| Author |
Message |
MaryJFAdvanced Member
Posts: 103 Joined: 26 Nov 2005 Location: Menands (Albany) NY
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:46 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
wavysteps2003Expert Member
Posts: 1344 Joined: 25 Feb 2005
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:48 am |
|
|
Hi Mary - This very well could be a RDV-005 on a 1989 Lincoln cent. However, the jury is still out concerning the validity of this particular find. There are two factors that may take this off the list of being a transitional die; the first is die polishing that may have deformed the letter "G" into looking similar to the RDV-005 "G" or die wear that erroded the bar of the RDV-006 "G" into appearing similar to the RDV-005 "G".
This is the only transitional cent in question at this time, for the two 1988 Lincoln cents (one from Philadelphia and the other from Denver) with RDV-006 reverse are believe to be true transitional dies.
Dr. James Wiles is doing the analysis on this die I am sure that he will soon let the numismatic community what is up with this newly found error.
BJ Neff
_________________ Member of: Coppercoins, ANA, CFCC (VP), CONECA, FUN, NCADD (Editor), NLG, LCR, traildies.com. and MADdieclashes.com
The opinions that I express do not necessarily reflect the policies of the organizations that I am a member of.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
RhubarbSenior Member
Posts: 856 Joined: 24 Jan 2007 Location: West Georgia
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:15 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
wavysteps2003Expert Member
Posts: 1344 Joined: 25 Feb 2005
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:27 am |
|
|
I was aware of this auction and fortunately, this die is valid and is not contraversial as is the 1989 Lincoln cent with RDV-005 reverse.
BJ Neff
_________________ Member of: Coppercoins, ANA, CFCC (VP), CONECA, FUN, NCADD (Editor), NLG, LCR, traildies.com. and MADdieclashes.com
The opinions that I express do not necessarily reflect the policies of the organizations that I am a member of.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
eagamesExpert Member
Posts: 3013 Joined: 15 Nov 2005
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:39 pm |
|
|
I found several that looked like it but I'm not sure about them. One reason is I can see die wear and polish or strike issues that could have made RDV-6 look like RDV-5.
Copied from my other post:
--------------------------------------------------------
I searched a few thousand 1989-P cents and found 4 that look like they have a different G. They seem to not have the details that RDV-6 should have. I think it might just be related to the strikes and I think these are RDV-6 but wanted other opinions to be sure. Please tell me if any of these 4 could be RDV-5 or are poorly struck RDV-6:
(the reason I think they are not RDV-5 is the bottom of the G looks less rounded than I expected for RDV-5 but the center horizontal detail that RDV-6 should have looks to be missing so I am still not sure)
The 4 1989-P cents with different looking G:
Example of RDV-6 (on a 1989) and RDV-5 (on a 1988):
_________________ Ed
|
|
|
|
|
 |
MaryJFAdvanced Member
Posts: 103 Joined: 26 Nov 2005 Location: Menands (Albany) NY
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:03 pm |
|
|
I can see what you mean about the die polishing. Below is another example I found, and I can clearly see something going on with the "G". My question - since the F and G are so close together, how can they possibly come that close to the F and not do it harm also? It looks nice and thick and well formed and yet the G has so much damage.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
coopExpert Member
Posts: 3402 Joined: 17 Sep 2003 Location: Arizona
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:19 pm |
|
|
I would call that die flow. Could or may not be from the same die as die flow happens on older die states.
_________________ Richard S. Cooper
You may be only one person in the world, but you may also be the world to one person.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
car10Member
Posts: 31 Joined: 30 Oct 2007
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
The 1989-RDV was just delisted with apologies by Dr. James Wiles of CONECA.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|