Should 1953D RPM-10 actually be OMM-1?

[TPring]

Been contemplating this quite a bit over the last couple of weeks and feel confident that if both the 1951D OMM-2 & 1952D OMM-1 can be called over-mintmarks then why not the '53D RPM-10? VarietyVista does not have good pics [and no pics from an EDS coin] so I have included some examples that are germane to the discussion.

For some proof, I go to [Did you have a doubt?] a post of Larry's from about a year-and-a-half ago. Which clearly shows the lower portion of the secondary starting to rotate downward before curving up to the north [see pic]. Then there is the curved segment inside of the primary that very much looks like it could be the top of an S mintmark. I also posted a pic of my coin's date/mm which clearly shows these same characteristics. I am thinking that a D-over-D would show more of the vertical since the secondary would need to be leaning to the east slightly [see pic].

I have also included a few other pics showing what a D/D vs. D/S might look like taking into account that the D looks like MMS-3 and the S was likely MMS-4.

I had many pics, but tried to keep it to a minimum for the sake of brevity.

[Petespockets55]

Very interesting T.
The images you provide are compelling. I think you are correct!

I went to CC to see what they had for images as well. 1953D 1MM-010

It looks like the full base is visible on both the primary and secondary MM and they don't seem to be the same width. The left side (serif) of the secondary also seems to be more appropriate for the S punch for 1953.

(You'll have Bob mosey along before too long who can provide some more insight one way or the other. I look forward to hearing his input.)

[makecents]

I like it, T, very nice work! It looks more like MMS-008 to me though and not the trumpet tail. I looks like a ball serif poking out at the base of the D. Still, to your argument, more like an OMM than an RPM.

[mustbebob]

This makes for a very good argument. I am not aware of the time frame that this was discussed previously, but I think it was discussed between attributers from coppercoins, Wexler, and Variety Vista about 20 years ago. We went through all of the known overmintmarks at the time. Although this particular coin (RPM-010) looks like it could be an OMM, there are a couple of reasons why it was not. The first being that the earliest die states look nothing like an 'S' punching. The bottom of the S mintmark used in 1953 is primarily in an E-W orientation. The RPM-010 anomaly appears to have a N-S orientation. The S mintmark style for 1953 was the MMS-004 (Tall Mintmark). The anomaly on RPM-010 is just plain not tall enough to be the S mintmark punch. Remember that this info is coming from 20 years ago and it is from what I can remember. I am sure there were other factors also.

[eaxtellcoin]

I'm sorry guys I have left this one alone but to me this is a D/D South plain and simple. I see the lower serif and the upper serif. To me it looks nothing like an S over mintmark.

Remember that only part of the secondary mintmark will show after abrasion.

If you want to prove your point instead of only adding a possible S why did you not also add a "D" overlay to your coin??
Sorry to be a party pooper. I'm on the other side of the coin...
Eric

[kloccwork419]

There is a D overlay. Lol. I agree that its D/D tho

[eaxtellcoin]

Yep Jason you chimmed in before I could hit """Edit""
I meant his photo of the circ.

[eaxtellcoin]

If you look at the "D" overlay his lower serif is where the upper serif in the photo is.

OK I see he is using Larry's photo's - I'm sorry I never use someone elses photo's - muddies the water.