Comments: CONECA does not recognize this variety as a D/Horizontal D variety. Instead, they list it as a D/D Southwest and Tilted. All of the other cross-referenced attributers recognize it as a D over a Horizontal D. You be the judge.
Comments: Research by John Bordner, Billy G. Crawford, and John A. Wexler has led to the conclusion that this variety is a multiple punched D mint mark rather than a D/S mint mark as previously believed. Not all die variety specialists are in agreement and CONECA still lists the variety as an OMM (D/S). You need to judge and decide for yourself.
This image from Billy G. Crawford shows the key highpoints of what has been thought to be an underlying S mint mark. The marking at the lower left arrow is now believed to be part of an underlying D to the south. The top left arrow and the raised area inside the D are believed to be parts of an underlying horizontal D mint mark. The lower center and lower right arrows are consistent with either the horizontal D or the D to the south as will be seen in the following overlays from Billy G. Crawford.
This overlay from Billy G. Crawford shows a horizontal D overlay. Note how the highpoints of the upper left arrow and the two lower right arrows are a perfect match for what is seen on the supposed S. The lower left arrow also appears to match, but the shape is not right for what is seen at the point without the overlay. The element at the lower left arrow is believed to be part of an additional D punched to the south.
This overlay from Billy G. Crawford attempts to align an S with the key points indicated by arrows on the supposed D/S. Note that the bottom left and bottom right arrows do not coincide with the high points of the S.
Moving the S to coincide with the lower left and lower right arrows moves the S out of alignment with the upper left and lower center arrows.
This overlay from Billy G. Crawford shows how the bottom left arrow in the previous photos (#1 in this photo) matches a D/D South.
Comments: Research by John Bordner, Billy G. Crawford, and John A. Wexler has led to the conclusion that this variety is a repunched D mint mark rather than a D/S mint mark as previously believed. This variety was listed in the original The RPM Book as an RPM and an OMM. At some point later the listing was changed to an OMM (D/S) variety by CONECA. Not all die variety specialists are in agreement and CONECA still lists the variety as an OMM (D/S). You need to judge and decide for yourself.
This image courtesy of Billy G. Crawford shows keys points of the underlying mint mark that some believe to be an S mint mark.
This overlay from Billy G. Crawford shows that the secondary mint mark aligns perfectly with a D/D South.
Comments: To tell the difference between WRPM-008 and WRPM-018, look at the position of the primary D mint mark with respect to the 9 and the 5 in the date. The primary mint mark is much higher and closer to the 9 and 5 on WRPM-008 than it is on WRPM-018.
1956-D 1¢ WRPM-023
Description: D and a totally separated D Northwest is punched into the lower 9 in the date.
Comments: This remarkable RPM variety has at the very least a very nice D/D Northwest. Not all die variety specialists agree that the other extra images are from a mint mark punch. The most interesting of these is an extra punch that is visible in the vest southwest of the date. It conforms perfectly to the upper left part of the D mint mark. A slight bulge protruding from the vest appears to be another punch. If all of the suspected markings are from the mint mark punch, there is a total of 5 impressions from the mint mark punch.