Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

syzygy

Members
  • Posts

    1,301
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by syzygy

  1. Of course there are slight design modifications in the almost-30-year's date difference. And of course they aren't from the same dies. But, based on my experience, you can see that the 78 was minted later in the production than the 2005:

     

    1) the sharpness of the mintmark in the 2005 vs the less-sharp 1978 mintmark.

    2) the concavity of the field near the rims on the riverse on the 1978 vs the levelness of the field on the 2005

    3) the same phenomenom i seen immediately below the steps on the 1978.

    4) the design also seems much crisper on the 2005.

     

    Now, i've seen in other threads on CP that field concavity near the rims is found on late-die-stage coins - that explains points 2) and 3).

     

    In fact, Matt gives a nice explanation of that here.

     

    Cool, eh?

     

    Yes, that is interesting. I notice that CONECA has a new site called Variety Vista where it looks like they will be going into depth on illustrating die stages of various varieties - see here for an example.

  2. All are handsome! I really appreciate how you can see the differences between an early die state (2005-s) and a late die state (1978-S) right next to each other.

     

    You mean the shrunken head lincolns? I think of early and late die state as referring to coins struck with the same die early and late in that die's functional life. You are probably referring to the different designs the Lincoln dies have gone through - I think there have been several changes, but the most notable to me are the shrunken head (compare the 68 with the 05 - blech). Wonder what Abe would say :ninja:

  3. I have always wanted a coin from Carson City, but a lot of them have some pretty hefty price tags. Most often one grabs one of the seated dimes - they seem to be about the most reasonably priced CC coins. Well, I have been looking and I couldn't locate one that I wanted (believe it or not). Got these two instead.

     

    I know this quarter one has seen a great deal of duty, but I think its charming. Amazingly, some letters in Liberty are still visible!

    1876cc25qs0.jpg

     

    This half has less wear but has taken a few shots.

    1876cc50dg9.jpg

     

    So now I have some CC coins.

  4. Here is an interesting one...a nice, but low-grade, 1864 IHC.

    1864lrpddt1.jpg

     

    With a nice clear repunched date...

    1864rpdimg4552gj8.jpg

     

    I don't see an "L" - do you? Am I blind?

    whatlimg4566wm8.jpg

     

    They see one.

     

    1864lrpdslabjo0.jpg

     

    Or is the "L" assumed based on the RPD (i.e., is this RPD only seen on the 1864 "L")?

  5. Also from the Baltimore show...

     

    For the Lincoln Cent Dansco...

     

    lincoln1912saq9.jpg

     

    ..and a bunch of modern proofs, a couple of which are below..

     

    lincoln2002skb8.jpg

     

    lincoln1987smn6.jpg

     

    Notice how cheap looking the zincoln proofs are? The copper plating is so thin, it just can't take the proof surface well and I constantly see that corrugated effect on virtually all of them. If I shoot through a pinhole, I can remove some of the effect from the pic, but not from the coin :ninja:.

     

    lincoln1987sphtt1.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...