1984-D New RPM? A little help please.

ndgoflo · New Member

Hi all, just looking through some Lincolns last night and came across this.

I can only find one listing for an '84-D RPM, but I don't think that it is the same as this.

At first, I thought that it may be machine doubling, but I cannot find any traces of any doubling anywhere except for the mint mark. Is it possible to have machine doubling on just the mint mark.

Any help at all is greatly appreciated.

coop · Expert Member

Welcome to coppercoins ndgoflo! I had one like that the other day. The mintmark was all that showed machanical doubling and the on the reverse the letter C on Cent was distorted. So Yes it can happen. Yours looks like a tougher call than The one I found.

Yours looks less step like than mine. So I will let others voice their opinion. Bob may need to see the coin to see for sure. So the answer to your question is YES, if machine doubling can happen on just mintmarks. But as for yours being a RPM, here is a question for you. Does the doubling seem step like or rounded. If it is step like, then it is probably a MD. It if it is rounded it could be a RPM. Tough call from what I can see on yours.

Bob P · Site Admin

At first glance, it looks like an RPM to me. As Coop said though, I really need to see it in hand to determine if it is or isn't.

wavysteps2003 · Expert Member

Speaking of which, here are a few that can be questionable as RPMs. Things like these can tear your har out.

Of the three shown, the 1986-D is probably the most likely canidate for a RPM. The interesting thing about the 1980-D is; can machine doubling be so selective in doubling just one part of a mint mark and not the other? If you will notice, the vertical and upper curve of the "D" is doubled, however, the serifs are not. The 1959-D may very well be a die scratch, but that can be questioned with its proximity to the mintmark. What do you think?

WAVYSTEPS2003 aka BJ Neff

coppersleuth · Advanced Member

Good point on the wide variety of strike doubling characterisitcs.

Here is a solid example I have from a 1969 proof set, where the inside of the Lincoln mint mark (upper part of MM) looks somewhat more rounded, but the bottom part of the MM is clearly strike double. Hence, it's all strike doubling.

http://static.flickr.com/83/274010742_ccaa4add97.jpg

As we know, some looks can be very deceiving. Just notice the strike doubles being hawked as "true" doubled dies on Ebay without disclosure of the facts.

coppercoins · Site Admin

NDgoflo - I would say yours is an RPM from the photo provided and would need to see the coin in person to confirm my opinion.

Coop - I think the same about yours. It shows too many characteristics of being an actual RPM to just toss it back. Some machine doubling can carry similar traits, but yours looks more like a low-profile sharply defined RPM.

Wavysteps - The 1959D is an RPM. The 1980D is not. The 1986D is an RPM. How I can tell - experience and knowledge of the years those coins were minted. Not trying to be a smart ass about it, but experience does count sometimes.

Coppersleuth - Very typical and somewhat confusing machine doubling that shows frequently on proofs minted from 1969 through 1973. Best thing to remember is this....no notching, and the doubling takes up part of the profile thickness of the letters. Look at how thin the bottom of the 'D' ended up after it was smashed on the bottom by the second strike. That would naturally not happen if the doubling were in the die and impressed into the coin with a single strike. I know you probably know this because you are posting the image as machine doubling...but every bit of explanation helps with other people viewing your image - which was a very good one.

coppersleuth · Advanced Member

Very helpful input as always, Chuck. Thanks! That's why i love this site. Great learning opportunities every day Very Happy

ndgoflo · New Member

Coppercoins - Can I assume that you would like to see this coin first hand? Are you accepting coins for attribution at this time? If so, I have a bunch set aside that I can't find a positive attribution for. I could pick out the most likely candidates to send with this one to make it worth my while so to speak.

Are your attribution instructions the same now as what you have printed in your book? Please let me know how to proceed.

coop · Expert Member

Good thing I saved mine them. I will put it in the send to Bob Pile. When I get another batch ready for him.