1988 fs-901 reverse of 89

[Nfoster76]

Die deterioration has thinned the letters and may play a little in the distance. The drawing a diagram on it seems to be right for the 88 reverse of 89. Not sure which of the 7 it is yet. Making sure I’m seeing this correctly

[mustbebob]

I don't see it being the RDV-006...especially with the deterioration of the letters. If it can not be conclusively identified as the RDV (of which the designers initials are key)...it is not one.

[Nfoster76]

Strike doubling, design duplication, die deterioration, I would imagine they wouldn’t have struck too many. But there should be more than one stage and then die three. Why is it the only one with stage B. Die one should have more than one stage. And all the problems with the plate and issues up until 2000! I’m not sure how you can determine for sure with the picture! But I can blow it up for you!

[mustbebob]

I am not going to argue with you about it. You asked for opinions, and you got one. This is not an RDV-006 because it can not be conclusively identified as one. I will use the same rationale right back at you...how can you be sure it is one?

[Nfoster76]

On this one! The distance from the building! Serifs. Not conclusive though. No it can’t be identified. I have a lot of things that are controversial. Why post some thing that easily identifiable if I already know how to identify it! The obvious! That’s easy. There has to be more than one die stage for seven die’s on the 88. 6 on the 88. It’s clashed, But only die 3 has a stage B. Until someone sends one in. I didn’t come here to post easily identified. Or 001 varieties. Anything that I post is going to be controversial or new. Or die pairs that are yet to be submitted, or know! I have 100’s

[mustbebob]

I am not going to argue with you about it. You asked for opinions, and you got one.

[Nfoster76]

Fine I’ll start posting the obvious and then eventually you’ll come around! Not sure why u always have an attitude! You don’t even know me!

[Nfoster76]

When you put them side-by-side it looks like you can attribute it!

[Nfoster76]

I’m not arguing! I’m posting what could be attributed. I’m not convinced all the die states are listed.

[Nfoster76]

I’m gonna keep doing this until you stop treating me like crap

[MatthewSallee]

All the design elements on the reverse suggests this is RDV-005 rather than RDV-006. No matter what the die state is, you should still be able to conclusively determine one from the other unless all the design elements that are used for the diagnostics are mostly or completely gone. There doesn't need to be a listing, die-state or otherwise, to determine if the coin exhibits RDV-006 or not. So as an additional opinion, I agree with Bob.

[Nfoster76]

It has the obverse of the 88 Die 1., not on the reverse. If you want I can show all the markers for Die 1 on the markers. Has the clashed die.

[Nfoster76]

Matthew Salle! Figured you would show up. You will agree with anybody that isn’t me! We are well acquainted

[Nfoster76]

Mattthew. I’ll show your image as well. You’re not gonna find this die state either

[MatthewSallee]

It is possible that the obverse die is paired with a different reverse die that isn't RDV-006 and struck your coin. I have not looked to see if the die clash or markers match up to die 1 because it is not relevant when identifying RDV-005 from RDV-006. My response is solely based on the images you posted of the reverse of your coin.