• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1951-D 1c FS#1c-021.51 Is It Debunked????

6 posts in this topic

Below is a scan from the CPG of the 1951-D 1c FS-021.51. The author explains that, "A possible D mintmark punch inside the lower curve of the 5." Additionally, the author further states, "Though we will not say this is an RPM, we will say it exhibits what we like to call 'character.' Size and shape very much match that of a second D mintmark punch. Further study may prove it to be a die chip."

 

Recently, I was fortunate to come across a 1951-D Lincoln cent exhibiting a die break/chip located in the near exact same area as the CPG 1951-D 1c FS-021.51.

 

Below is a scan from the CPG page 119 of the FS-021.51:

 

cpgpage.jpg

 

Below are a couple of micro-photos I took of the 1951-D Lincoln cent I came across from an original BU roll. We can easily see the die chip in the lower portion of the digit "5" of the date as well as slanted in the near same way as the FS-021.51. Since this '51-D cent I just came across is most certainly a die chip -- it now confirms, at least for me, that the 1951-D cent assigned as FS-021.51 is NOT an RPM -- but, is also a die chip as well.

 

51d.jpg

 

It appears that the '51-D obverse working die(s) were weak in this particular area, thereby making it more prone to die breaks/chipping.

 

I always wanted to try and solve this particular FS # and I now feel confident this specimen I came across has put this one to rest. At least for my files.

 

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your thoughts?

 

I think you're right smile.gif which makes many RPM collectors unhappy frown.gif I've often wondered why Fivaz & Stanton chose to include some varieties and to exclude others from CPG. There are other examples where attribution of an OVD or RPM are questionable; and, it seems to me, that a better choice would have been to exclude those.

 

Thanks, Billy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that that would be classified as a possible RPM to begin with as the CPG photo really makes it look like a die chip. If that was the best evidence they had for that variety I think they would have been better off leaving it out of the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I've often wondered why Fivaz & Stanton chose to include some varieties and to exclude others from CPG."

 

I too have wondered the same thing. Another one that I would like to see either proven to be genuine or debunked is the 1955-D 1c FS#1c-021.95 (D over Horizontal D?). I get a feeling its also some type of die break/chip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt very sincerely, judging from those photos, that it is from a D mint mark punch. The size just doesn't look appropriate to me. The shaft of the so-called D-punch is much wider than the D on the coin in the proper spot. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting find. The way that the chip is positioned and sort of "lies" on the numeral 5, it looks like it may have initially been the result of a dropped piece of metal - perhaps some other device element. Have a looksie:

 

908332-51d.jpg

 

Hoot

908332-51d.jpg.a32a7498830e122df5dcf78dcb82bcb0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites