1959 D/D wrpm-003 "D inside 2nd 9 of date"

[Brad]

Our next controversial Variety is the 1959 D with an alleged misplaced mintmark. This is an opportunity for you to give your opinion. Is that the Bar of a D inside the 2nd 9 of the date?

[Brad]

Wexler and Allen believe this to be a D, and list it as WRPM-003. It is also one of their top 100 rpm's. Gary Wagnon lists it in his Quick Reference to the Top Lincoln Cent Varieties, but states, "Some specialist disagree as to whether this is a true RPM or not". Coppercoins list this variety under 1959D-1MM-021, but state that it is only for educational purposes. ANACS certifies it as an RPM. CONECA does not recognize this variety. Here are some opinions of mine: 1) If that is the bar of a D, where is the rest of the D on the other side of the tail of the 9? It appears that some of the D should show on the other side. The only explanations are that the D was punched at an angle, or that the tail of the 9 does somehow cover the rest of the D. 2) Could that be a die break that simply looks like a D? 3) What is all that "stuff" Southeast of the D near the rim? To be honest with you, the more I look at it, the more I begin to doubt...

[Davedawg]

3) What is all that "stuff" Southeast of the D near the rim? To be honest with you, the more I look at it, the more I begin to doubt...[/quote]

I don't know too much, well anything, about this coin. However, coppercoins.com lists it under 1959D-1MM-021 (D & D Misplaced). Their image also has "all that stuff" southeast of the D near the rim. One thing I can say, whether it is relevant or not, is that I found a bank roll of 1998P Kennedy Halves that had the exact same die crack starting at the southwest rim and extending all the way across Kennedy's neck. The explanation I received was that once the dies start to wear and produce cracks, the die cracks will actually extend further and further as each new coin is minted until they change that die. So coins minted in succession will share the same wear. In the case of your coin, it looks like the "mystery mark" on the 9 may have developed in the early stages of the start of the deteriorating die because the picture on coppercoins.com shows much more deterioration of the mark on the 9. I don't know what I'm talking about anymore, I'm confusing myself now. Check the pic out on coppercoins.com and compare it to yours (I could've just said that and not have wasted 1 or 5 minutes of your time (depending upon how fast you can read!!)) :D

[Brad]

I read it fast. What you said makes sense. It is a truly puzzling variety.

[coppercoins]

Well, this is probably not an RPM, but it still sells for a premium because of its history of having been called an RPM.

I actually think this is die damage and is very closely related to the 1956D cent that some call a repunched date. If you look at this 1959D and the 1956D cents together, it looks like the same sort of tool probably made the damage on both dies.

[1jackel1]

I have this same coin and i am confused of how it happened, this coin would have had to rotate about 18 degrees cw and then be hit again by the mint press, you would think this is impossible but if the experts say it is a rpm, then i will go with but it still makes me think. lol

George

[corroded]

Don't stomp your foot at me for this, but it's a cute little orphan and I'm
glad I have a home for one of them also. Whatever it is, don't throw yours
away.

[DoubleYou]

I just cannot make myself believe this is an RPM. It certainly is interesting, but the evidence stands against it.

[dvn]

I list it as a partial "D" within the "9" digit. But, I can understand the arguments against it.

Billy (dvn)