1958-D Jefferson RPM. Help in identifying which one it is please. 0

[GBrad]

Here's a nice RPM on a 1958-D Jefferson I have, maybe a D/D/D?  I've perused the net on all the normal regularly used reference sites and I am inclined to believe that this is a match to Coneca RPM #1 for this series based on Wexler's WRPM-003.  Am I correct in my assumption? If so, any idea of a value? Hard to find one of these that have sold for a reference.  Thanks.

Edited August 7, 2021 by GBrad

[J P M]

Looks close to this http://www.varietyvista.com/05 JN RPMs/1958DRPM001.htm But it has also been kicking around for 63 years

[Woods020]

I am inclined to think this is die deterioration doubling. The RPM-01 would be the only possible match, but this has more of a spread on the vertical bar of the D than the RPM. 
 

if it is the RPM-01 the reason you are having trouble finding sold prices is I don’t think anything but the D over horizontal D (FS-501) is recognized by the big TPGs. It’s just to minor for them. ANACs attributes about anything someone will pay them for so they might. But I don’t think you’ll find a PCGS or NGC attributed RPM-01. 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Woods020

[GBrad]

On 8/7/2021 at 2:51 PM, J P Mashoke said:

Looks close to this http://www.varietyvista.com/05 JN RPMs/1958DRPM001.htm But it has also been kicking around for 63 years

Yes,  I agree that appears to be the same RPM.  Seems that all three major sites have different reference numbers but VV's appears to be the same as Coneca #1 and Wexler's -003.  Thanks.  

[GBrad]

On 8/7/2021 at 2:58 PM, Woods020 said:

I am inclined to think this is die deterioration doubling. The RPM-01 would be the only possible match, but this has more of a spread on the vertical bar of the D than the RPM. 
 

if it is the RPM-01 the reason you are having trouble finding sold prices is I don’t think anything but the D over horizontal D (FS-501) is recognized by the big TPGs. It’s just to minor for them. ANACs attributes about anything someone will pay them for so they might. But I don’t think you’ll find a PCGS or NGC attributed RPM-01. 

Definitely don't think its DDD.  Looks too close to the referenced numbers on Wexler's and VV quoted above.  I know it's not the biggie FS-101 but I'm pretty convinced it is an RPM.  Very minor flow lines are there but I don't see this die being deteriorated to the point to cause that type of doubling.  Just my 2 cents. Thanks!

[Woods020]

On 8/7/2021 at 2:04 PM, GBrad said:

Definitely don't think its DDD.  Looks too close to the referenced numbers on Wexler's and VV quoted above.  I know it's not the biggie FS-101 but I'm pretty convinced it is an RPM.  Very minor flow lines are there but I don't see this die being deteriorated to the point to cause that type of doubling.  Just my 2 cents. Thanks!

Could very well be. It’s close for sure. But it seems to be exaggerated versus the RPM on Variety Vista, albeit they seem to have circulated examples. I’m in the car (passenger not driving 😂) and can look at other references later. Someone may give you a definitive yes/no before then 

[GBrad]

On 8/7/2021 at 3:08 PM, Woods020 said:

Could very well be. It’s close for sure. But it seems to be exaggerated versus the RPM on Variety Vista, albeit they seem to have circulated examples. I’m in the car (passenger not driving 😂) and can look at other references later. Someone may give you a definitive yes/no before then 

I’m now in a car and pulled up my post and viewed my pics on my cell phone. I now see and think there’s a big difference in the clarity of the pics on a phone vs. a computer screen. Definitely doesn’t look as defined on my phone IMHO. 

[Coinbuf]

What you have looks as much like strike doubling as it does the RPM on VV, but if it is an RPM then I would agree that RPM-001 is the best match.   However the VV photos are only of a late die state and yours looks to be more of a worn mid or late/early die state.   That may account for why the photos do not align completely.   As to price; as NGC (and I assume PCGS) only attributes the D over inverted D variety for this date/mm this coin would only appeal to a hard core Jefferson or variety collector.   My assumption is that there are very few buyers for such a variety and it might/would take you some time to find a buyer for a slabbed example, and that the sale price would be low.   If you are able to promote this so that the TPG's do recognize and add it to registry sets then you would have a much larger more motivated pool of buyers for this variety.

[GBrad]

On 8/7/2021 at 4:46 PM, Coinbuf said:

If you are able to promote this so that the TPG's do recognize and add it to registry sets then you would have a much larger more motivated pool of buyers for this variety.

Thanks Coinbuf for this info.  I'm in total agreement with you regarding the die state.  VV's RPM-001 is a late example and mine does appear to be a bit earlier die state but still a match.  Wexler's WRPM-003 D/D/D looks to be a match as well.  I'm supplying a pic of WRPM-003 below, with all rights to Wexler's I should add, since there was not any mention of NOT being able to share this particular photo as is said with other photos on that site for copyright issues.  If I'm incorrect I will remove it immediately!  I've looked at it in hand and I'm certain it is VV's RPM-001 or Wexler's designation as well.  Just has too much nice definition IMHO to be a product of Strike Doubling especially since there isn't any other useless forms of doubling I can find elsewhere on this Nickel.  As far as promoting this to a TPG........ that is way outside my knowledge or pay grade.  It definitely would be nice to have done though for a D/D/D which there are none that are realized or recognized by TPG's for this year as of yet (except FS-101 which is obviously a D/D and I know it's the grandfather of the 58' D RPM).  Thanks!

Edited August 8, 2021 by GBrad

[Woods020]

I still don’t see a match. There seem to be noticeable differences. Die state and circ/uncirc may play a role with some of it. In your coin (top) the suspected underlying D is fairly straight relative to the mint mark. Wexler’s WRPM-003 (bottom) is much more tilted. Also your coin has some protrusions that the Wexler example doesn’t and vice versa.

 

 

Yours also seems to have noticeable differences from the Variety Vista RPM-01. Your coin (Top) has much more of a shelf and separation than the RPM-01(bottom). The RPM-01 also has a horizontal extension of the underlying are that ends well past the hump in the D, while your coin only has a much smaller extension. 

 

Now I would agree that this looks like strike doubling from the shelf, but the areas on the right side of the MM wouldn’t be there I don’t believe if it was strike doubling (below). That’s why I went with DDD. Could very well be yours is an earlier die state and that accounts for the differences in the VV RPM-01. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Woods020

[GBrad]

On 8/8/2021 at 2:32 PM, Woods020 said:

I still don’t see a match. There seem to be noticeable differences. Die state and circ/uncirc may play a role with some of it. In your coin (top) the suspected underlying D is fairly straight relative to the mint mark. Wexler’s WRPM-003 (bottom) is much more tilted. Also your coin has some protrusions that the Wexler example doesn’t and vice versa.

 

 

Yours also seems to have noticeable differences from the Variety Vista RPM-01. Your coin (Top) has much more of a shelf and separation than the RPM-01(bottom). The RPM-01 also has a horizontal extension of the underlying are that ends well past the hump in the D, while your coin only has a much smaller extension. 

 

Now I would agree that this looks like strike doubling from the shelf, but the areas on the right side of the MM wouldn’t be there I don’t believe if it was strike doubling (below). That’s why I went with DDD. Could very well be yours is an earlier die state and that accounts for the differences in the VV RPM-01. 

Thank you very much Woods for your in-depth analysis on this, truly appreciated. I can only attribute this to a few things such as that it’s an earlier die state example and/or possibly less circulation wear as compared to the only other two examples found online. The Wexler’s example pic has a lot of shadow on the bottom of the D which makes it hard to see any resemblance in that respective area of the MM. The VV example, albeit a much later die state, to me looks right on the mark for this one with the same features. The features of my coin at the 12, 4, 7 and 9 o’clock positions are spot on IMO with VV. Especially the small protrusion at the 4 o’clock position. 
Unfortunately, there are not any markers notated or mentioned for this one on any of the websites. 
With that said, it’s definitely not worth a major premium but nevertheless I still wholeheartedly believe it is the assigned RPM we have been discussing.
Once again, thank you for taking the time you did to do the comparison here. This is the reason I really enjoy this forum because of those members who go out of their way to look into valid questions and concerns about coins whether they are grumpy, plethoras of knowledge, or exemplary vernacular knowledgeable experts or not😁!!!!!