, some '60-D tests, I would suggest the test section. This started out as triangulation, using an artists grid, and measuring the distance from the base od the MM to the base of the "1", to the nearest point of the "0", and marking the distance e-w, n-s, from the tail of the nine. I didn't know hiow to make overlays, and needed some 'help'. Now I don't use the measurements, other than the position of the MM, up, or down from a horizontal line with the tail of the nine. With a picture, I can check the position, and then go to the area that is indicated. There aren
't that many dies in the most populated part. Comments?
Dick

[Robert]

What mint mark do you use as a reference point? There has to be at least one variety w/ the D in the "right" place, where you base n,s,e, and w from. The only comment/suggestion I have is to use a well-known, common RPM or DDO as a baseline, so all the directional mintmark locations would be relative to that one variety. Just a thought.

[coop]

The problem I can see with this is that there are thousands of dies made each year. There are probably a hundred in the same position that are normal without a RPM. The overlay to me is a lot simpler and it confirms location/spread. Just the way I look at it.

[justafarmer]

I'm not sure I agree. Off hand I can not think of any two mint marked varieties (RPM, Doubled Die, etc) from the same year whose mint mark position is at the same location with identical orientation. Although the above sample isn't random or a perfect representation of the die population - it is large enough for me to conclude that two working dies from the same year possessing mint marks at the same location in the same orientation is not very common.

[Dick]

There is NO "designated " position for the MM, other than, "in the area bounded by the date, vest and rim. Which means everything has to be relative to something. I chose thr tail of tyh nine, because it was a "fixture" for that century. We now have a "fixed position", per se, since '89, when the MM was no longer punched on the working HUB. In the 1800's, there was no MM. Can youi imagine the varieties present, if they carried the "re-punching" of the date thru the whearts, or even worse, thru the memorials? They would be looking for "normal dates, MM, etc!
Dick

[eagames]

This is why the order SLM matters. Without looking at spread first then it must include every coin not only varieties. Many of the non varieties (ones without spread that were not eliminated first) will have the same mintmark locations because some years had thousands of die pairs used.

[Dick]

correct!
Dick