Follow up to RDV-005 or RDV-006?...This is not what you would expect

[Bri]

First off, I would like to thank everyone who responded to my previous post "RDV-005 or RDV-006?" with their input and opinions. I submitted the post in hoping I could get an unbiased opinion of what you saw.

The majority voted that pic 1 was RDV-006; pic 2 was RDV-005; and pic 3 was RDV-005. There was one response who said that picture # 2 had a possibility of being a RDV-006 due to the placement of the "F" but couldn't tell due to the poor quality of the pictures. As I respect everyone's opinion, I hope he is incorrect as this would be a HUGE find!

Actually, they were: Pic 1 - 1989 RDV-006 was correct; PIC 2..........1-9-8-9!!!! (RDV #: unsure of at this time); pic 3 - 1988 RDV-005 was correct.

I am hoping that this picture #2 1989 will be an RDV-005. I am willing to submit it to one of the pros for attribution because a coin in the hand is worth 2 mediocre pics taken from the bush(es). LOL Wish I could get better pics with my equipment.

Anyway, attached are more pictures of Coin #2, 1989 obverse and reverse. Incidentally, there is an approximate 15 degree rotated die shift to the east from obverse to reverse, as I have attempted to capture in the new photos.

Thanks again for your participation and for your input in advance.

Bri

[1sgret]

To me the above pic of initials (IMO) shows a RDV-006. I did not participate in the other thread as the pictures were not clear enough (The last 2) to come to a conclusion.

[jfines69]

I agree with Joe... That's a 006... I do not know if I participated in your previous post... To bad it's not a 005 that would have been awesome!!!

[copperlover]

I will confirm that this is indeed a RDV-006 as Joe stated. I have been studying these for a very long time and some are very hard to tell unless the FG is enlarged and studied carefully.

Lucien


PS It also helps to take pics from different angles with different lighting. I'm not a pro just an avid RDV fan. Good Luck.

[Bri]

NOW everybody's able to tell that it's a 006 since I posted SMALLER images? Everybody seemed to agree in the first post that it was a 005, now that everyone has learned what the coin's date is, the majority has turned to 006. Why couldn't anybody tell from the first thread when the images were magnified? What am I supposed to be looking for to come to the same conclusion that you now have?

[Maineman750]

Remember what I said in the first post ? Pic #2 location was that of an 006, but the pics were not good enough to be sure....and I said that for a reason.


Oops, I see you already mentioned this...sorry but I was looking at your last post that said everybody

[jfines69]

Bri,
I'm not sure if the post I read a moment ago was the one you are talking about here but if it is then from what I saw the pics were just to dark to really tell... In this thread I had to zoom in on the 2nd pic to see the inits... The "G" is not elongated looking like the "G" of the 005... Also the top loop does not extend east over the vertical bar like the 005... I hope that helps... From what I could tell in the other post I saw what appeared to be a 6,6 and 5 but that is best guess due to the pics being so dark!!!

[Bri]

Remember what I said in the first post ? Pic #2 location was that of an 006, but the pics were not good enough to be sure....and I said that for a reason.

I understand, and I posted that in this thread. I just wanted to know what your reason is. I don't mind being told my baby is not an award winner, but I would also like to understand WHY it isn't. I still would like to have someone look at it in person as I have seen wrong calls before on posts and they ended up being discovery pieces.

I hate Mondays!

[Bri]

Bri,
I'm not sure if the post I read a moment ago was the one you are talking about here but if it is then from what I saw the pics were just to dark to really tell... In this thread I had to zoom in on the 2nd pic to see the inits... The "G" is not elongated looking like the "G" of the 005... Also the top loop does not extend east over the vertical bar like the 005... I hope that helps... From what I could tell in the other post I saw what appeared to be a 6,6 and 5 but that is best guess due to the pics being so dark!!!

Thanks Jim, Much appreciated.

[jfines69]

Thanks Jim, Much appreciated.

You are very welcome!!!

[Maineman750]

Yeah, it's a bummer. But I was looking at how the F was leaning toward the G at the same angle as the first pic.Keep in mind that a perfect picture would be needed to post a positive id on one of these.I'm glad I put some warnings in there for that very reason

[1sgret]

I understand, and I posted that in this thread. I just wanted to know what your reason is. I don't mind being told my baby is not an award winner, but I would also like to understand WHY it isn't. I still would like to have someone look at it in person as I have seen wrong calls before on posts and they ended up being discovery pieces.

I hate Mondays!

Contact DVN (Billy Crawford) http://www.dvnmagazine.com/submissionguidelines.htmlthis Forum and he can attribute the coin for you or you can also send to John Wexler http://doubleddie.com/402401.html or Dr Wiles as Variety Vista http://www.varietyvista.com/Attribution%20Services.htm who also attributes these transitionals.

I hope this helps and the links above will give you all the particulars for submitting your coin.

[Bri]

I am starting to feel like Columbo...lol oh, one more thing; There is a plating issue with the "G" running from southeast to northwest. Ignoring the plating gouge, the actual struck "G" bottom portion DOES line up with the top. After close comparison to the 88 RDV-005, they do feature the same elongation.

Please take another look on the original magnified picture on the previous post. Thanks again

[DoubleYou]

Okay, I'm mixing up all my threads! I'm looking in order, and this one was top. As everyone else here can tell easily, this is simply RDV-006. This is what I pointed out in that thread and remembered to trace back to here. Pictures here are better, partially because the smaller picture allows you to see the strength of the steps and other markers indicative of RDV-006.

[Bri]

Okay, I'm mixing up all my threads! I'm looking in order, and this one was top. As everyone else here can tell easily, this is simply RDV-006. This is what I pointed out in that thread and remembered to trace back to here. Pictures here are better, partially because the smaller picture allows you to see the strength of the steps and other markers indicative of RDV-006.

Was not aware of certain markers, thank you Wendell for pointing that out. Just for piece of mind though, I probably will send it in just to be sure because it is too close.