41-S Jeff large vs. small S

[JKK]

I've got three 41-Ss, mid-grades. I've been researching the large/small distinction. Two I can't remember where I got. One I bought as part of a collection and was labeled Large S, but based on the rest of the guy's grading I'm not inclined to assume he knew what he was looking at just on his say-so.

 

All three of my mint marks look much the same, and they look more like the Large S in the Cherrypicker's Guide than the Small S. The base of the S is very thin in the middle, and the bottom serif doesn't have the indent that seems to characterize the Small S in all the research I've done. They definitely look larger than the Small S, proportionately.

 

To think that the three examples I have just happen to be the rare variety is statistically ludicrous. Not impossible, but certainly a conclusion one should distrust, and then distrust again.

 

Here are example pics I found on another board:

 

 

The thin bottom of the S is very characteristic of all three of mine.

 

 

Note the indent clearly showing where the serif begins. None of mine have that--the bottom of each S is straight.

 

Can any wiser heads suggest further criteria that would clarify this?

[James_OldeTowne]

Note the indent clearly showing where the serif begins. None of mine have that--the bottom of each S is straight.

 

Can any wiser heads suggest further criteria that would clarify this?

You could very well have three of the less-common types, since "rare" is relative with regard to these types of minute die differences. It could be that only 5% of the mintage is of the scarcer mintmark style, but if that's 5% of 10,000,000 coins, that would definitely not be "rare".

 

Regarding the appearance of the mintmark on your particular coin, you are likely seeing the effects of die erosion. If a die were to be used long enough, the mintmark will distort and distend, and at some point could simply become an indistinguishable blob. So the lack of indentation doesn't mean you've misattributed the mintmark variety; it's more likely a later die state aberration.

[WoodenJefferson]

I remember in the back of my head (like one of those little ball bearings you need to get into the hole) that there was only about 10 working dies that were hand stamped with the large "S"

 

Hard to say the exact number with the Large S, but 5% of 43.5 million is 2.2 million or 220,000 coins per die. Plausible,

 

Investigate the "inverted" S on this date also.

 

Edit: I do beleive the Large S on this year does not have the characteristic "serifs" they are more rounded in nature which is a dead give away under slight magnification.

[JKK]

It's true, James, it's possible that all three are Large Ss. However, what are the odds? I try to keep wishful thinking from influencing my numismatism, though I'd be quite delighted if this were the case. Makes sense that one of the first bits of detail to be lost would be the serif indent as the dies wore down.

 

Wooden, I read the same thing, though I never learned how many dies the SF mint ultimately used. Although given the difficulty of striking nickel (even the Cu/Ni alloy), as we see in how many Jeffs of the day were weakly struck, I'd think dies wore down fast.

 

I'll look into the inverted S. This is the kind of stuff I bought the coin microscope for.