1918D rpm--002

[pennies4pennies]

I look this up and it looks like what James wiles has posted on his CD.
1918-D rpm-002. It is worn but still a nice find.

[jfines69]

For 98 thats not to bad worn... LOL... Excellent find!!!
Jim

[DoubleYou]

I can't see any evidence of an RPM. The coin has a VG obverse and a AG reverse. It is interesting how some coins can have such a split in grades. I have a 1979 Lincoln Memorial cent that has a VF obverse and a Fair-2 reverse. That's a weird un!

[pennies4pennies]

Did you try changing your page to 200% then click on the second picture.There is a second D but a little harder to see.

[DoubleYou]

This is what my screen looks like when viewing said photo. I still see nothing but an ordinary, circulated 1918-D cent.

[pennies4pennies]

This is the one I was looking at. Maybe I need better pics of my coin.

[Clark_Cent]

I don't think the two coins were struck on the same die. On the first coin the D is almost 5 degrees off vertical compaired to the 1.

The back of the D is vertical or parallel to the 1 on the second coin. Also the top of the second coin looks thicker, and you can see what appears to be the doubling.

The first coin may be too worn to see that top edge.

The back edge of the D on the two coins does appear to be alike.

Just a guess.

Clark;]

[DoubleYou]

I don't think the two coins were struck on the same die. On the first coin the D is almost 5 degrees off vertical compaired to the 1.

The back of the D is vertical or parallel to the 1 on the second coin. Also the top of the second coin looks thicker, and you can see what appears to be the doubling.

The first coin may be too worn to see that top edge.

The back edge of the D on the two coins does appear to be alike.

Just a guess.

Clark;]

The degrees off you mention is due to the tilt of the coin in the photo. I am not sure that they are the same die, nevertheless, as there are no die markers to go by except the date to MM relationship, and that is still questionable.

[DoubleYou]

I have taken another look, and notice that in RPM-002 the original mintmark plus the repunched one combined is thicker that the thickest portion of the mintmark (in this case the curve of the D). This is not reflected in the coin posted. I therefore believe that the coin posted is not a specimen of RPM-002.

[pennies4pennies]

I just PM James Wiles. He would know for sure if it is a rpm or not.

[jfines69]

On the 2nd pic of your 2nd set of pics I see what looks to be part of a horizontal bar just below the lower serif running to just below the east edge of the vertical bar... I'm no pro though!!!
Jim

[Clark_Cent]

DoubleYou

If you print a picture of first coin and put a streight edge along the back of the D, that line will intersect the 9 in the date.

If you do the same thing on the second coin the first thing that streight edge will hit before the edge is the U in trust.

At least it looks that way to me.

Clark;]

[DoubleYou]

You may be right Clark_Cent, just I can't be sure of that as long as the photo is tilted. I do not believe it to be from the same die, however, so I believe it would not line up. I was pointing out that the tilt was due to the tilt of the photo more than that of the mintmark. :)

[JamesWiles]

This does not appear to be an RPM to me.
Thanks,
James Wiles

[DoubleYou]

Thanks, Wiles. I know you don't come here too often, and I value it much when you do.

[pennies4pennies]

Thank you very much. I honer what you have to say.Now this can be laid to rest.

[eaxtellcoin]

OK fellas, here is a certified copy of RPM#2. Looks like James answered " Good"

[pennies4pennies]

That I can see. I never second guest James Wiles. What he says I go by. Thanks for all the replys.

[jfines69]

Now that really settles the debate... James Wiles and a good pic!!!
Jim