Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: 1970-S Lincoln Penny DDO Struck Thru Reverse

  1. Default 1970-S Lincoln Penny DDO Struck Thru Reverse

    I believe this 1970-S Lincoln penny is a doubled die obverse with a struck thru grease (or abraided) reverse. My guess is that it is an FS-01-1970S-102 (030) Obverse and the reverse has a "Floating Roof." Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

  2. Default the reverse

    the reverse

  3. Default

    The reverse of he 1969-D had the same issue. It was called a floating building. That die was also notorious for the no FG as well. I have rolls of the 1969-D floater/no FG. I think it was listed in volume 5 of the Cherry Pickers Guide.

    As for the DDO, it could very well be, but the photos are a tab too blurry or have too much lighting on the devices for me to see the doubling.
    Gary Kozera
    CONECA State Representative for Virginia
    Auction House:

  4. Default

    Thank you for your response. I have several of these coins that came from the same roll. Some of them also have very weak or no FG initials on the reverse. The F is almost non-existent but the G is slightly more noticeable. The date (970) and liberty are showing the strongest doubling especially the LIB with the B being the most noticeable. The Y also shows a thick left upper slant and a noticeably thinner right slant. Although there are some doubling characteristics of the motto, In God We Trust. The GOD shows some doubling (southeast) while the e of WE also shows a bit of split serifs (barely) and the TRUST T's and the U seem to show some slight doubling. I have more than ten Lincolns with the obverse doubling and the "floating roof" reverse with five also without the FG initials. I do have fifteen 1969-D's with No FG initials and six are also "floating roof" types.

    I really do need to get a better camera though. My small Nikon "looks" like the photo is very clear viewing them in the camera, but when I transfer it to my computer the photos seem to loose some clarity. I miss the days of film cameras because I could really get sharp close ups with my 35mm camera, a fish eye lens and a 2X doubler.
    Last edited by Merlin8971; 05-31-2017 at 02:36 PM.

  5. Thumbs up

    I think I can see some of what your referring to in LIBERTY.

    I usually like to add more to the initial post but i have been swamped lately. Today we depart for the NC Money Expo in Raleigh. I have all the reference material, microscopes and other fun things packed away.

    The camera is doing its job, It probably too close a subject is all. I do not know if the camera you have has a "close up" or Macro feature. The icon is typically a flower on most cameras. Lighting too can cause weird issues as the camera tries to adjust for that true focal zone. Photos can be taken under any light, and I typically subdue the lighting with a piece of cloth or whatever is needed to help reduce glare. I experimented with white plastic bags, different material from a sewing/art craft store like Joannes or Walmart. It really depends on how far you want to go with a setup. It doesn't take a ton of money. I am sure you have the creativity to make the photos awesome. =)

    For a light fuzziness all it takes is a slight movement in the camera or setup and the system will show a slight blur. If the camera has a remote port, you can go to amazon or some other place and find a simple remote activation switch. I bought one for my Canon T3i and I think I spent less than 20 bucks on a decent one that will jump the hoops I want it to for astrophotography. If I wanted the basic version, I think it would have cost close to 8 bucks.

    It's up to you if you decide to replace the camera, or go with a middle of the road priced microscope. I will admit up front that the one I currently have has its moments, some times I can have awesome clarity on a slew of pictures and then it gets flaky and its a pain to get a handful of photos done. I use a AMSCOPE trinocular microscope, it costs about 200 bucks. I added a 3 megapixel camera which sits in the 3rd "eye" port and shoots the majority of the shots I need. I can also remove an eye piece and with a collar and another AMSCOPE lens thats attached to a Canon camera, take photographs that way as well. After the trip, I will see if I can locate a few of the photos.

    It really depends on how "technical" and how active in the error collecting hobby a person is, on what the level of "equipment" one wants to use. I had an opportunity to buy many 5000 count lincoln cent bags over the years. A Loupe doesn't cut it for me, I would have been blind looking through the first bag. So I bought the microscope setup and it makes my life a lot easier. The Microscope ran about 200 bucks, the trinocular port camera ran about 80 bucks. I already had a laptop/pc, so it was a cheap investment over time for me. I typically use this setup about 2-3 times a week for 1-2 hours minimum, so it gets its use.

    The setup you use, you have to be comfortable with. It takes some research to find the items you want to use. I suggest backing off a little on some of the shots as the mjority of them are clear, but a tad bit too close. Most of us have editing software to adjust the size and zoom in to see what you see. The clearer the photo the better, and it being back slightly should make the photos better, though slightly less enlarged.
    Gary Kozera
    CONECA State Representative for Virginia
    Auction House:

  6. Default Thank You

    Thank you for you discussion of camera operations. I must admit, I tend to do a closeup and when it is in focus, I move the camera slightly closer to the coin and I think that is where I screw up. The camera also has a habit of going into regular mode from closeup mode and not allowing the closeup "flowers" icon to reappear. Usually I then must turn the camera off and back on again to regain the closeup mode. Sometimes that works, sometimes it does not. I do have a 600X max binocular microscope but I haven't found a lighting setup to accommodate the microscope.

    When doing 35 mm photography, I used a large number of filters and diffusers and the like for the photos and also used the same on the negative projector. I felt like I had a lot more control then. It was more tedious but it gave excellent results.

    I must admit that the 3D program that Stach has, has been something I have wanted but just haven't gotten around to buying it.

    I think in the immediate future I will refrain from trying to get closer than the camera allows for clear sharp photos.

    I do appreciate your detailed description of how you do photos and I will incorporate these ideas into improving my photos. Thanks again.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts