1956 D/D/S omm 1 womm-001

[Brad]

The next controversial Variety is the 1956 D with an S mintmark east and slightly north of the D. This is an opportunity for you to give your opinion. Is that a S? CONECA does not list it as an OMM, but rather as RPM-012. Wexler does list it.

[fugnchill]

Looking at the Late Die Stage photo on Coppercoins, there is no doubt about this one...IMO.

Lestrrr

[kloccwork419]

I cant vote. I just dont see how it can be for sure how how it got there at all.

Maybe it was with a horizontal D. If there is a later state that shows more of the S then maybe, but not by this pic

[fugnchill]

I was thinking the same thing Jason, either horizontal or backwards but once I saw the late stage specimen I made up my mind.

Lestrrr

[kloccwork419]

I just seen the LDS on coppercoins and kinda agree with the D/S

[Brad]

Things to consider:

1) The S shows up better in Late Die States which is opposite of most varieties.

2) There were no S mintmarked coins in 1956

[kloccwork419]

I didnt know that there werent any. That would make it near impossible. Maybe its just an illusion of scratches?

[mustbebob]

I had my doubts about it being an S until I found the LDS specimen a few years ago. As far as showing up in a later die state, that is not so uncommon. If the S was identified and was polished away, then the die scratches made during the polishing begin to wear down as the die continually strikes coins. There are many instances of RPMs getting more pronounced with die wear.
Even though my photo shows what appears to be an S, I can not say with 100% certainty that it is. The same holds true for OMM-001. Since there were no S mintmarked 1956 coins, there will always be some doubt about both of them.

[fugnchill]

Did you guys see the Third 1956 D/S OMM? It's too early to say for sure since it's not mine and he was told to send it in but don't know if he did. Here's the thread where I posted it (last post on the thread) http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/showthread.php?t=71

Lestrrr

[coppercoins]

I am sticking to YES on this one as well. I can say for sure that the lines on the later die state example do not match up with a D mintmark, and are far closer to the lines of an S mintmark.

[dvn]

I list as an RPM in my files.

Billy (dvn)

[trails]

From what I have learned from Ken Potter, one of the person who did the punching of the mint marks into the working die never threw one away, even if it was worn to a point of not being useful. SO, even though there was no "S" mint mark used in 1956, it still does not mean that an "S" mint mark punch was not present on the specialist's work bench.

There is probably cause that the same incident that made the misplaced "S" mint mark in 1956 occurred more than once, making this variation as well.

BJ Neff

[MintyFresh]

I had my doubts about it being an S until I found the LDS specimen a few years ago. As far as showing up in a later die state, that is not so uncommon. If the S was identified and was polished away, then the die scratches made during the polishing begin to wear down as the die continually strikes coins. There are many instances of RPMs getting more pronounced with die wear.
Even though my photo shows what appears to be an S, I can not say with 100% certainty that it is. The same holds true for OMM-001. Since there were no S mintmarked 1956 coins, there will always be some doubt about both of them.
It is definately an S. How it got there could be simple: the die was setup in error and corrected. Just becasue the S was not minted that year does foreclude human error. Come on, think about it, this is what this forum is all about: human error.

[Harry Behemoth]

Could it be a die clash showing the S from PLURIBUS?

[jcuve]

Could it be a die clash showing the S from PLURIBUS?

No. The remnants of an S from a Clash with the reverse would be upside down and backwards. On top of that the S from EPU resides near the perimeter of the mid bust and the rim. Even if it was a rotated Clash it still doesn't line up correctly.

I have a Wheat clash overlay on this page towards the bottom where you can see where it lines up:
http://www.lincoln-cents.cuvelier.org/Varieties/Clashes/index.html (http://www.lincoln-cents.cuvelier.org/Varieties/Clashes/index.html)

[Darylscoins]

if there was a S on any 1956 would that prove there where S mints ? as I have a 1956 that shows a S MM to the north west of D and appears to have a break as the S retained on BUST of abe preety clear details... I have had this one for about 6 yrs now no one ever confirmed it at shows..
can try to load pics?

[lineop3]

That would be great if you could post that pic!

Aisha

[jcuve]

I would like to see it too.
Just post the coin in a NEW THREAD please.

[jfines69]

It looks to me as the beginning of a trail or even a chip and trail... If you could strip away the MM and leave the 2 small pieces that would be cool... But then again I'm no expert... LOL!!!
Jim

[jpl6332]

I say no for a variety of reasons!

[DCW]

Always looked convincing to me! (But then again, I was duped by the 1980 d/s, too.)

[DoubleYou]

The supposed S is not large enough in size to be an S.

Take a picture of a 1955-S cent mintmark, measure the height of a nearby element in the picture (say, the top bar of the 5 in the date), and measure the height of the mintmark. Divide the height of the mintmark by the measure of the relating element.

Observe the picture of the variety in question and measure the height of the same element you measured on the 1955-S cent (e.g., the 5 in the date). Measure the height of the supposed OMM. Divide the height of the mintmark by the measure of the relating element.

If the supposed S mintmark was the correct size, the two numbers you computed should roughly equal. When I performed the mathematics, it indicated that the hypothetical extra S was not tall enough to be an S mintmark.

It is upon this fact, and a few others, that I feel this variety definitely is not an OMM, but instead an RPM, D/D West.

Wendell Carper

[dvn]

I do not believe it is an "S" mint mark but rather just a D/D RPM type. When I get time, I'll do an overlay and explain my reasons why.

Billy (dvn)

[dvn]

This is a specimen I have in my personal collection. This coin would be around MDS.

In the top photo the green arrow points to what is clearly an upper left serif of a "D" mint mark while the blue arrow points to the lower remnants.

Middle photo is an overlay transparency using the exact same primary "D" mint mark and is repositioned over the remnants. I see an exact match.

Bottom photo is with an "S" mint mark from a 1955-S Lincoln cent taken at the exact same magnification. In this photo it does not match at the upper remnants pointed out by the green arrow. The blue arrow portion partially matches but notice that there is a lower curvature section which is not matching. When repositioning the overlay to try and match to the upper remnants then the bottom remnants don't match up. So, only one section of the remnants matches while the other part does not. Move the overlay again and then the other doesn't matches. If it really was an "S" mint mark then all positions should match at the same time like we see in the "D" mint mark overlay.

The much later die state specimens are just exhibiting an extension of the metal flow lines giving it an appearance of a middle diagonal "S" bar.

Additionally, it defies my understanding that we would only see what looks like an "S" only in the much later die states, while in the earlier die states the "S" mint mark is not visible! Sorry, I simply can't go with that logic.

Anyway, these are the reasons why I list this variety as an RPM and not an OMM.

Each person is entitled to his/her own opinion and it's up to them to decide.

Billy (dvn)

http://www.dvnmagazine.com/1956dcrpm011p1.jpg

http://www.dvnmagazine.com/1956dcrpm011p2.jpg

http://www.dvnmagazine.com/1956dcrpm011p3.jpg