Hello everyone. Im here again to share with you all my newest discovery. I am just truly amazed, & if i am seeing right, to find out that this 1c 1918 USPI coin doesnt have an “ S” mintmark and to pinpoint the most it does NOT HAVE a mintmark at all!
it weights 4.85 gm approximately as i can see that it corresponds to his condition.
i would be very happy to hear your expertise & concrete comments & opinions on this matter.
herewith are several photos for your ready references and verifications. I decided to filter the colors for much better viewing.
At first I was thinking it may have worn off through circularion but the coin seems fine otherwise. We know for sure that it was only San Franscisco that minted these so perhaps, like the 1922 D Lincoln cent, the mint mark on the die wore off before striking this coin? However this happened it is still a very nice coin!
If you look here on PCGS's examples you'll notice even some of the “mint state” coins have an incredibly thin “S” mark whereas others are more pronounced. Personally, I find it easier to see on “BN” (brown) coins like these: https://www.pcgs.com/valueview/centavos/1918-s-1c-bn/1617?sn=90078&h=pop
Hello My good Sir. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. Your positive comments really matters to me. I hope to gather more opinions and comments hopefully that would render it official and be recognized with appropraite title.
My opinion is that this is yet another absurd assertion of a new discovery from the start with this very heavily circulated example. Do you really believe you suddenly discovered something new from this example that not a person on the planet was aware of for 108 years? Please show us a few examples of well preserved 1918 1 Centavo's where this claim can be verified. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My Very Fine 1918 1 Centavo clearly has a S mintmark. I have a rather extensive Philippine late 19th and early 20th Century collection and this is the first I ever heard of this in my 70 years.
Noone has made any claims. ABBE finds this coin interesting and has asked the community for their thoughts, nowhere did he claim any "new discovery". I provided suggestions, nowhere did I make any claims.
He asked and I expressed my opinions as did you relating to a discovery. A worn coin is not expected to be void of details? Invoking the 1922D as to add validity to this claim was absurd as well. My opinion.
We are all learners. No harm done. May I ask for your opinions on these, to me one looks weaker than the other? I am no expert, just making a suggestion based from what I can see. (photos are from pcgs, link above)
1 each of the large and small S mintmark “variety” for the Philippine 1918 one centavo that the OP was referencing on his other post. Large and small and not weak or bold so to speak. Semantics.
Hello again everyone. I feel sorry if others felt its a unreasonable claim. First, it is the very reason why i surrender my specimen to all the experts in this industry, with request & hope that clarifications maybe shared to me and get a better answer to the subject.
To give you all the benefits to take into your hands the faith of my specimen & inquiry.
I think the reference page in numista should have the image changed to a coin WITH the mint mark? Then in the comments of that side of the coin, it's easier to say, that some coins come without a mint mark, 1901-1907 .
I think the reference page in numista should have the image changed to a coin WITH the mint mark? Then in the comments of that side of the coin, it's easier to say, that some coins come without a mint mark, 1901-1907 .
Good point. The main picture on this page is a 1908 Proof minted in Philadelphia without a mint mark which is already mentioned on the year line comments.
Not sure I agree about changing the photo and adding notes on the year lines as it is clear that the proofs void of the mint marks were only produced specific years and none for this 1918 year line and most other year lines. There is no dedicated referee for the Philippines and as of late I have had very poor results attempting to change anything at all in the Philippine catalog. Adding what I think are better condition examples that I own and the photos rejected for a variety of reason while some submissions not being attended to at all such as simple white out backgrounds, etc. At times I feel I am wasting and spending an inordinate amount of my time with the Philippine catalog. Your choice but good luck with it.
Not sure I agree about changing the photo and adding notes on the year lines
As I said, a note is already on the year line. Nothing to change there. To me it makes sense to avoid confusion to use one of the 1908 S pictures instead.
It couldn't hurt but try to find a photo of one that is at least as good as what is on the page already and acceptable to whoever has to approve it. I have not had much luck lately.
I think the reference page in numista should have the image changed to a coin WITH the mint mark?
I really don't see the point why the current pictures should be replaced? What does it matter if the picture has a mint mark or not or if it's from a date that comes with and without mint mark? The year lines show exactly which dates have a mint mark (and which mint mark), which dates don't have a mint mark and which dates are with and without mint mark. So what does it matter which picture is on the coin page? I find it very important the best possible pictures are on the coin page and that's what we have now. Or do you prefer OP's pictures there?
I think the reference page in numista should have the image changed to a coin WITH the mint mark?
I really don't see the point why the current pictures should be replaced? What does it matter if the picture has a mint mark or not or if it's from a date that comes with and without mint mark? The year lines show exactly which dates have a mint mark (and which mint mark), which dates don't have a mint mark and which dates are with and without mint mark. So what does it matter which picture is on the coin page? I find it very important the best possible pictures are on the coin page and that's what we have now. Or do you prefer OP's pictures there?
Devil's advocate: If somebody would have been foolish enough to have let a PROOF 1908 into circulation?
Hello everyone again. I can see that there was a big and sudden change in the images of the 1c USPI coin 1903-1936 series files. Im not sure if this changes happened and was triggered due to my inquiry, but if not, i truly hope & still wish to continue and wait to hear and know a final and concrete answer to my inquiry If there will be any. as i always said and follow, im leaving the faith of my specimen to all the experts In this community.
Hello again everyone. I simply wanted to share to you my opinion. I am really wondering why i havent got any concrete comments on my 1918 no mintmark coin inquiry ? Too good that Images on the numista files were changed and photos of this coins were displayed too all over google search engines. But not an issue was cleared particulary for this coin for awhile. I can really tell that there is something special about it. The existence showed instant effect somehow. I do honestly can tell that i really find it as an extra ordinary piece so i hurriedly shared it to this industry . Unfortunately im seeing the main subject left aside.
i just wanted to hear an experts verdict .
so ,if i may again, may someone , thru my heartily request, kindly share a bit of your time to come up with a much brighter detailed informations.
could this be a major discovery, another variant? Or just a piece of scrap?
My apology & appreciations to all again. thank you.
Hello again & thank you so much My good Sir for sending a quick response and analysis. however, i still have some confusions if that remarks pertains to my specimen coin because it clearly bears a 1918 date. If i may, i do really appreciate it much if you could elaborate it more clearly. For the benefit of clarifications.
Hello My good Sir. Again my sincere appreciation for replying clearly. It is really much clearer now. I do fully respect your comments on this. Knowing your expertise and wide experience.
i just still hope that others could share their expert analysis too. To gather more and to balance everything in the end. To pinpoint an exact identity.
Accept my thanks & appreciation again My good Sir.
You got your concrete answer on May 21st. Why are we still talking endlessly about a very worn 1918 coin? Another needless and unhelpful C/R accomplished however. Congratulations.
Im sorry my good sir if you felt disturbed. I mean nothing but just trying to gather more informations hopefully from others. maybe needless to you but definitely not for me whatever is the outcome. Results are factors id seek, but knowledge matters the most. ideas & opinions sometimes differs too.
If the majority goes closer to your ideas then i will respect it to the fullest.
Hello My good Sir. Thank you so much again. If that will be my inquiry ‘s faith then like i said, i will heartily respect it to the fullest.
i thank everyone that shared their expertise and knowhow.
hope everyone understand where im coming.
mis- understood me sometime like pushing what i wanted.but its not. I look at you all as teachers and im your student. Seeking and relying on everything.
Where's the dot? Even if this coin was made without a mint mark (and so far the only one of 11 million minted to be discovered) the dot should still be there. I think the dot might still be there but almost completely worn off:
So, the S mint mark, which was most likely a “small” S to begin with, wore off totally before the dot.
P.S. Adding pictures of your coin as an example of a 1918 S “small” S just confuses the situation for other people looking at the coin page.
Lastly, if i may share, I just had this wonderful experience before. The case of my 1964 regular strike kennedy coin i raised believing to have a different variant existence. The “ straight G variant ”. It started and ended all the way almost gathering negative comments and opinions. i did give up actually heartily accepting all the verdict , until a member shared a very considerable piece of evidence that it indeed exist! its a documented records from ANACS showing & recognizing its existence as an official variant.
Somehow it became my rule. thats why i drive my quest to the fullest despite of rejections & hopelessness which i take into full considerations. Of course , with due respect to all that participates and shared their thoughts.
im sharing this to everybody because i believed that sometime things arent just the way we see & know it. Knowledge is a continous process too. wonderfull results or not, what matters is all ended well & clear.
My good Sir rsinian1, im so sorry. I havent thought of that effect . My eagerness drives me to set that sample without waiting for a final judgement. please do the favor of deleting my sample.
i am voluntarily agreeing with you all. or send intructions if i have to do it.
Its done My good Sir. I deleted the example of types sample. Hopefully it will be validated and deleted too. I saud i bypassed a very important clarification and verifications.
again my apology to all causing confusions specially to the public.
