General question about this 69D MM

[JRocco]

I know that during some years the mint used different MM styles-- small/large/trumpet tail etc., but it appears that there are different sized MM's used on other, less well known, years. For example: I was looking thru a roll of 69D's and aside from various die state differences, there appear to be different sized MM's used. I will include a pic here that may (or may not) show what I am saying. Is this prevalent, or am I missing something? This pic was framed equally for a proper comparison. Thanks in advance.
http://forums.collectors.com/include/uploadbox/viewfile.cfm?files=69dpan%2Ejpg

[coop]

John: Have you noticed on the 1968-89 half dollars? Compared with other denominations I think these are the tallest mintmarks I have seen. But what makes a mintmark. It is a punch that is used for several coin denominations. The punch is struck into the die to make the mintmark. Sometimes they are punched several times till they feel the mintmark is the right depth. Some years the punch may be changed several times or as in earlier dies the same punch maybe used for several years. Why would they replace a punch? Some get bent in certain areas. Take for example the 1959-D punch. If you look at the lower side of the mintmark you can see the same curve on several different dies. Another year is 1962-D. It is hard not to find a lower serif without the dent on the mintmark. Some don't have it, but several do. So they might have replaced it that year or it got bent out of the shape it was designed to make. I'm sure their are other years that have this also. The numbers of hits determine the depth and the punch may make a wider mintmark if hit in a different position over and over. So why the different sizes on the 1969-D. I've seen some 1987-D cents that the upper half of the mintmark protrudes more than the bottom half. So tilting may also affect the size/direction/depth. Remember this is all had work till 1990, so varyables exist. I don't know for sure, but probably one of the above reasons or all of them. I wasn't there when they made the dies. It would have been a great job though.

[Bob P]

John....The pics of the D mintmark are the same type, but struck differently. I am not aware of any different style D mintmarks for those years. I think coop pretty much said it all (which doesn't leave much for us other folk ) You are correct in that there are several years when different styles and sizes of mintmarks were used. S mints primarily.

[JRocco]

Thanks guys--- And just in case I ever get audited by the IRS, I want you coop - to represent me and explain my predicament in such detail----then they would pardon me for sure
Thanks, once again for your very well thought out response-John

[coppercoins]

Different depths of hand punching the mintmark often accounts for differing appearances of size in the mintmark. This is because the relief of the mintmark is beveled, and when punched shallower appears larger than a normal or deep punching.

Second most common reason is die polishing that takes away the lowest relief of the mintmark. Same reason as above, only removing from underneath rather than it never being there in the first place.

Strike is not commonly a cause of differing mintmark appearances. The mintmark is low enough that even incomplete strikes generally always fill in the mintmark area leaving it unaffected from coin to coin.

[Bob P]