RPM??

[Speedy]

Alrighty guys---here is one I've had trouble with for over a year.
I was looking through an online auction one day and I saw a weird mintmark on a coin, but I thought it was just damage so I went on.....then I saw another one so I asked a friend and he said that he was pretty sure it was an RPM. So I started my reasearch and I found this on many coins...of the same date/mint.

I bought a few coins with this odd mintmark and have viewed them in hand...looks just like the pic's.

The problem is...experts who I show it to go both ways--some say RPM, and some say that I'm just a kid who shouldn't be playing around coins.

I've been meaning to send the coins I have to James for him to check out but I've been really busy working on my website, and other things.

So here are some pic's....let me know what you think.

Speedy

[diamond]

It looks like a keyhole design behind the S-mintmark. I have no idea what it could be.

[Speedy]

Howdy Mike,
Right....in person it takes on the look of mybe a larger S mintmark. It isn't flat like machine doubling, and it doesn't look like any other type of damage that I've seen. It does look like an RPM, but a LARGE RPM. That is what makes it weird.
I can't wait to hear the different comments!

[russellhome]

Does anybody know what a mint mark punch from that era looked like ? Is it possible that the mint mark was sunk so deep that tool marks were left from the part of the punch that is not part of the actual mint mark? It certainly does not appear to be a regular "S" under that normal "S".

[wavysteps]

Okay - tried a couple of enhancment tricks on your photo to see if anything else could be brought out.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f292/Wavystep2003/IMG_2228.jpg

While it does appear to be some sort of doubling, I am not to sure what it is. This would probably be best anaalyzed by Dr. James Wiles.

Thanks for sharing this more than unusual mint mark wuith us.

BJ Neff

[Speedy]

Thanks Guys.....
Maybe if I can get some time this week to write James I'll see how busy he is and if he is interested in checking it out.

[atrox001]

Speedy...send me one of these quarters and I will take some high powered photos and send them to you.

Larry Nienaber

[Speedy]

Larry,
I'll try to send you a PM here in a bit---thanks for offering!

Speedy

[Speedy]

I sent Larry the coin and here are some pic's. Does anyone have any more ideas?

James: If you see this, what are your thoughts?

One side note---I think this coin shows the "rpm" the best on the East Side. I've seen many different coins with this same look and while some might show up alittle better on the west side I believe that the mintmark was punched again eastward....
I'm still learning about this type of stuff and I could be totally off base. Different guys have looked at this coin, and some have said machine doubling and others have said RPM. Others have said that they don't know what it is. It is interesting to say the least!

[JamesWiles]

There does not appear to be any splits in the serifs. Thus it is MDD.

[Speedy]

James:
I've thought about that....but this looks to be a rather close RPM and it doesn't seem to have been punched very far away from the first one.
It seems that if the serifs were so close the split might not show? The "doubling" is flat and lifeless like the machine doubling I run into...

Either way---I think it is an interesting coin!

[JamesWiles]

It is the magnified photo that confirms the attribution as MDD. Notice how the doubling rounds the top of the upper serif then continues down to the bottom edge of the upper serif where it ends, dies, quits. First, this makes the secondary image too large to be another punch of the mintmark. Second, if it were an RPM, then that end is where you would see the split serif, not just and ending.

[foundinrolls]

Is it possible, on the first coin that the mintmark was first punched in uppside down?

On a quick glance, the lower left of the "extra mintmark" might appear to be the same as the upper right of the primary mintmark, turned upside down.

Just a thought,
Bill

[Speedy]

James,
I'll take your word for it ;) ...It just doesn't look like machine doubling...
Not all is lost---I belive that this coin match up to the DDR-001 for the 1932-S quarter.

Thanks again for your help.

[diamond]

I sent Larry the coin and here are some pic's. Does anyone have any more ideas?

Why is this photo so different from the first photo? Where did the keyhole-shaped feature go?

[foundinrolls]

Larry's first picture makes it clear that it is a damage that causes the Mintmark to appear as if doubled.

[Speedy]

Why is this photo so different from the first photo? Where did the keyhole-shaped feature go?
I belive that it is the lighting. I have two of these coins (there are alot more out there) and both show the same stuff. One might show it alittle better/stronger than the other but I had to pick one to send. I'm quite sure that I sent him the same coin that I had taken photos of...but I guess there could have been a mix up.

Bill,
Any idea on what type of damage?

[foundinrolls]

Just breaks in the die, die chips in the mintmark.

[billscoins]

Speedy, is the mint mark with the square shape common on all coins you've seen?
Thanks, Bill

[Speedy]

Yes---the coins that I've seen match the photos that you have taken.
You can see the photos on this thread seem to match up pretty well.

[billscoins]

Yes---the coins that I've seen match the photos that you have taken.
You can see the photos on this thread seem to match up pretty well.

Speedy, do you mind if I post your photo of your mint mark on my thread- in Sub Gallery- I'm wondering do you or anyone know how many dies were used and if this mint mark was used on all of them? Thanks Bill

[Speedy]

From what I've seen this is the only style mintmark used for this year. I believe that is also what Mr Wiles says, but I don't have that info in front of me right now.
It is common for people to say that there was 1-2 dies used. I believe that there were quite a few more....