1984D RPM?

[AstroRaider]

Here is an example of a bubbly 1984D Lincoln Cent.

The mint mark took a hit on the top and there is split plating below, but is it still an RPM, otherwise?

Thanks for any comments...
1984D RPM.jpg

[uglycent]

My guess is the plating has lifted by the overall look at the cent. Someone might have a more conclusive answer.

[GrumpyEd]

The plating looks awful, it's hard to say much more

[1gtsfan]

I think this maybe 1MM-002 D/D-West, the mint mark location appears to be correct. There should be an obverse die scratch under "WE".

[jfines69]

This may be one to hold on to until another in better shape appears... It looks as if it could be but with the plating in such poor condition it would not be easily attributable!!!

[willbrooks]

If you take away that "doubled" area on the vertical, you no longer have a complete mint mark.

[1gtsfan]

I just did an overlay of this mintmark with the image from coppercoins, and it is an exact match to 1MM-002.

[willbrooks]

I just did an overlay of this mintmark with the image from coppercoins, and it is an exact match to 1MM-002.

So you did an overlay of 2 photos, taken from different apexes over the coin, with different angles of incidence, and found them to be an "exact match?" Amazing. And even if they are close in position, so what? The only thing that looks the same on these "rpms" is the split plating, which has little to do with it.


Please share your overlay. Bob, is it ok if he shows the coppercoins image in his overlay?

[1gtsfan]

I really don't know what to say.

[mustbebob]

I don't mind you using a coppercoins photo for an overlay on this forum. I am rather curious to see how others perform that function as it does change between software programs. A couple things to remember though...do NOT edit any coppercoins photos at all (cropping is OK), and please give credit to the site when you do. Thank you folks.

[GrumpyEd]

In most cases the position might is best at ruling matches out than ruling them in.
If it's different it can't be the same die, if position matches it can be the same die if the doubling is the same and other markers verify it or if the doubling is so unique that you can be pretty sure it's the same.

[willbrooks]

In most cases the position might is best at ruling matches out than ruling them in.
If it's different it can't be the same die, if position matches it can be the same die if the doubling is the same and other markers verify it or if the doubling is so unique that you can be pretty sure it's the same.

Well said, Ed. There were 5.6 billion 1984D cents struck. Even if we allow for 1 million strikes per die, that means there were more that 56,000 dies used. You can be certain that MANY of them had a mint mark in this "location." My point is that using an overlay of 2 photos that weren't even taken from the same angle is hardly evidence to confirm a die. It's a little different when discussing a very low mintage issue. As Ed says, let location rule out, but don't let it rule in. Other than a similar mint mark location, these 2 coins have nothing else in common to me. 1MM-002 exhibits a complete mint mark with a repunching to the west. As I noted above, this isn't the case on the OP's coin.

[1gtsfan]

here is Bob's image from coppercoins overlayed with the coin in question.

[1gtsfan]

What about the 45 degree die scratches that run in the same direction on both coins.

[jfines69]

What about the 45 degree die scratches that run in the same direction on both coins.

I think I see what you are talking about... Hard for me to tell tho... To much glare and bubbles!!!