1971 S RPM or MD or MD on RPM?

[Roller]

I'm conflicted about this one. I can see the MD on the date and the MM but there's more to the MM than that. There being no images for most 71S RPMs does not help.

[jcuve]

I'm thinking it is MD and the damaged MM punch.

[Maineman750]

I'm thinking Jason is right.....they had a problem with mm's back then (69,70,71)

[ShyCent]

I see up to 3 MMs and 2-3 directions of MD on the date, which might explain part of the MM, but I don't think all.

[Roller]

I did not know that there was/is a punch problem in 71. Thanks for the info.

[mustbebob]

I too was unaware of a punch problem for 1971, and I attribute these things. Anyone have any more info in it?
As far as this one goes, it just appears to be multiple cases of machine doubling.

[centsible]

As to the MM, was the MM punched 1, 2, or 3 times. If once, the remaining "stuff" is MD?

[jcuve]

According to Wiles, the S MM punch became defective in 1970, he says specifically, "being characterized by a horizontal line in the lower loop and a notch inside the upper curve." It's supposedly the same punch introduced back in 1952.

[centsible]

Tangent, please bear with me, if the Mint didn't seem to care about this punch, would there be many, many more out there like the one being discussed?

[simonm]

Tangent, please bear with me, if the Mint didn't seem to care about this punch, would there be many, many more out there like the one being discussed?

A good example of another broken MM punch would be the Denver mintmark punch in 1979. About 80% of the 1979-D cents I have show a broken MM punch. It appears as a notch in the bottom serif.

[flyhi3]

Wow I was unaware of the damaged MM punch of 69-71. Thanks for the info guys!!!!!

[centsible]

So this 1971S is not a RPM and of no real numismatic value other than a representative of a broken MM punch?

No matter, it still looks great to me.