1953-D RPM

[ray_parkhurst]

OK, it's not the greatest picture, as I did not get the lighting like I wanted it and you can't see the right side of the MM clearly enough, but it indeed looks like this is not just a D/D....but a D/D/D/D (!!!!)

53-D 1MM-025-0_2.JPG

[ray_parkhurst]

I took another pic with better lighting, and did 3D rendering. Here are the images:

2018_07_13_100933_2.JPG2018_07_13_100920_2.JPG2018_07_13_100904_2.JPG2018_07_13_100843_2.JPG2018_07_13_100827_2.JPG2018_07_13_100803_2.JPG2018_07_13_100728_2.JPG2018_07_13_100711_2.JPG

Actually, I think the first pic gives a better indication than the new one(s). Lighting is super critical on this one to get the details to show, since the extra punchings are very subtle.

[mustbebob]

This is pretty revealing for this coin. However, we really need to be realistic when it comes time for an attribution. No attributer has the equipment and setup you do, nor will they ever spend as much time on a coin as you do. In addition, anything other than a solid uncirculated coin and you wouldn't see the other notches.

Nothing against what you are doing here Ray. These and your other photos are by far the greatest coin photos I have seen. RPMs and other varieties should be identifiable with 10X magnification. Anything more and it will probably end up in the 'too minor to list' pile or in the case of this coin, a simple D/D or on a good coin, maybe D/D/D.

[ray_parkhurst]

Well, honestly I did identify this as at least a D/D/D with 10x magnification. The 5x mag I used for the first photo was not quite strong enough to be sure, so I shot it at 10x and was able to confirm.

Also, I'm curious about the standard of saying that if it can only be seen on uncirculated coins, it can't be attributed. I do understand that most folks look through circulated material, but this seem overly restrictive.

All that said, I was not planning on sending the coin in for any change in the listing, as I do consider this to be a minor variety. It was in my "check" pile, and might have ended up in my "minor" pile if I had not seen the extra serifs. But it's still too minor to send in IMO. If I need to get special lighting and angles and such to see the variety, it's not going to the top of my list...

[jfines69]

Excellent follow up images Ray... I really like the photos... I can't see the D/D/D/D but I still see the splits for the D/D/D... I think on the RPM to really see what is there it would need to be no later than a MEDS??? Something to keep in mind should one end up under the scope again... I have no idea why the attributions are with nothing over than 10x either but that is what they all go by... I'm like you that it is a constraint... By the way - Your not so good photo is a lot better than my best even using image stacking software

[ray_parkhurst]

I agree with the 10x magnification limit. If you can't see it below 10x, it's very tough to justify listing it as a variety. I've read and heard many criticisms of varieties as "needing an electron microscope" or many other such things. Many non-variety folks say that if you can't see it with the naked eye, it's not there. 10x is a reasonable cutoff between these extremes, and it's not too difficult to get 10x loupes that are high enough quality and wide enough field to have this be a practical limit. Personally, I use a 10x stereo microscope (fixed 1x pod with 10x eyepieces) for all my searches. The fixed magnification simplifies things, and helps to keep me from immediately looking at anything questionable at 30x or 50x.

Now, when I do find something, I want to know EVERYTHING about it, so I end up taking high resolution images with either 5x or 10x magnification objectives. This allows me to see all the details and to do 3D rendering where applicable. I can then decide how "interesting" the variety is, document a study of it, etc, as I've been doing on these latest attributions.

[jfines69]

I agree with the 10x magnification limit. If you can't see it below 10x, it's very tough to justify listing it as a variety. I've read and heard many criticisms of varieties as "needing an electron microscope" or many other such things. Many non-variety folks say that if you can't see it with the naked eye, it's not there. 10x is a reasonable cutoff between these extremes, and it's not too difficult to get 10x loupes that are high enough quality and wide enough field to have this be a practical limit. Personally, I use a 10x stereo microscope (fixed 1x pod with 10x eyepieces) for all my searches. The fixed magnification simplifies things, and helps to keep me from immediately looking at anything questionable at 30x or 50x.

Now, when I do find something, I want to know EVERYTHING about it, so I end up taking high resolution images with either 5x or 10x magnification objectives. This allows me to see all the details and to do 3D rendering where applicable. I can then decide how "interesting" the variety is, document a study of it, etc, as I've been doing on these latest attributions.

My loupe is 30x... I couldn't see the side of a building at 10x Like you when I see something of interest I like to get in even closer... I want to know what is going on... That is how I learn... I am also known to over anal eyes

[mustbebob]

Also, I'm curious about the standard of saying that if it can only be seen on uncirculated coins, it can't be attributed. I do understand that most folks look through circulated material, but this seem overly restrictive.

It is not a standard Ray or restrictive. I am talking about attributing a new variety like yours. If you are able to attribute a coin to a known variety the normal way...why wouldn't you? My point is that there are requirements an attributer uses, and one of them is that it be visible with a 10X loupe. Your personal preference for wanting to see everything is great but over 50% of the attributions on coppercoins at least are of circulated coins. I would of never listed your coin as a D/D/D/D because I probably wouldn't of seen it that way with a 10X loupe. We would handle all changes to the listing on an individual basis, and we have done that hundreds of times based on receiving a better coin that the one used for the initial attribution.

My main point is that 95% of the people would not have the setup or skills you do, and as such, I wouldn't expect them to see what you do. That's all.

[ray_parkhurst]

It is not a standard Ray or restrictive. I am talking about attributing a new variety like yours. If you are able to attribute a coin to a known variety the normal way...why wouldn't you? My point is that there are requirements an attributer uses, and one of them is that it be visible with a 10X loupe. Your personal preference for wanting to see everything is great but over 50% of the attributions on coppercoins at least are of circulated coins. I would of never listed your coin as a D/D/D/D because I probably wouldn't of seen it that way with a 10X loupe. We would handle all changes to the listing on an individual basis, and we have done that hundreds of times based on receiving a better coin that the one used for the initial attribution.

My main point is that 95% of the people would not have the setup or skills you do, and as such, I wouldn't expect them to see what you do. That's all.

I suppose that is true, yet a good number of folks have stereo microscopes, and can see a lot more than what I am showing in these images. But I understand your point.

FYI, I just uploaded a high resolution image of a Cent to show what the "Stack-and-Stitch" technique can do. Take a look here:

https://easyzoom.com/image/123994

[VAB2013]

Just catching up and reading this interesting thread! Lots of very good feedback and many thanks to Ray and Bob for sharing their professional insight on the photography and attribution aspects! Congrats Ray for your discovery on this RPM even if that 4th punching is slight or minor, I can tell that you put your heart into your photography so that was an exciting thing for you to see (and for us too!)

Oh... I just spent about 10 minutes playing with the Stack-and-Stitch, it's incredible!