Which RDV is this?

[Pat]

Here are some RDV pictures. Which is RDV005 and which is RDV006?

[Steven]

I believe all of those to be RDV-005. Just my opinion.
Steven

[Pat]

Here's the Obverses If it helps.

[Steven]

Well,
They fooled me then with them being 90s. Looking at the distance from the memorial and the shape of the intitials looked to me to be RDV-005. This may be part of the problem resulting with the delisted RDV. When the die becomes worn or abraided the design changes a bit. I guess I need to study some "more" on these.

Steven

[Pat]

Well,
They fooled me then with them being 90s. Looking at the distance from the memorial and the shape of the intitials looked to me to be RDV-005. This may be part of the problem resulting with the delisted RDV. When the die becomes worn or abraided the design changes a bit. I guess I need to study some "more" on these.

Steven

Just because the obverse is 1990 shouldn't affect the initial thoughts on the reverse. Should the obverse change your mind about the reverse when looking for RDV's? Here's some more pics of the 1990D Reverse.

[Pat]

Here's images from a 1990D Reverse RDV-006 (at least 99% sure it's RDV006)

[Pat]

And Finally Side by Side..

[Steven]

It should change my mind because of the year it should not be possible but the next step would be, if I was that sure of myself just looking at the photos, I would suggest that Dr. Wiles may wish to see them. I just looked at several 89, 90 and once the abraision becomes a factor it is a bit difficult to determine. The leg of the G on the RDV-006 begins to wear away and with further abraision it starts to look like the RDV-005. This abraision I believe is what Dr. Wiles discussed as the factor resulting in the delisting of one of the RDVs. AND I am no where near the level he has attained but I am plugging along.
Steven

[Pat]

I suppose in the latest image I just attached I see the flatness of the lower G and the space between the F/G.. It is a tough one..

P.S. Can you tell I got my scope camera back today? lol!

[Steven]

I see the delima the die abrasion causes. I would think that even with that Dr. Wiles and maybe others have a formula for placement of those initials by now. I think I may have seen a grid or something similar concerning this very issue but can't remember where. David may know.

I would have to say anything can happen but I really don't think the RDV-005 will go into '90.
Steven

[Pat]

I see the delima the die abrasion causes. I would think that even with that Dr. Wiles and maybe others have a formula for placement of those initials by now. I think I may have seen a grid or something similar concerning this very issue but can't remember where. David may know.

I would have to say anything can happen but I really don't think the RDV-005 will go into '90.
Steven

Yes about the scope... Now that the holidays are winding down I may be able to start thinking seriously about one.

LOL.. A 1990 RDV005 would be cool though.. You and I think would agree on that..

[Steven]

One other thing maybe to consider with these is the RDV-005 upper curve of the G looks to go further to the east over the top of the leg. And the RDV-006s seem to stop just short of that point.
Steven

[car10]

I see the delima the die abrasion causes. I would think that even with that Dr. Wiles and maybe others have a formula for placement of those initials by now. I think I may have seen a grid or something similar concerning this very issue but can't remember where. David may know.

I would have to say anything can happen but I really don't think the RDV-005 will go into '90.
Steven

I think the grid was on the CONECA forum, possibly posted by AgCollector if I remember correctly.

[Pat]

Here's some super high resolution images:

Image 1

Image 2

[Steven]

Here are two overlayed, the RDV-005 and the RDV-006. These would just be two examples. Every coin will have subtle differences with the die wear but you can see that some of these appear very close. the distance from the building is further on the (5) as well as the upper curve of the G extenting further over the leg of the G. Thickness of the letters is also a factor. The leg of the G is not as prominent on this (6) concerning the lower portion of the leg that usually looks to come to a point south with less wear. This is just to show how close they are and can be a lot closer in appearance. Die markers are going to be a factor in attribution as well.

Just another opinion of mine.

I think I may have confused myself again

Anybody else have thoughts on this or am I way off on this.

Steven