1956-D controversial cent

[TPring]

Picked this from an auction and luckily nobody else bid on this 1956D, FS-511. What appears to have both a D mm and a separated S mm. With the S between the 1 & 9. Delisted by VV, but still recognized by other attributers and still with an FS#, just not in the CPG anymore [AFAIK]. Seller's obv & rev pics.

CC

PossibleMintMark.jpg

obv.jpg
rev.jpg

[jfines69]

Your pics are to small to tell for sure but CCs LDS sample does look like an S between the 1 and 9!!!

[jfines69]

VV only goes to Stage B... Maybe a later Stage would prove other wise???

[TPring]

PossibleMintMark.jpg

Your pics are to small to tell for sure but CCs LDS sample does look like an S between the 1 and 9!!!

Not sure what you mean because when I open the pics they are huge. I am adding a pic showing the reverse die gouges [markers] as shown in VVs stage B and CCs LDS.

There is not actually a mint mark, it just looks like a couple of parallel die gouges. which is why it is controversial.

rev copy.jpg

[jfines69]

The pics I am getting are 117x121 pixels??? Weird!!!

[jfines69]

If you look closely at CCs closeup of the S there is, what appears to be another, section coming up from the lower bar on the right side that is just barely visible???

[TPring]

The pics I am getting are 117x121 pixels??? Weird!!!

Not sure about the sizing differences. Three of the pics are about 200KB and the other two are over an MB.

Not seeing anything significant to the right of the mm. I remember reading that Ray [Parkhurst] had done some camera work on this and had determined that it is an inverted S mm.

[TPring]

Just realized that this variety is listed on VV as RPM-12, yet there is no mention of the two huge die gouges on the reverse and they are not seen in the photos. Not only that, my coin has a die crack at the bottom of the T of CENT [pic T1] and no die crack/chip at the T crossbar [pic T2] so not sure what is going on with this variety/coin. On my coin I do see a very weak protrusion on the SE side of the D mintmark [but nothing on the south side] which is VV refers to as the secondary for RPM-12. Hopefully these pics show larger as they are 1.2MB each.

EDIT: scratch this post, looks like RPM-12 is actually listed as 1OM-002 which I didn't even know existed. So maybe the weak protrusion I described is just a die gouge.

[jfines69]

I noticed that VV did not list a S mm for the years 56 - 67 so I did a little research... Found that the SF mint did not produce coins from 56 - 64 and then only a few in 65 - 67 with no MMs... That explains why the rpm is controversial??? I will try an overlay using MMS-008 (TALL MINTMARK) and see what it shows???

[jfines69]

Just realized that this variety is listed on VV as RPM-12, yet there is no mention of the two huge die gouges on the reverse and they are not seen in the photos. Not only that, my coin has a die crack at the bottom of the T of CENT [pic T1] and no die crack/chip at the T crossbar [pic T2] so not sure what is going on with this variety/coin. On my coin I do see a very weak protrusion on the SE side of the D mintmark [but nothing on the south side] which is VV refers to as the secondary for RPM-12. Hopefully these pics show larger as they are 1.2MB each.

EDIT: scratch this post, looks like RPM-12 is actually listed as 1OM-002 which I didn't even know existed. So maybe the weak protrusion I described is just a die gouge.

Pics are 91x121 pixels when I click on them... I think the software is acting up LOL!!!

[TPring]

I noticed that VV did not list a S mm for the years 56 - 67 so I did a little research... Found that the SF mint did not produce coins from 56 - 64 and then only a few in 65 - 67 with no MMs... That explains why the rpm is controversial??? I will try an overlay using MMS-008 (TALL MINTMARK) and see what it shows???

Yep, stopped the S in '55 then resumed as proofs (& business strikes) in '68. Using the same mm style in both years.
I believe all the dies are produced in Philadelphia then shipped westward.

Maybe they kept the mm punches hanging around the shop knowing they'd be used later, LOL.

[jfines69]

With permission from VV and CC I created 2 overlays using VVs MMS-008 and MMS-007 over CCs 1956D-1OM-001 D/S LDS.. I used the MMS-008 as it would the most likely choice of a S punched MM on a D coin, in 56, as it was used from 1952 thru 1955 and again from 1968 thru 1974... I used the MMS-007 as a comparison with the MMS-008... I sized both S MMs as close to the D MMs size as possible... The 008 I rotated 213.52 degrees CW and the 007 215.73 degrees CW... The 008 MMs, upper section, has a better alignment with the marks on CCs coin than the 007 MM... I tried alignment with the upper and lower sections of both S MMs at different angles and positions but it did not work... The fact that San Francisco did not produce any coins in 56 leads to the controversial designation!!! The first set of pics is MMS-008 ovr CCs the 2nd set is MMS-007 ovr CCs!!! What happened to the add pics section of our software???

[TPring]

Tap on either of these [circled] and you should get the option of adding an attachment.

and I think Wexler gave it a better designation as DMM [Dual MM] whereas others call it OMM.

[TPring]

It is somewhat similar to this RPM in that it has a "remote secondary". Which on this variety just amounts to a die chip, IMO.

[TPring]

Interesting read from 6 years ago.

I am going to have a second look at my coin and the pics at the 3 attribution sites. Late now...