1964 D RPM Kennedy Half Dollar...What would you attribute it as?

[atrox001]

I am posting this thread to ask what others might attribute this 64D Kennedy half dollar as...RPM or not?

In the Wexler files this is listed as WRPM-007 D/D/D Horizontal and North. Some years ago Ken Potter had one for sale on his site and referred to it as 1964 D/D/D VCR#15/RPM#10 D/Horizontal D/D North. It is not listed in the CONECA listing...James Wiles told me, without serifs it is very difficult to prove or at least be reasonably sure that the cause is from repunching of the mintmark. It was also added into the newest CPG, fifth edition, vol. II as a repunched mintmark.

When I look at my attached photos I don’t see anything conclusive in the center of the Primary D that looks like it is from a punched mintmark. It looks like grease was pressed into the die and covered over everything. That may be what happened north of the primary D also, note the attached photo. What is seen west of the primary D may be from a punched mintmark, but I don’t see how anyone could say for sure it is from a punch.

I don’t think there is any clear cut evidence this would be an RPM...what do you think?

Larry Nienaber

[wavysteps]

Larry - I do not see any conclusive evidence that this is a re-punched mintmark. It appears to be die damage that occurred in the same area as where the mintmark was placed.

BJ Neff

[Tim]

I sent one of these into Dr. Wiles a few years back and received the dreaded “Too minor to list” on it.

I understand that Wexler listed it as the 1964-D WRPM-007 but then again I’ve heard more Collectors comment that Wexler will list just about anything. While I don’t always agree with Dr. Wiles when he gives his observation “Too minor to list”, I do appreciate that CONECA has a standard to be met before a variety gets listed.

Larry is correct, the 1964-D WRPM-007 was added to the last edition of the Cherrypickers’ Guide Volume II as the 1964-D FS – 504. My son and I have been puzzled as to why Whitman choice this particular example for inclusion, if they wanted to add another RPM to the Kennedy series in the book, than even the 1984-D RPM-001 is stronger and easier to see than the WRPM-007.

It is what it is and the WRPM-007 (FS – 504) seems to have some legs, PCGS has only attributed three (3) example of the 1964-D FS – 504 so far, one in AU55, the second one in AU58 and the third one in MS63. It is my understand that the lowest graded example so far (AU55) traded in the past few months for a graded PCGS PR70 DCAM 2014-W gold Kennedy and I know several other Collectors are still searching for one (not sure if they would pony up the same amount as the Collector that acquired the AU55 example).

By the way, nice pictures you posted Larry ...

Tim

[koinpro]

I've owned four or five of these and seen them in a later die state so grease is not a factor. I'm pretty sure Larry's coin shown here is a later die state than any I owned. With that said, what I see in Larry's images appears to be to clearly (within reason) the result of repunching. I could be wrong but unless somebody can show me something that suggests otherwise, I have to stick with my original attribution. It was added into the CPG based on the opinions of me and others on the panel who all felt it was an RPM.

On Wiles' "too minor" opinion, I wonder why? Though it is light, no matter what you want to call it, it is a very easily seen variety -- far more easily seen than hundreds of other of his listings. For the record, the variety was first reported by Jerry Kennison.

[atrox001]

Ken,
I believe the half dollar that I have, the one pictured is an EDS, so maybe an aggomeration (I got that word from Mike Diamond) of grease and metal dust pressed into the die could be a factor. You can see sanding marks in the photo.

I had received the half dollar from Jose Cortez in 2005, he told me quite an interesting story about the history of the coin.

He said “I believe it was 1993 or 1994 there was a contest held by CONECA for the first coin to be identified as an over mint marked unlisted variety. Trying to enlist some excitement in the contest, Andrew (Prechtl) sent his 1964-D/D/D into CONECA as a possible D/O!!! (There is some minor doubling on the obverse) He knew it wasn’t, but thought since it wasn’t a known RPM at the time James would list it and have it in the ERRORSCOPE. James did not list it, and of course he did not recognize it as a D/O. He just sent it back to Andrew.”

“ It was after that when Andrew and I looked through the bag of silver halves and I discovered the 2 specimens. Both were bettter struck than Andrew’s original specimen and it was clear that we had an RPM and that it was multiple. But we were not sure just how the underlying images were oriented. Since the specimen you have was the better one of the 3 we had, we sent it to Wexler and he did overlays to verify each of the 2 underlying partials.”

It sounds like the half dollar I have is the discovery coin, and Andrew Prechtl and Jose Cortez repoted it, at least in the Wexler Files. I asked John Bordner about this coin back in 2007, he told me it is listed as WRPM-007 D/D/D Horizontal and north, he shows John Wexler as discovering the coin.

As for James Wiles opinion…I don’t think he has ever said “too minor”. Here is what he told me back in 2008 when I asked him about it.
“The problem with this coin is two fold. First, without serifs it is very difficult to prove or at least be reasonably sure that the cause is from repunching of the mintmark. There are many ways to get an arc without it being from the mintmark punch. Second in order to make the overlays work even closely, you have to have a triple punch: the main, an inverted to the west, a horizontal to the north. Once you complicate it with a third punch and still have no serifs, the odds become dramatically against it being a RPM. So, is it possible this is an RPM, yes. Is it probable, not in my opinion. Unless a stage turns up which gives us more information to work with, I will err on the side of caution an not list this one.”

When I look inside and around the primary mintmark I don’t see anything conclusive of even a partial minmark, except maybe west. Ken, could you point out from my photo anything to convice me this is D/D/D?

Larry Nienaber

[koinpro]

Larry all I can say is that what I see in your photos and in my photos convinces me this is an RPM. For something this light, I'm not looking for serifs. There are thousands of RPMs that show no serifs on the secondary MM(s).


On who "discovered" it first, I guess there are at least three folks making that claim. I remember the contest and I remember Andrew's coin and Jose's involvement in discussions. This all occurred many years after I acquired four or five of these from Jerry Kennision. They sat in a box for at least ten years before I ever put them in my catalog (a bad habit that continues with me even today as I have hundreds of varieties here now that have been here 10-20 years that are just sitting in boxes waiting to be put on my list).

I never recorded the exact date that I purchased them but it was before I had photographic capabilities (starting in 1992) and my file card on this variety says "submitted in the late 1980s" -- that's all I have for a date. I remember that at the time of the contest, when Andrew's coin was discussed I thought it funny that Kennision also thought that his was a D/O years earlier. Anyway, who discovered it is of least importance and hard to prove.

1960-D 1c LD RPM-019 FS-50-800px-W.jpg
Here is an RPM#19 with no serif on the secondary

1960-D-RPM-016-800px.jpg
Here is RPM#16 -- no serif on the secondary

In any event, I'm confident this is a good RPM. The studies of John Bordner and my own convinces me of this and as Bill Fivaz likes to say, "it has the character" -- to me the right character for my gut to say "yes." I'll accept that we don't all agree.

I believe the "too minor" comment came from Tim who said, "I sent one of these into Dr. Wiles a few years back and received the dreaded “Too minor to list” on it."

1964D 50c WRPM007 JBordnerImage2-800px-W.jpg
Here is an image from John Bordner of a specimen without all the PCV contamination we see on your coin. I think it's easier to see the strength in this image.