search the site!
|
|
Pocket Change...
This year's cents are much better known for their yield in repunched mint marks than in doubled dies. Although there are some pretty nice doubled dies, the number and quality pale in comparison to their one-letter counterparts. obverse - Other than for a few notable cases, doubled dies should be expected to be limited in number and scope. In general, pay attention to the L in LIBERTY, the eyelid area, and to the motto. Do not be fooled by very light doubling in the WE area, as this is a common anomaly caused by a master die. reverse - For Philadelphia minted cents this is a year with a few very nice reverse doubled dies and little else to report. Although the ones with nice spread are very noticeable, they also tend to be somewhat common. Class 5 and class 6 seem to fit the general majority of reverse doubled dies this year.
|
|
the proof...
Proof cents this year, like many other years surrounding 1960 tend to be quantitatively productive for minor doubled dies, with very few making merit for special mention. obverse - A short list of very nice date size doubled dies (small date over large date) top the list by far in what to be watching for. It may also be worth mentioning to look out for the L in LIBERTY for the minor bar style doubled die. reverse - This year's proof cent sports a few rather minor reverse doubled dies. Most are class 2, 5, 6, or a combination of these.
|
|
Did You Know?
|
|
quick links
|
|
1960 Denver repunched mint mark listings
This listing includes all known 1960 Denver repunched mint marks as
listed by the coppercoins.com attribution system. The photographs of
each die are split into their respective die states
.
Click on the die states listed to see the photos and additional
information regarding that die. If there are no die state links shown
for the die you want to visit, we have not yet examined that die.
Page links are at the bottom if applicable for this list. You are
currently viewing page 3 of 52 pages.
|
1960D-1MM-011 | D/D WEST
CONECA: RPM-011 Crawford: unknown
Wexler: WRPM-118 FS#: unlisted Large date. A very minor variety, this one shows as a pair of split serifs and west on the upright bar of D mintmark.
F12 |
VF20 |
EF40 |
AU50 |
MS60 |
MS63 |
MS65 |
1.75 |
2.00 |
2.75 |
3.50 |
5.00 |
7.50 |
10.00 |
|
|
1960D-1MM-012 | D/D/D NORTH & ROTATED CCW
CONECA: RPM-012 Crawford: unknown
Wexler: WRPM-013 FS#: unlisted Large date. A line in the lower two thirds of this variety is the first pick-up-point, and a heavily punched close-spread CCW mintmark shows as split serifs.
F12 |
VF20 |
EF40 |
AU50 |
MS60 |
MS63 |
MS65 |
1.00 |
1.75 |
2.50 |
3.50 |
5.00 |
7.50 |
10.00 |
|
|
1960D-1MM-013 | D/D NORTH
CONECA: RPM-013 Crawford: unknown
Wexler: WRPM-003 FS#: unknown Large date. This is a very nice variety showing a very strong spread to the north. In later die states this variety shows a chip in the upper 9 of the date.
F12 |
VF20 |
EF40 |
AU50 |
MS60 |
MS63 |
MS65 |
1.00 |
2.00 |
3.00 |
4.00 |
6.00 |
9.00 |
12.00 |
|
|
1960D-1MM-014 | D/D/D NORTH & TILTED
CONECA: RPM-014 Crawford: unknown
Wexler: WRPM-014 FS#: unlisted Large date. This variety looks much like 1960D-1MM-012 except that the horizontal line inside the loop of the primary mintmark is higher. It also shows a small amount of the secondary mintmark above the primary. This RPM is rather scarce and difficult to locate in MS grades.
F12 |
VF20 |
EF40 |
AU50 |
MS60 |
MS63 |
MS65 |
1.00 |
1.25 |
2.00 |
3.00 |
5.50 |
9.50 |
14.00 |
|
|
1960D-1MM-015 | D/D NORTHEAST
CONECA: RPM-015 Crawford: unknown
Wexler: WRPM-015 FS#: unlisted Large date. A close but very clear spread to the northeast shows on this variety. middle to late die state specimens show north to south die scratches in the date and mintmark area.
F12 |
VF20 |
EF40 |
AU50 |
MS60 |
MS63 |
MS65 |
1.50 |
2.25 |
3.25 |
4.00 |
6.00 |
10.00 |
18.00 |
|
If you have a 1960D repunched mint mark that is not listed here and
would like to see it included in this listing, please feel
free to contact us via e-mail at
cd@coppercoins.com
to arrange to send it in for attribution.
|
|
|
|