1939S DD0-001?
Collapse
X
-
1939S DD0-001?
Thoughts on the possible match of this coin to 1937S DDO-001 based on the characteristics of the star? The location and shape of the mint mark and the similarity of the "ER" in Liberty look like possible matches with VV? Photos attached and thanks for your help and guidance.Tags: None
-
-
dont know. it looks very minor on V V.
the mm pos is quite diff but could just be a diff rev die.
does ur coin have the gouge in the 9?
based in how minor the ddo is, what makes u think u may have one?Last edited by occnumis2021; 01-11-2025, 06:18 PM.coinfacts.com - conecaonline.info - board.conecaonline.org/forum/numismatic-site-links - briansvarietycoins.com - coppercoins.com - cuds-on-coins.com - doubleddie.com - error-ref.com - franklinlover.yolasite.com - ikegroup.info -lincolncentresource.com - maddieclashes.com - money.org - ngccoin.com/price-guide/world - ngccoin.com/census - ngccoin.com/resources/counterfeit-detection - nnp.wustl.edu - pcgs.com/pop - pcgs.com/coinfacts - pcgs.com/photograde - varietyvista.com - vamworld.com
-
-
In my opinion, these type of doubled dies, I simply ignore. The description says....
Description: Light extra thickness on IN GOD WE TRUST, LIBERTY, star, and date.
The description is very subjective. Let's leave it at that. I would personally accept this if there were just a handful of working dies involved. But there were typically hundreds of the working dies hammering out hundreds of millions of coins. It's difficult to assess what is light thickness.
I tell myself, if I can't convince myself with confidence that a coin is a variety or an error, how in the world would I do it to someone who is curious about it or may seek to purchase it ? That's the motto / mindset I have with varieties and errors. I may have tossed hundreds to thousands of coins over the years that might have qualified for something but that is OK.
I personally won't collect these type nickels and my opinion on this type of.....issue may be a bit tainted. I highly suggest identifying any of the pick up points/markers to aid in the attribution.
I am not knocking the coin down, the assessment or the people who collect them, it's just I do not personally see these as desirable.
Last edited by MintErrors; 01-11-2025, 02:58 PM.Gary Kozera
Website: https://MintErrors.org
Comment
-
-
Thanks for the open responses. If I'm being honest, when it says "light extra thickness" I typically can't see what they are talking about (at my current skill level). Arrows in the photos showing what to focus on would help. Even better would be actual thickness measurements but I realize it takes expensive equipment to provide this type of data (like Shawn Tew's did in his book on the 1909 cent).
In this case I have a large group of 1939 S coins and decided to search them & there are surprisingly few varieties so I'm stuck. What I did notice was a similarity in the star near the date on my specific coin and the corresponding VV photo.. I'm going to let it go and move on. There is 1 RPM I can hunt for
Comment
-
-
In my opinion a less expensive way out is to do photo overlays for each coin. Paint.net for PC is a free and relatively easy to use program. One would take the time to visually compare the "average" thickness of each coin. Then if they look close enough, they may be considered normal and put to the side.
A photograph may be taken from a normal coin of the area where doubling was documented. Then another photo would be taken of the same area on a suspect coin.To match them up an overlay or, side by side comparison could be done.
Having the coins in hand for both the normal and suspect coin makes it a lot easier. One can keep the setup the same along with photo sizes. It makes the process of doing an overlay very easy. There should be no cropping, photo resizing or photo manipulation needed.Gary Kozera
Website: https://MintErrors.org
Comment
-
Comment