View Full Version : 1956 D/S wdmm-001 "S under 1 & 9 of date"
Our next controversial Variety is the 1956 D with an alleged misplaced S mintmark. This is an opportunity for you to give your opinion. Is that a S under the 1 and 9 of the date?
1sgret
05-23-2009, 06:44 PM
I have this coin in high grade (EDS) and an overlay was made and placed over the "S" on my coin and it fits perfectly.
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4343
fugnchill
05-25-2009, 11:08 AM
Quick comment on this one. West of the primary MM (D) it's almost touching it, Is that just a die gouge or possibly something more?
Lestrrr
Quick comment on this one. West of the primary MM (D) it's almost touching it, Is that just a die gouge or possibly something more?
Lestrrr
Looks like a die scratch.
kloccwork419
05-25-2009, 02:50 PM
I dont think it is. It look more like the inside of the D rather then an S.
Like on this coin I have on CC:
http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1961&die_id=1961d1mm007&die_state=lds
The secondary looks almost exact compared to the one on the 56 D/S
1sgret
05-25-2009, 06:04 PM
You might try this link and click onto the 1956 D & S CDMM-001 Example which is done in PDF and it shows an overlay on the coin.
http://www.dvnmagazine.com/Volume_III.html
fugnchill
06-01-2009, 06:26 PM
Here we go...
Have a look at these pics. I responded to someone over on the Coneca forum and wanted to share with ya'll. The S MM is in a different location than the OMM-001. These are their pics so no I can't get better ones, although I didn't ask.
Any Opinions?
Lestrrr
calicentdude
07-11-2009, 10:32 AM
In the first pic, it looks like a D, but in the second, a S.
:neutral:
Perhaps I need to get my eyes checked, LOL.
coppercoins
08-04-2009, 11:04 AM
I am sticking with 'yes' on this one. It is an 'S' mintmark, but the only way it fits to a 1955 style 'S' mintmark is up-side down.
I list as an "S" and also believe it is an inverted punch for my files.
Billy (dvn)
trails
08-04-2009, 02:01 PM
I too have examined EDS examples of this variety and do not agree with Wiles. It is what Chuck and Billy said, "an inverted misplaced mint mark" that was probably caused by an accidental dropping of the "S" mint mark punch onto the die affected.
BJ Neff
Looks like a deffinate "S" to me, and it sure does look upsidedown.
MintyFresh
12-25-2009, 09:05 PM
Looks like a die scratch.
I don't agree about it being a die scratch. Too much semetry in the anomoly. it would help if a photo or pictagram of an S could be overlayed for comparison.
Nice pic.
DoubleYou
09-15-2010, 12:17 PM
If a Mint worker was not careful enough to put the mintmark at the right spot, why would he be careful as to whether he had the punch in inverted or correct orientation? He wouldn't. While I do not believe in the other 1956-D/S, I am convinced as to this one's nature. That is not to say that you are not entitled to your opinion. That's just my opinion, and hopefully I am entitled to at least that much.
I'm starting to have second thoughts on this one. I'll do an overlay and explain why I'm starting to believe this is not an "S" mint mark.
Billy (dvn)