1953 D Roosevelt dime 1 1

[R__Rash]

I know not many collect Roosevelt dimes, (some very nice sets in the registry) and I hadn’t planned to but got a Whitman 1946-2022 Album as a gift and actually had a good time completely filling it. I set my goal at what I called about FT or better. With that said the following coin is the 1953 D hole filler. I used a scope to pick the yea or nay coins. The D appeared to be an RPM and while searching I could not find an RPM that matched for 53, but did see a 52 that was close but appeared to be a much more worn coin. I looked into the MM styles for 1952 and 1953 and came to the assumption (we all know how assumptions go) that the MM on this 53 is the 1952 style. Not that it will make any difference when dwelling in a hole in an album but has any one ever heard of the possible pairing of the LDS 1952  D reverse with the 1953 D EDS obverse die? If so, or not, I can put it in the notes in the album. Thanks

Edited August 10 by R__Rash

[powermad5000]

Being the mintmark was still being applied to the dies by hand at this point in time, I would think what you are seeing is either one punch finally wore out and was replaced with a new one, or a punch from a previous year was used on this die. I don't think you are looking at some kind of carryover die used from a previous year into the next year since the date was put into the master die for each successive year but the mintmark was added by hand. As for the reverse die, I would think the Mint used new dies starting each year. You could look closer to the positioning of the mintmark from each year and it will probably be in a little bit of a different placement on each different year since they were applied by hand.

I could be wrong on all this and if I am, I am sure I will be quickly corrected, but I think that is what you happen to be seeing.

Edited August 10 by powermad5000

[Sandon]

    I don't think that there was any change in the size or "style" of the "D" mintmark between 1952 and 1953, unlike, for example between 1932 and 1934. There may have been different punches that differed slightly, and they were obviously punched in different locations and different depths. It is possible that a reverse die used in late 1952 was also used in early 1953, but such reuse is more characteristic of the nineteenth century.

   I'm not sure that your coin exhibits a repunched mintmark. I think I see some strike doubling on the reverse, which can affect the mintmark.

[R__Rash]

On 8/9/2024 at 9:50 PM, powermad5000 said:

Being the mintmark was still being applied to the dies by hand at this point in time, I would think what you are seeing is either one punch finally wore out and was replaced with a new one, or a punch from a previous year was used on this die. I don't think you are looking at some kind of carryover die used from a previous year into the next year since the date was put into the master die for each successive year but the mintmark was added by hand. As for the reverse die, I would think the Mint used new dies starting each year. You could look closer to the positioning of the mintmark from each year and it will probably be in a little bit of a different placement on each different year since they were applied by hand.

I could be wrong on all this and if I am, I am sure I will be quickly corrected, but I think that is what you happen to be seeing.

 

On 8/10/2024 at 11:58 AM, Sandon said:

    I don't think that there was any change in the size or "style" of the "D" mintmark between 1952 and 1953, unlike, for example between 1932 and 1934. There may have been different punches that differed slightly, and they were obviously punched in different locations and different depths. It is possible that a reverse die used in late 1952 was also used in early 1953, but such reuse is more characteristic of the nineteenth century.

   I'm not sure that your coin exhibits a repunched mintmark. I think I see some strike doubling on the reverse, which can affect the mintmark.

Thanks, both,

The information in Variety Vista shows that the (mint mark style) MMS 001 was used from 46 thru 51, in 52 the MMS 002 was used and in 53 thru 62 MMS 003 was used. I know nothing is ever absolute, but thought it interesting that this coin had a possible reverse of 1952, where the only change I am aware of now is the mint mark.  There are pictures that demonstrate the styles but I did not want to use possible proprietary info in my question and could not find usable pictures from the mint elsewhere…but the examples there are what lead me to see the difference. 
 

The RPM off set is seen in the scope and I thought the filled MM was a die chip, the example in variety vista shows the same filled MM for their 1952 example pictured.

Edited August 10 by R__Rash
Grammer