1968-D Kennedy Half - Possible RPM? help

[flyank]

I'm ALMOST sure its machine doubling of the "D" but thought I'd put it out for any other opinions as a possible RPM. Thanks as always!

[MintErrors]

According to Variety Vista, there is only one 1968-D RPM noted by CONECA. It is here:
http://varietyvista.com/12%20Kennedy...968DRPM001.htm

When I look at a possible RPM candidate like this one , and I see a potential second vertical bar in the photo, I judge its relative strength and think about how much more of the underlying (weaker) "D" should be present. In this case, when I look at the higher magnification , it looks like the potential second bar is even with the top of the "D". In the second photo, with less magnification, the area looks lower. IF it was a second punching, with that much distance apart, I would assume you would be able to see some sort of split serifs, or an area what would look like split serifs. If this was an underlying "D" that was farther west, I'd be inclined to see something more of the weaker "D" inside the stronger "D"s center. In other words, if you take two D's and place them that far apart, in reference to the vertical bar is, I would be inclined to see a lot more. When I look at the center of that "D" I can see clear to the bottom, which typically means that area is clear and no other secondary punching is evident there. Look closely at the pictures in the link above. This example is pretty far off as well, and you can see something that is a potential part of the upper weaker D in the center of the stronger D.

When machine doubling is in question, it depends on a few things. Most of the times, I see examples of damage when the die was being lifted after striking the planchet. It would raise incorrectly and scrape part of the devices away. Typically, this damage would appear from the same general direction (example - damage is on the north east side of affected letters and devices) . This Kennedy looks worn, so we have to add into the equation some potential post mint damage.

I am not feeling the love of an RPM on this one. But, I have been wrong some times too. Hopefully others will chime in as well.

[flyank]

Thank you Gary for the informative reply. I was very suspicious of it possibly being an RPM candidate but it was one of those coins that I just couldn't throw back in the "spend it" pile! The only way for me to learn is by the help of folks like yourself weighing in with an experienced opinion and it is very much appreciated!

[Merlin8971]

Just a quick question. I agree with your assessment MintErrors but wouldn't the second punched "D" smash the raised right side of the first "D" in the middle of the second "D" and the raised metal would be pressed back into the "field" area of the second "D"? I DO agree that there normally would be some raised area of the first "D" showing inside the second "D" but it is still possible for that area to be modified by the punching of the second "D"?

[MintErrors]

Since the weaker "D" is west of the stronger "D", I would imagine the half circle of the "D" would be somewhat wider. I can take a small strip of paper -a thin piece that is not as wide as the "D" and mark two areas.

Mark the GOOD "D" vertical bar and the center of the hump on the "D". Slide it over to the weaker vertical bar and see where the marks would be. This looks like it will work on this example as the "D"'s seem to be of the same size and font. I have seen examples where an engraver(s) may have used two different style/ size "D's" where the paper strip may not work. In this case, using the strip of paper, I think the circle of the weaker "D" - if that area was strong enough should have shown in the middle of the stronger "D".

We have to take into account that this looks like a circulated example, and some of the "evidence" may have been altered from rough handling.

I base my assumptions on how strong the underlying may have been, and have to remind myself that the reason for the second punching is that the first punching was considerably weaker and may not show the entire "D". And that was the reason for the second "D".

One last thing. I also tell myself to check a few references, such as Variety Vista or other sites to see if there are a number of RPM's for that year/mint mark. It has been quite some time, so the majority of them for past years probably have been attributed. The odds are quite slim that a new variety will be found, BUT it still happens to this day.

[koinpro]

Try shooting it again from a different angle.

[flyank]

Answering Ken's request.....

Some additional photos, different angles and lighting per Ken's request.

[MurrcuryDime]

I see your suspected rpm all day long in the photos you provided...it looks very obviously west with slight cw rotation. but i would check the periphery before the tailfeathers for similar machine doubling indicators...solely because it is a kennedy.

[MurrcuryDime]

I'd also note that halves are plentiful and only the finest examples fetch high prices.....from the last 4000 i went through, i found 91 total doubled coins, 72 of which were machine. The rest were rpm, ddr, or ddo. Without reference pics i have no way of confidently classifying them in accordance with Coneca. Your rpm is blatant as all getout in my opinion, especially among halves, which have been ignored in banks for longer than i have been around, less a few avid collectors, im sure. I have an 85 D with obvious RPM, but i cant find record anywhere.

**The real kick of it all- that last 4000 halves, i split my twice over'ed coins into the change and keeper jars, respectively. I grabbed the keeper jar to cash in yesterday from the last haul.....there was 59 coins. hahaha......oh well, i know where they are until the bank calls me next time. hahaha.

[MurrcuryDime]

unless that double carries over the other devices. i found a half with a doubled central 2 star and no other doubling last batch....

[flyank]

As requested...tail feathers do not appear to show signs of MD.

[MurrcuryDime]

I would all day consider this a rpm. Your pictures show a phantom mark inside the d, as there should be if my eye is right, seeing a slight counterclockwise and easterly 2nd strike. the lower, inside, curve of D should be remnant from the first strike....and in the top right quadrant pic of your original, my eye sees the phantom strike which is probably only visible at the right angle, unfortunate as that may be interpreted....

I like it.