1994d DOUBLE DIE?

[billscoins]

This coin has doulbing around the lipps and on IN GOD WE TRUST.
Could this be a new variety?? Does anyone know if it is in any of the books or are there others like this, please see photos and advise. Thanks, Bill
(P.S. Thanks Mike for your input on the nickel.)

[wavysteps]

It appears to be machine doubling.

I have deleted the word "damage" since it implies something that occurred outside the MINT. Like Mike Diamond, I believe that it is not damage since it occurred in the MINT, even though it is post strike. As Mike pointed out, it would be next to impossible to replicate this type of anomaly outside the MINT, so I do look upon it as an error.

Whether collectible or not, it is up to the individual and although it is not "my cup of tea", I do find some of them very interesting.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

I don't know if it is machine doubling. The doubling is in opposite directions on the lips and IGWT. It could be die deterioration doubling. The latter tends to show more variability in direction.

I like both forms of doubling, when they are unusually severe. Machine doubling especially.

On the question of what does and does not constitute damage, I regard anything created by coin-to-die or die-to-coin contact an error (with the possible exception of ejection impact doubling). However, coins can get crushed, bent, folded, cut, abraded, and generally mangled well after the strike but inside the mint's machinery. I consider this to be damage.

[billscoins]

1994d quarter doubling?

I don't know if it is machine doubling. The doubling is in opposite directions on the lips and IGWT. It could be die deterioration doubling. The latter tends to show more variability in direction.

Mike,
You are right about the doubling being in opposite directions in the 2 areas. This makes me wonder how the material could form in this fashion. The reverse of the coin is fixed in the bottom die and collar (coin shows no doubling on reverse). I know that the top die may shift relative to the bottom die while the ram moves down( or up) during the strike. This side to side "play" could be caused by the punch (top die or obverse die) slide having to much clearance in the slide or the die posts. if this did occur, the damage to the features of the coin would not be restricked to the 2 small areas shown.

I think the obverse die must have at least one of the forms inccused into its surfuce. My experience with working copper and nickel is that both are very gummy materials that try to stick to die steel. I believe what we may be looking at here is , a case were nickel has fused itself to the surface of the obverse die (die ran without cutting oil) and a mint employee has carefully removed it with a dermel tool or die grinder (Such things do happen in manufacturing on a regular basis). The area of the die steel where the nickel sticks must be ground away and smoothed out. These areas are now below the die surface and their surface has diffused nickel molecules mixed with the die steel (Not good for die life). The resurfaced area will build-up again quicker and the process will be repeated until the die is removed from service. The coins produced will show doubling in the reworked areas. The setup man can repair these areas in the the machine and be back in opperation within an hour, thus, saving days of setup time.

This leaves us with the question, If the doubling above was caused as I beleive, what would it be called? I know this is not what the mint would say happened ,but then, If I was running similiar parts (and this has happenned in my shop), I would not want to tell my customer how ths happenned either.

I value your thoughts on the above and await your reply. Thanks again, Bill

[diamond]

I thought I saw a little bit of incuse doubling. This is an uncommon manifestation of die deterioration doubling. I have several examples much more severe than this on Washington quarters. Why it develops in this fashion is unclear. But die deterioration doubling presents a great diversity of appearances.

[billscoins]

I thought I saw a little bit of incuse doubling. This is an uncommon manifestation of die deterioration doubling. I have several examples much more severe than this on Washington quarters. Why it develops in this fashion is unclear. But die deterioration doubling presents a great diversity of appearances.

Mike, I just found a second coin with the same characteristics in the same roll I found the first. Does that change in anyway how we should catagorize this coin? Thanks, Bill

[diamond]

Same die or different die? In either case, I see no reason to change the diagnosis.

[billscoins]

Same die or different die? In either case, I see no reason to change the diagnosis.

Would this be a new variety? Please see pictures of second coin. Thanks, Bill

[diamond]

That looks more like machine doubling, but I can't be entirely sure. Die deterioration doubling would not be considered a variety because it's in continual flux.

[wavysteps]

One thing to note about die deterioration doubling is that it will give you notching on the serifs at times. This type notching is contrary to true doubled die notching which becomes mushy as the die ages; with die deterioration notching, the strength appears to become stronger with die aging.

BJ Neff

[JamesWiles]

Just so everyone is fully aware, the vast majority of error/variety experts all agree that MDD is damage to the coin. We have a defined end to the minting process that has been in place for well over 25 years. It was thoroughly discussed and decided upon because of this very argument. Anything that occurs to the coin after the downward stroke of the hammer is complete is considered damage. You can argue all you want that it can't be repeated outside the mint, but you can't prove that, nor does it make any difference. MDD is by definition damage and NOT part of the minting process. The question of its collectibility is a non-issue. You are free to collect anything you desire. The question of its premium value is determined by the market place. But until a change in the definition is adopted by a counsel of the experts, it is damage and not an error or a variety, no matter how loud you shout it.

[billscoins]

Thank you James for clearing up how these mint errors are defined. I mean no disrespect for your years of experience in coins.
I do believe that some definitions need refining because the manufacturing process has evolved over the last 25 years. Reverse engineering the manufacturing process of coins is interesting. Everyone likes the recognition of his or her discoveries. The earth was defined as being flat at one time. This caused erroneous evaluations of its features. A model’s definition that throw all coins into a damaged category (which do not have a predefined group), does not recognize the progress in manufacturing that has occurred in the last 25 years.
I hope you realize that I'm just trying to understand the system you have built, and that I'm not trying to remove it and replace it. The Internet is allowing more people to view a vast group of mint errors, which do spark their interest. It might be a good thing for them to know something of your evolving system and to include in your definitions a place for unique coins that the mint has produced in its machinery. These coins should not have the negative connotation of damaged coins.
Thank you again for your input and I hope it will continue. Bill

[wavysteps]

Now we run into a big problem. By the definition that is in place now, all the presidential dollars with milled doubled letters on the edge or variations to the edge lettering and also including the Sacajawea dollar with milled letters on the edge, by definition, are considered damaged coins because this all happened post strike.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

Just so everyone is fully aware, the vast majority of error/variety experts all agree that MDD is damage to the coin. We have a defined end to the minting process that has been in place for well over 25 years. It was thoroughly discussed and decided upon because of this very argument. Anything that occurs to the coin after the downward stroke of the hammer is complete is considered damage. You can argue all you want that it can't be repeated outside the mint, but you can't prove that, nor does it make any difference. MDD is by definition damage and NOT part of the minting process. The question of its collectibility is a non-issue. You are free to collect anything you desire. The question of its premium value is determined by the market place. But until a change in the definition is adopted by a counsel of the experts, it is damage and not an error or a variety, no matter how loud you shout it.

And no matter how loud you shout it on your end, you (and others) can't impose a ridiculous and arbitary endpoint to the minting process that excludes events that produce distinct and widely separated raised design elements on the coin's surface.

[billscoins]

Now we run into a big problem. By the definition that is in place now, all the presidential dollars with milled doubled letters on the edge or variations to the edge lettering and also including the Sacajawea dollar with milled letters on the edge, by definition, are considered damaged coins because this all happened post strike.

BJ Neff

BJ, I find this discussion very familiar.
It’s hard to categories anything without a good definition that will include the majority of items. The definition where a coin is damaged after the strike is a little bit out of date because of the evolution of the manufacturing process over the last 25 years. The coining process today includes compound operations that all occur at the same time. I know this because the dies of 35 years ago operated this way in order to produce the high volumes necessary.
I started collecting 40 years ago by pulling coins from circulation. I loved it and find that I am renewing this interest now. The only coins now available to pull from circulation are mint errors. However the trill of the hunt has been diminished by the lack of material. Not coins, but information presented in a way to feed my interests. Alan Herbert(1974) and Frank Spadone (1970) wrote books on mint errors (not perfect books) but good books for the roll searchers. The listings and descriptions were a good guide for hunting through rolls. CONECA error variety website seemed to be the answer for up to date discoveries, However if most of the new discoveries are called damaged coins, what interest will the new collectors have in them. I hope a new category can be created on the website to post knew discoveries until recognition of the problem has been addressed ,before, new collectors lose interest.

Thanks, Bill