1979D Lincoln Cent - RPM or not?

[searching4errors]

This 1979D Lincoln Memorial Cent looks like it could be an RPM? It is so hard to get a picture of the detail but, with my 30X magnifier, I can see what appears to be a slit on the left side/corner bottom underneath the gouged layer on the D as seen in the close-up date mint mark pic. Thanks! Fran

[Steven]

I can't tell by the photo but many of the 1979D cents have what appears to be a split serif to the S/W. This is more than likely the result of a broken punch.
However some of those struck with the broken punch do have a RPM as a split S/W serif that has the appearance of a triple punch because of it when it is accually one one repunch.
Did I confuse you as much as I did myself.

[searching4errors]

Thanks Steven... I think I kinda sorta understand what you are saying. And no, the pics aren't very helpful either. I tried and tried but have not mastered taking good pics of such a miniscule object. Thanks again! Fran

[Steven]

Here is a photo, though be it fuzzy, of one with a notch that I feel was caused by a broken punch. I think the reasoning behind this would be that there are no other elements in the MM that would indicate a re-punch such as rotation, tilt, and so on.
Any others help me if I am on the wrong track here.
Steven

[searching4errors]

I like your arrows. What program do you use to do that? If you look at the pic of my close-up mint mark, you can see a dark line which runs North & South toward the bottom of the D. Under the magnifying glass, it looks like the back of the D is separated into two or three slices from the top, following along the back of the D. I'm not talking about the dark area which lays directly on the field but, the tiny dark streak in between the gouged area and the field. If I had use of arrows, I could point to the area. It follows parallel to the dark streak running from North to South. Does any of this make sense to you? Thanks again Steven, and have a good weekend. Fran

[mustbebob]

I think all of the information Steven presented here is accurate. There was indeed a broken mintmark punch used in 1979, and it also produced a genuine RPM for the date. Steven's picture is an excellent one of the defective punch. Very well done!

[Steven]

Might this be it Bob,
I've had this one a while and it did look similar to the broken punch MM with rotation creating the secondary.
Fran,
I put the arrows on with photoshop. I can't tell by your photo if there is a secondary MM. There is the possibility of post mint damage creating what you are seeing. Probably need a better photo to tell. Sorry.

[mustbebob]

This one does look like the one genuine RPM made with the defective punch Steven.

[Novicetoerr]

1979D Lincoln Cent - RPM or not?

In reference to Steven's quote below...

"I can't tell by the photo but many of the 1979D cents have what appears to be a split serif to the S/W. This is more than likely the result of a broken punch."


I finally sorted out my 3 suspected 1979 cents though I still have doubt
on my conclusion (see attached photos) on that one coin to be genuine
since I saw a separation only at its botttom and none at the top (plus
above quote).

J

[Steven]

J
I do not believe any of those show the notch from the broken punch but there are many many out there. If you look at very many at all you will know when you find one. There is no premium that I am aware of for these either, with out the RPM.
The third example just appears to be damage from circulation.

I do want to make an observation about your photos. Those of the 1979D's that you placed in this thread are much easier to evaluate than the collage of photos I have seen you post prior to this. Much better.

[Novicetoerr]

J
I do not believe any of those show the notch from the broken punch but there are many many out there. If you look at very many at all you will know when you find one. There is no premium that I am aware of for these either, with out the RPM.
The third example just appears to be damage from circulation.

I do want to make an observation about your photos. Those of the 1979D's that you placed in this thread are much easier to evaluate than the collage of photos I have seen you post prior to this. Much better.

Thanks Steven! Will look some more.

[searching4errors]

Here's a couple of additonal closeups of the 1979D mint mark which I believe you might be able to tell more about. I am using Adobe Photo Elements but I only know some of the basics of the program. I need to check to see if I have the use of arrows in this program. Anyway, would appreciate knowing your opinion once again. I have a 1977D LMC which I would also like an opinion on. I believe the pics on it are better than the 1979D. I will post it soon. Thanks to everyone for your imput, especially you Steven. Fran

[mustbebob]

Neither of these look like RPMs or the broken mintmark punch. The first pic shows a bad 'hit' on the mintmark that pretty much obliterates the possibility of telling one way or another. There is something going on with the second pic, but it looks like it might just be mechanical.

[searching4errors]

Thanks Bob... I just can't seem to get a good close-up of the mint mark. Yes, the mint mark has definitely sustained a hard gouge of some kind. There is definite separation in a top layer on the mint mark which is evident under a 30x magnifier on the west side and north side edge of the mark. How can it possibly be mechanical when the Mint Marks are hand punched? I thought mechanical has to do with the way the dies strike the coin, such as coins minted from 1990 onward. Your time is appreciated. Thanks! Fran

[mustbebob]

Hi Fran,
Mechanical doubling can happen anywhere on the coin, and in some cases, to a very small portion of the coin. It also has happened on just about every denomination and year. A lot of it has to do with the strike or ejection, and in some cases, only the mintmark may be affected. Some good examples of mechanical doubling that seems to only affect the mintmark can be seen on cents from 1968S-1970S. Normally, if there is doubling on both the mintmark and date (prior to 1990) this would indicate mechanical doubling versus a hub doubled die or RPM. Of course there are exceptions.