Here's another one of my finds... I'm a newbie so please be gentle I THINK there's an S mint mark under a D one here. What do you say?
No.. that is not a Over Mint mark A 1990 Cent is copper plated zinc. It's just a plating issue. Like a bubble.
From the research I've done, it looks like the last year that mint marks were hand punched into Lincoln Cent dies was 1989. Without hand punching, an OMM would be impossible unless a coin was first stamped at say the San Francisco Mint, then taken to the Denver Mint, perfectly align the detail and then re-stamped. I guess one could take a working die from the Denver Mint, install it at the Frisco Mint and re-stamp a coin that had been already struck with the "S" mint mark die. Sorry, can't think of anything else. Semper Fidelis
I heard of the hand-pnched mint marks. Doubleddie.com says they """started""" NOT doing it hand-punched in 1990 and 1991, but continued until 1994. Beginning 1994, all mint marks were in the master die so that it's imposible to have an OMM or a RPM without doubling of the rest of the coin face. http://doubleddie.com/58243.html Thus...I had hope this would be a true one.
Over the years mint mark varieties have been found where mint marks for two different mints were applied to the same working die. For example, in 1944 two different Lincoln cent working dies first received an impression from an S mint mark punch, and then had a D mint mark punched over the S creating two different "D over S" or "D/S" mint mark varieties. In 1946 a Lincoln cent working die first received an impression of a D mint mark and then had an S mint mark punched directly over the D creating an "S over D" or "S/D" mint mark variety. Varieties such as these are known as Over Mint Mark (OMM) varieties. Here we see a 1944-D Lincoln cent with a very nice OMM variety. It has a D punched over an S. It is listed as 1944-D 1¢ WOMM-001. This 1946-S Lincoln cent features an OMM variety that has an S punched over a D. It is listed as 1946-S 1¢ WOMM-001. Here we see a 1950-D Washington quarter OMM variety that has a very nice D over an S. It is listed as 1950-D 25¢ WOMM-001. There is a distinction among the die variety attributers for mint mark varieties bearing two different mint marks when those mint mark punches are totally separated. In the Wexler Files, the Crawford Files, and the Potter Files, the mint mark varieties with two different totally separated mint mark punches are listed as Dual Mint Mark (DMM) varieties since the mint mark punches are not actually "over" each other as the term "Over Mint Mark" suggests. CONECA is the only major die variety lister that does not make the distinction between OMMs and DMMs and classifies all varieties with two different mint marks as OMM varieties. 1956 was a great year for mint mark varieties. This 1956-D Lincoln cent shows an S mint mark punched between the lower 1 and 9 of the date. All of the major die variety attributers except for CONECA have listed this one as a Dual Mint Mark (DMM) variety. CONECA's attributer does not believe that the image between the lower 1 and 9 represents an S mint mark punch. You be the judge. It is listed in the Wexler Files as 1956-D 1¢ WDMM-001. The RPM and OMM varieties are two die variety types that the Mint has successfully eliminated from modern day coinage. The first changes to the procedure of applying the mint marks to coinage came in the mid-1980s when the mint mark started to appear to the original model design for commemorative coins and regular proof coins. In 1990 and 1991 the Mint began applying the mint mark for circulating coins to the master die. After 1994 the mint mark was applied directly to the original model for all U.S. coins thus ending the RPM and OMM era. RPM collecting has proven quite popular with die variety collectors as they are not that difficult to find with a little bit of searching. Collections can be assembled at a modest cost with most varieties going for a few dollars. A pretty good rule of thumb for value is that as the separation between the mint mark punches increases, the value increases. OMM varieties have always proven to be more valuable than the RPM varieties as there are far fewer of them. This is from http://doubleddie.com/58243.html
Yes, that's the page I was mentioning when i posted the coin pics. I appreciate you posting it, not sure I could do it. Notice it says ... "In 1990 and 1991 the Mint began applying the mint mark for circulating coins to the master die. After 1994 the mint mark was applied directly to the original model for all U.S. coins thus ending the RPM and OMM era." So the way I understood is... they ***started*** in 1990 but the separate mint mark (and thus, the possibility of RPMs and OMMs) didn't disappear ***completely*** from ***all*** coins minted until 1994. Live and learn...I'm putting this rotten zinc baby in my purse again! thank you all!
I do understand that there is a fair amount of questions regarding the exact dates and coin types where the transitions from hand punched MMs. However, my research also looked at listings for one cent RPMs (CONECA, Wexler and Coppercoins) and I couldn't find a One Cent RPM example post 1989D (in fact, I couldn't find an RPM listed for any US coinage post 1989). Two other points, historically the MMs were punched into the Working Hub (which are produced by the Master Die) and while I don't know how many WH's can be made from MDs, it is estimated that 200-300 Working Dies (WD) can be made by each WH. The point is that given the number of WHs and WDs, one could see that the chance for re-punches would be greater however circa 1990 MMs were put on the MDs and only 2 or 3 of those can be made by each Master Hub. As such the possibility of a re-punch becomes significantly smaller (if not impossible) because of the number of additional checks would occur by the time the impressing process worked its way down to the Working Dies. The last point is that when dates are used like 1990 or 1991, it needs to be remember that the Mint will often still be striking the prior years coins in the next calendar year depending on the level of demand. As such, a coin with say a date of 1990 may not be struck until late 1990 or even 1991. Of course, this is just my view of the information as I have found it which by no means makes it "true" it is just my opinion based on everything I've seen. Some one else may have documents that make it clear as to what specific dates, by type of coinage, these events actually occurred. The other, and more straight forward way of settling this issue is for some one to provide an example of a One Cent piece dated 1990 or later, with a RPM. One last clarification, I believe the statement is, "In 1990 and 1991 the Mint began applying the mint mark for circulating coins to the master die." (Emphasis added). "After 1994 the mint mark was applied directly to the original model . . ." Semper Fidelis
@Fallguy awesome info; appreciate your expertise and helpfulness and that of everybody in this forum. The amount of technical depth and amount of information in general is overwhelming and I am slowly learning. Erm...master die...that's over my head! LOL You overestimate my knowledge about these things haha Whether it's a die, old die, new die, master die...makes no difference to me at this point...I have to learn more. And from what I've learned so far...all I know is i have to slow down because it's a long way before I can say i know anything significant about coins. I'm humbled by all of you, coinmasters and that makes me happy Little by little I'll catch up. Ty so much !!
