Kennedy Half Dollar Initials on reverse question

[wdrob]

 

More than likely this has been asked an answered yet after three searches I came up with nothing more than "Did you watch the killing Kennedy movie last night" thread so here is my question.

 

On all the Kennedy Half Dollars I have, both proof and business strike, the initials on the reverse are clearly FG. However, on my 1986-S proof it most clearly says FC.

 

I searched around on different venues and found only one other 1986-S proof that had the same FC.

 

I am not implying that someone could not tell a G from a C but is that not where the dies were polished to the point that the serif disappeared or possibly even that the die was not prepared correctly?

 

The following picture is not as clear as I see it through the loupe but I did what I could. Why would this not be an error or a variety?

 

 

 

 

Thanks

 

 

[yonico]

Someone posted this question Here , but there's only 1 reply to it.

Couldn't find any other info about this variety anywhere

[wdrob]

Hmmm.

 

Ok. Thanks Yonico.

 

I have to wonder just how common it really is. I find that one answer, from that one person, 3 years ago interesting that there was no follow up on what he seemed to just assume. It would seem that if it were such a 'common error' we would find more search entries.

 

Strange.

 

 

 

[jpcienkus]

Clearly "FC" from the pics. Maybe it was a die chip on the detail that caused the G to become a C.

[cpm9ball]

Clearly "FC" from the pics. Maybe it was a die chip on the detail that caused the G to become a C.

 

A die chip would have caused the raised area to expand (or enlarge) rather than disappear. Being that this is a proof, I suspect that the die was overly polished.

 

Chris

[wdrob]

 

Chris, would that make it a mint error or die error or is it just like that one person said on the Coneca Online forum 3 years ago that it is very common?

 

I have searched around a bit and for this to supposedly be 'common' I have not found a common occurrence or at least very little (actually nothing) more than that one reference.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

 

[cpm9ball]

Chris, would that make it a mint error or die error or is it just like that one person said on the Coneca Online forum 3 years ago that it is very common?

 

I have searched around a bit and for this to supposedly be 'common' I have not found a common occurrence or at least very little (actually nothing) more than that one reference.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

 

You're probably finding little discussion about this because there is just not that much interest (or premium) associated with it. Yes, it is more common to have over-polished dies used for circulation strikes, but since this proof coin only has a small part of the "G" missing, I don't think anyone cares.

 

Chris

[wdrob]

You're probably finding little discussion about this because there is just not that much interest (or premium) associated with it. Yes, it is more common to have over-polished dies used for circulation strikes, but since this proof coin only has a small part of the "G" missing, I don't think anyone cares.

 

I agree that unless it is a recognized error or variety there would be little interest or value. I believe that it may be oversimplified by saying that it is just a small part of the 'G' that is missing.

 

I will just have to keep an eye on this thread and maybe some of these "so common" examples, as that poster on coneca had stated, can be posted here. In the meantime I will be searching for other inquiries since it stands to reason that with an abundance of examples in the wild there would surely have to be more than one question posed on this immense internet.

 

If anyone has another example of the 1986-S Proof with the initials 'JC' I hope that you might take the time to post them at least until it reaches the common level, which is supposed to be quickly I would assume.

 

Well no reason for the above. Just after about 5 minutes now I see quite a few that are in similar shape on eBay... Common it is so it would seem.