VERY IMPORTANT!!! Could be the "PINNACLE" of 1c MINT VARIETIES

[Novicetoerr]

...I'm having problem with my camera microscope and can't get the
appropriate resolution to show this MINT VARIETY and be able to send
together with this opening thread (but will send asap)!

IF (note this is ONLY IF).... WHAT I SAW WAS REAL AND NOT A FIGMENT OF MY IMAGINATION; AND HAS NOT BEED DISCOVERED NOR CONCEPTUALIZED
THAT CAN HAPPEN,

THEN... I'D LIKE TO QUICKLY RELAY THIS TO ALL -> NOVICES, EXPERTS and
ATTRIBUTORS (EVEN WITHOUT THE PHOTOS YET) ...

- Have you all seen or encountered multiple "S" (for SFO) MINTS across the
OBVERSE BACKGROUND; AND/OR MIXED WITH THE DESIGN ELEMENTS?
Just realized that they easily caused confusion to my identifications and
determination of suspected error images as to whether a DDO, MDD, or
actaul part of the design, or other errror types?
Could easily throw anybody off-course and lead to mis-identification or
mis-attribution.

Trying to fix camera as Im sending this thread...J

[Goldfinger]

No idea what you are talking about...interested in seeing a picture.

[Novicetoerr]

No idea what you are talking about...interested in seeing a picture.

Camera still not working...

- Here's the idea from a layman's (novice like me) language (NOTE MY
following INSPECTION SCENARIO is just an "EXAMPLE and NOT" the actual
error coin nor the photos I have taken which I still can't reproduce)....

=== THOUGHT I SAW A "DDO OF 8" IN MY 1958 COIN, BUT IT WAS
ACTUALLY AN "S" MINT BETWEEN THE 5 & 8 IN 1958.===


Camera still down...J

[diamond]

- Have you all seen or encountered multiple "S" (for SFO) MINTS across the
OBVERSE BACKGROUND; AND/OR MIXED WITH THE DESIGN ELEMENTS?
Just realized that they easily caused confusion to my identifications and
determination of suspected error images as to whether a DDO, MDD, or
actaul part of the design, or other errror types?
Could easily throw anybody off-course and lead to mis-identification or
mis-attribution.

No such variety has ever been reported. I strongly suspect you're the victim of an overactive imagination and that you're seeing letters in random patterns of die flow lines or other subtle imperfections in the die face.

[Novicetoerr]

VERY IMPORTANT!!! Could be the "PINNACLE" of 1c MINT

I'm back...

Have partially fixed my camera software "bug" and was able to retrieve a few pictures. (Still trying to pull out the others I took yesterday. I can't take pictures at the moment.)


Let me know if you see what I am seeing. Note the area is partially stripped off of Cu plating. (The other photos I'm trying to retrieve are outside of the
unplated area.)

J

[diamond]

Your coin is discolored and slightly corroded. There are no accessory mintmarks there. Again, you're constructing letters out of random patterns of discoloration, corrosion, and possibly subtle irregularities in the die.

[Novicetoerr]

Do you see a D over D over D over S?

Others, what do you see?

J

[Goldfinger]

It's hard to say, the coin is so corroded. But it seems to look like there is something there...what it is I don't know.

[diamond]

By 1990 the Mint was no longer punching the mintmark into each individual working die. So a repunched mintmark is out of the question.

[Novicetoerr]

Thanks both. (Still can't retrieve/fix my camera.)

There is really no active corrosion. There is something in the coin color that made the reflection to the LED lighted camera seemed very worse.
The unplated area looks like mechanically peeled-off due to compressive stress (uneven and sharp-edged), and then soiled and lightly corroded thru the years.

1990, being the first year when the mint was included in the master die made
it more suspect for me for anomalies. But need to work on to prove. (Back
to my camera customer support center.)

J

[Novicetoerr]

VERY IMPORTANT!!! Could be the "PINNACLE" of 1c MINT

Additional hilites to my existing photos that drove my conclusion of potential multi-MMs. (Still fixing camera.)

[mustbebob]

I agree with Mike on this one. First of all, the process would seem to eliminate the fact that it would be an S mintmark. The condition of the coin also prohibits accurate analysis. The S mintmark you show is not the type used for the Proof mint sets where the only S mint marked cents were struck. (I know you put it there as an example only). Sometimes we tend to want to see things rather than objectively looking at everything that encompasses the making of a coin. Should a finer example of this coin be found, it would most likely prove that what you are seeing is not really there. As Mike said, you might be seeing anything from gouges, scratches, gas bubbles etc.