1955-S S/S South

[ray_parkhurst]

Here's a potential new 1955-S RPM that looks pretty good to me. Shows separation and notching on the bottom curve and a little on the serif. What do you all think? Too minor, or worth pursuing?

[mustbebob]

This is not an RPM. It appears that the lower curve and serif took a hit. Sorry...
Great pics by the way.

[jfines69]

Those are awesome pics!!!

[ray_parkhurst]

This is not an RPM. It appears that the lower curve and serif took a hit. Sorry...
Great pics by the way.

In my images it appears it might be MDD, so your response makes sense, but in this case it is for sure an RPM, and my pics just don't show it well enough. It shows well on the stereo microscope. I'm 100% sure of this because I have multiple die states of the same RPM, so it is definitely in the die and not a striking error. The question is if it's too minor to list or should I send it in. My expectation is it's too minor for CONECA. But I have bad experience with this at CONECA, as I have sent in a number of coins to them that came back "too minor to list" but later ended up being "discovered" by someone else. One example is 1955-S RPM #5...Ray

[DoubleYou]

Even if it were an RPM, it looks too minor to list. Great photos! It captures everything quite well.

[ray_parkhurst]

Even if it were an RPM, it looks too minor to list. Great photos! It captures everything quite well.

Thanks! But good pics or no, the conclusion seems the same...Ray

[mustbebob]

Ray,
Whenever an attributer makes the determination that a variety is too minor to list, we always end up hurting someone's feelings. Some clubs are just more liberal than others when it comes to accepting minor varieties for inclusion into their files.
I am certainly not making excuses fro that RPM-005, and if in fact that happened, than you need to contact the attributer to find out why your copy was too minor, while another of the same die was listed. Some times, we are so inundated with submissions, that things like this happen. We try, but invariably, we will mess up some time.

As far as this particular coin goes, if you have multiple die states of the same coin, it always helps to submit them all. Sometimes, it can be a determining factor as to what the anomaly actually is.

I will still maintain that by looking at the pics, that this is not an RPM. If that were a separations line on the bottom curve, you would have notches in the serifs with that sort of spread.

[eaxtellcoin]

Hey Ray - My guess from the pics is a very close example of MDD. I think the separation has not slid enough to be easily seen or picked up.
If there is ANY MDD on the devises then you know what it is!

I think I may see a split curve on the lower curve to the south. I don't see split serifs, I would put that one in my Wexler tube and wait to see if it turned up in the "PUNCH". Just my opinion. It shows up well in the first pic, not so well on the second or lower pic.

[ray_parkhurst]

As far as this particular coin goes, if you have multiple die states of the same coin, it always helps to submit them all. Sometimes, it can be a determining factor as to what the anomaly actually is.

I will still maintain that by looking at the pics, that this is not an RPM. If that were a separations line on the bottom curve, you would have notches in the serifs with that sort of spread.

That's a good idea. I actually took the pics before I found the examples of the other die states. This prompts me to do a photo study to show the progression. The coin I took these from is a fairly EDS example.

I realize it's tough to do attributions from photos. Getting the shadows just right to show the details is a big challenge, and without that everything looks flat. It's no wonder so many of the photos I've posted get mis-attributed as MDD, since that's what they look like in the photos if the shadows and angles are not done well. At least that's the case for more minor cases like this one. If it had more separation, it would be easier to attribute.

I'll try to take a couple different angles to see if I can show the lower curve better. The doubling on the upper serif doesn't show well in the first pic and I never detailed it.

[ray_parkhurst]

Ray,
Whenever an attributer makes the determination that a variety is too minor to list, we always end up hurting someone's feelings. Some clubs are just more liberal than others when it comes to accepting minor varieties for inclusion into their files.
I am certainly not making excuses fro that RPM-005, and if in fact that happened, than you need to contact the attributer to find out why your copy was too minor, while another of the same die was listed. Some times, we are so inundated with submissions, that things like this happen. We try, but invariably, we will mess up some time.

No worries about hurt feelings regarding minor varieties. Like most RPM searchers I have hundreds of different minor RPMs I've put aside over the years during my searches. Most of them are obviously quite minor and not worth listing. Others are on the edge between "minor" and "listable", which is where this 1955-S is in my opinion. At the time I sent in RPM-5, I believed it to be well into the listable range, but the minor/listable standard was apparently quite conservative at that time. The dividing line is not fixed, though, and later on that same RPM was considered listable. I did address this with the examiner when I saw RPM-5 listed, and received a "mistakes are made, and standards change" response as expected, and accepted...Ray