~NEW!~ Break Out The FEV's..Another RPM!

[AaronMiller]

No, the talon head had been polished off the dies.

I will also add that two of mine were a late die state (and possibly not fully struck), so no determination could be made regarding the D/D. They have flat and wide characters for the date and motto.

[Sumdunce]

Rob's story of approaching a coin at a different angle and Aaron's mention of talon head got me to go back over my FEVs.

Is this what I should be looking for?

1971-DD_FEV.jpg (29.45 KiB) Viewed 88 times

PCGS holdered MS63 if so.

V/R



LaMont

[robEzerman]

LaMont, BINGO!

Brian thinks there is more than one FEV D/D, and there are, I think, four separate D/D patterns so far, though all seem to share some similarities?

Raises interesting questions: was there more than one defective "D" mintmark punch? Or are we seeing a progressive breakdown of a single defective punch?

Brian, please help!!! Rob

[BrianVaile]

Yes, some similar characteristics...I would have to say "probably not" to the progressive breakdown thing.
Mostly because, he doesn't mention the "damaged punch" at the bottom of the D until the 1974 ones.
The D/D's, although having similar qualities, all still look disproportionally different to me...

I am going on what John Bordner says...He is "the" CONECA and NCADD guy for RPM's and has probably
looked at enough mintmarks to know what he is talking about. Of the (10) I've gotten back from him,
only (6) were D/D's. I have (5) more with him now, so we'll know more soon.

LaMont, the one you just posted looks more like the one that Mr. Bordner is looking at now...not the
WRPM-002. So, maybe it will be the WRPM-003?....It is much more common than the 002. I'll let him sort
that stuff out....a lot will depend on the "placement" as well.

There is also a type of doubling that I am learning about..."ejection doubling"....that throws me a curve ball on occasion.

Rob is right about the side-light....that is basically all I used in my D/D search this Summer. Not really by design, I just
thought that my scope light was burned out. I just found out this week that it works just fine....all I had to do was
jiggle it a little! .

Happy Hunting!
Brian

[robEzerman]

Brian, thanks.

Now, please, let me throw fist-fulls of research-oriented mud on the wall, more out of ignorance than any depth of knowledge. For those of you new to our web site, you have to forgive my tendency to think out-loud - it's just my way of stirring the pot.

1...We know the old guy who punched MM's into the dies at the Philly Mint during the Ike era had a coffee-mug full of punches on his desk: the author's inference was the gentleman was a pack-rat, not that he used them all.
2...We know that on average it takes more proof-coin dies than circulation-coin dies for any given year because the proof dies were used for roughly 3,000 proof coins per die compared to 120,000 for 71Ikes to 200,000-400,000 for other CB coins per die.
3... We have the singular observation that the same S punch was used on most or all proofs in all denominations from late 1979 production through late 1981 production, strong evidence that one punch was used continuously until it wore out in these years.
4... Wiles writes in his book (page 18) (paraphrased for brevity):
"The S punch first returned to use in 68 proofs and was used into 1974. It became defective in 1970, showing a horizontal line in its lower loop and a notch inside the upper curve. Somewhere around mid 1974, a new S mintmark punch was placed into use: it had a defect, a bulge or "knob" on the outside upper curve. This new punch was used on '74 circulation strikes as well, including the Lincoln cent and the SB Ike $1. This new punch began showing heavy wear by 1977 and it failed in 1979, requiring a new punch."
Wiles goes on to describe three early stages (A, B and C) of the new '74-S punch that can be found on 1974 coins but the punch apparently was in the first two stages only briefly as the third stage is far more common and can be found on all 1974 denominations. The key feature for both Stage B and Stage C is a linear notch at the northeast corner of the MM. Also, Wiles makes a good case that the "doubling" pattern "began to wear off early in 1975 production" (Stage D).
From all of these observations Wiles suggests the doubling seen on some 1974 S Mintmarks is not from actually re-punching the mintmark but rather is from a doubled punch.
5...Brian has found somewhere between 4 and six slightly different to significantly different "D/D"'s across the Ike series but all have some kind of notch in their northwest corner and some an additional notch in their southwest corner. These "D/D" Ikes run from a high of 10% of FEV's to as little as less than 1% in other years.

Beginning to put all this together, it seems likely that the "D/D" is a defective punch, either showing true hub-doubling if it was created through a hubbing process, or some kind of internal delamination or fissure formation if it was formed through a forging operation: it just seems so unlikely that the same or nearly the same "double strike" error occurred while actually striking the MM punch (ie, was a true RPM) across so much of the Ike series. And, does not the rapid progression of the 74-S punch through three phases in 1974 only to self-heal in 1975 seems more consistent with a forging flaw than with a hub-doubled punch? Andy???

Based on Wiles beautiful work on 74-S mintmarks, it seems very possible that a single punch showing progressive deterioration could be responsible for all the Ike D/D's, or, at most several punches were involved, perhaps all forged at the same time and thus all carrying the same internal flaw?

The next question seems to be why the D/D Ike is so relatively rare? Here's one possibility. With the new Ike dollar coin facing such steep production demands in late 1971 (basically 5 months for a big year's output), perhaps the mint had two new D punches made up (forged) in case there were problems? They both went into the coffee cup, the old guy preferred one to the other but occasionally he simply reached for the less desirable punch. . . Rob

[BrianVaile]

Rob,
I see what you are saying, but they look just a little too different to me. You'll see when you get them.
The 71-D/D-001 does look kind of like the 76-D/D-001.
Yet, in between the 73D/D's look kinda of similar to the 74-D/D's and nothing like the 71/D/D-001 or 76-D/D-001.
Your theory would be more "solid", if there was a natural progression one way or the other, not a total opposite
interruption in the middle and then back to the way it was for at least (1) of the 71-D/D's (remember, I think there are (3)
in 1971 and none of them really look alike. I'm still thinking it's the old "Double-Tap" method.
Then, we can throw in the fact that I haven't been able to find a SINGLE D/D for a 72 Ike!!
And I've been through a LOT of them looking for one!

I'm sure JB has gone through these same punches in all of the other series as well. (They have probably been studied a lot more in
the other series as well?)....maybe? ...Since Ike don't get no respect...
So, I'm going to go with whatever JB tells me on these....after all, it is his area of expertise. I'm trying real hard to learn
some stuff from him and he has given me one heck of an idea that I am working on.

Nothing wrong with slingin' a little mud every now and then....sometimes it sticks...sometimes it doesn't. We never know 'till we sling it!

Happy Hunting!
Brian

[robEzerman]

Brian, this is great. I've started a discussion with John to learn what I can about RPM's in the Ike era, trying not to ask too much of John.

I'm playing devil's advocate by pushing the deteriorating punch concept so hard, really want to test this notion and put it to bed if nothing sticks. . . Rob