1943 S Over D Blob MM

[gnome]

This variety was originally thought to be an S over D mintmark, however this was debunked sometime ago and is now believed to be a cud on the S variety caused by a diechip, or that's what I've been lead to believe. Is it possible it could be a doubled, no sheriff S mintmark that is the cause,instead of the diechip causing the blob/cud on the mintmark.

[echidna]

This variety was originally thought to be an S over D mintmark, however this was debunked sometime ago and is now believed to be a cud on the S variety caused by a diechip, or that's what I've been lead to believe. Is it possible it could be a doubled, no sheriff S mintmark that is the cause,instead of the diechip causing the blob/cud on the mintmark.

My guess is that there are varieties still out there in the Denver and San Francisco mint coins, that have not been documented.
There are lots of S over D, D over S, repunched mintmarks, inverted mintmarks, horizontal mintmarks etc in the US series, so wouldnt be surprized to see the same sort of things with Aussie silver.
 I guess with the S over D mintmark a super high res pic would be needed to work out exactly whats going on..

[gnome]

Been trying to get a good shot of the mintmark, but the quality is nowhere near what I like.

[nealeffendi]

This variety was originally thought to be an S over D mintmark, however this was debunked sometime ago and is now believed to be a cud on the S variety caused by a diechip, or that's what I've been lead to believe. Is it possible it could be a doubled, no sheriff S mintmark that is the cause,instead of the diechip causing the blob/cud on the mintmark.

My guess is that there are varieties still out there in the Denver and San Francisco mint coins, that have not been documented.
There are lots of S over D, D over S, repunched mintmarks, inverted mintmarks, horizontal mintmarks etc in the US series, so wouldnt be surprized to see the same sort of things with Aussie silver.
 I guess with the S over D mintmark a super high res pic would be needed to work out exactly whats going on..

I'm wondering exactly how the S over D theory was debunked. Did the debunker have access to the complete records of the S and D mints to prove that it wasn't overdated? AFAIK the only certain way to debunk the S/D theory is to find coins from the same die but at an earlier strike before the die chipped. The debunker is probably correct and probably did a reasonable job of research, but mint records often omit admitting to foul ups as workers on the floor don't want management to know they screwed up and management often don't want to know so they can have plausible deniability to problems.
Plus there was a war on so the staff might have been the B team pulling double shifts, making mistakes and not having the time to fill in logs.
I do have a number of these tucked away so when I get time I'll have a a squiz at them.

[gnome]

Maybe debunked was the incorrect word to use, but I believe the thinking at the time was that it may have had something to do with Denver Mint not having access to the dies.
 Even in the 3rd edition of the Renniks varieties it is listed as a blob on S mintmark now, and the second edition it mentions in the description, quoting here "Reverse Large blob in front of mintmark S, not and overstrike of mintmark S over D.

[Mister T]

Yeah I vaguely recall reading the debunking too - something about the mints both preparing their own dies and not trading or something? Might have been in the Benchmark Collection write-up or something like that.

[gnome]

I vaguely recall discussions from one of the former forums. The conversation came about just after I bought and showed my first coin, that was advertised  as an S over D variety at the time. Awhile ago now.

[nealeffendi]

UPDATE:yahoo:
Found that I had 5 examples of the S/D. They were from 2 dies so it was theoretically  either a batch of overstrikes  ( S over D) or a point on the die that was prone to failure.
One had a smaller D cud than the other 4 and was otherwise unremarkable.
The other 4 all had a tell tale cud on the 9. Of these 3 had the full "D" cud on the S and they also showed a few minor die cracks. The last shilling however had the 9 cud but was lacking the die cracks and only had a smaller section of the "D". So that proves that it was working die deterioration that produced the "overstrike".

[gnome]

Like the one I had pictured previously above with the 9 cud and diecracks.
 Here's a bigger picture of it.

Still a bit blurry on the S, MM.

[gnome]

Just finished checking my 43 S shillings , S/D's etc, out of 16 , I came up with
1 x No Serif MM S, no cud on 9 and no die cracks visible.
1 x S mm with serif , no cud on 9 and no die cracks visible.
3 x filled S mm's, no cud on 9 and no die cracks visible.
2 x S mm with serif's, cud on 9 and no die cracks visible.
2 x with serif on S no cud on mm, cud on 9 only, no die cracks visible. Obverse has cud on 2nd G in George.
2 x S with serif's and small cuds formed, cud on 9, and die cracks are visible.
3 x S with serif and smaller cuds, cud 9 and die cracks are visible.
2 x S with serif, larger cuds on S, cud on 9 and die cracks are visible.
I x S unidentifable due to damage but has something on mm. (Not included in count)
S mm with Serif

S mm no serif

S mm with what looks to be the start of the cud on the mm.





Obverse with the blob on G in George.

[Unicorn]

Great work G! I like the blob mintmark!

[gnome]

Cheers Uni,

[Mister T]

UPDATE:yahoo:
Found that I had 5 examples of the S/D. They were from 2 dies so it was theoretically  either a batch of overstrikes  ( S over D) or a point on the die that was prone to failure.
One had a smaller D cud than the other 4 and was otherwise unremarkable.
The other 4 all had a tell tale cud on the 9. Of these 3 had the full "D" cud on the S and they also showed a few minor die cracks. The last shilling however had the 9 cud but was lacking the die cracks and only had a smaller section of the "D". So that proves that it was working die deterioration that produced the "overstrike".

Nice detective work.