1968 S Proof Roosevelt dime DDO

[Rene D]

Really do not see a match to this ddo dime. Searched Coneca and Wexlers data base and nothing matches up. Is it a double die?

[MintErrors]

In my opinion, there appears to be letters on the coin that appear lower and step like. It looks like a form of machine damage, or worthless doubling.

Proof coins are typically struck more than once so they get that wow factor. Some times the other strikes can be slightly off and it can be enough to notice, especially on higher magnification. Some times the minting presses have something go wrong and that hiccup can cause some issues with coins being struck.


Let me try to get Eric eaxtellcoin to come in here and offer his expert opinion as well.

[Rene D]

Yes, I would appreciate any opinion from anyone. I have to say that looking at these images I posted are slightly different than the pics in my camera. For some reason the frosted letters and date did not show up frosted as in my camera , something is going on when I transfer the pics from my camera. The doubling is just as frosted and imo are not step like by the camera, only after they were transferred. I can try and bring the lighting up and repost.

[Rene D]

A bit closer and brighter. See if this helps

[eaxtellcoin]

Hello Rene D and good morning.
This to me looks like MD as Gary image.pngrelpied earlier.
Notice the doubling is also on the curve of the mintmark lower curve towards the top? The 1968-1973 proofs esp had issues with the proofs and MD.
Sorry,
Eric

[Rene D]

Gary and Eric
Here are some pics of another 1968 S that i thought was a ddo. It appears to be identical except this one is in another direction. Would this coin
also achieve the same response as the previous one at the beginning of this tread?

[MintErrors]

Gary and Eric
Here are some pics of another 1968 S that i thought was a ddo. It appears to be identical except this one is in another direction. Would this coin
also achieve the same response as the previous one at the beginning of this tread?

---

---

Yes, i think it looks very similar. The big thing i look for on the machine damaged coins is the width of the letters. Some to most of the letters have thinner areas. Typically they should have the same thickness all the way around the letter. Some of the letters, one side looks like they are half the thickness of the other side.

The other thing is, a doubled die in most cases will make the devices (numbers, letters, buildings, animals, etc) thicker. Thats because each impression that was done on the working die was offset just a tad.

These additional impressions on the working die are made with the same amount of pressure so they should be at the same height when the working die strikes coins.

The point is, the height of each impression should be close to the same height. If you look at the Lincoln cent doubled dies of 1955, 1958, 1969S and 1972 die 001 and 002, look at the height of the doubling....although the spread on the impressions are extreme, its the height of the impressions which is key for this conversation.

I have one good example handy that shows a doubled die, its so strong, that the doubled die shows those cookie cutter style lines on just about every letter. Thats where each of the impressions overlap. Have a look.

https://minterrors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Placecard-03.jpg

Happy hunting.

[Rene D]

That is one Nice Kennedy and the explanation of the ddo is on point. I do understand it as never before. Thank you for the insight.
Back to the last 5 coin images posted. Hadn't got to the point that I needed to make. If you can bear with me and continue this topic, I will show you something quite interesting by the end of our conversation. Don't mean to take your time but the understanding of this coin if I am right will be as intriguing as it is to me. I will start with a partial image of the date and mint mark on the coin and go on from there. My apologies that I am taking this approach but you will understand as we move forward, as I am trying to understand this coin one step at a time as a whole.
Here is the partial image of the Date and Mintmark. Please lmk if you think that this is also MD or otherwise? and will post the final Images afterwards. Thanks

[MintErrors]

I will assist, no issue. Its almost 0700 here and I need to get over to a neighbors house to assist with roto tilling the yard area for a pool. This project my take most of the day. I will then mark this recent photo up with arrows and try my best to explain what I think it is.

In the mean time, have a quick look at this article if you want.

https://minterrors.org/index.php/what-is-machine-doubling-or-mechanical-damage/

https://minterrors.org/index.php/doubled-dies/

Gotta run.

[MintErrors]

That is one Nice Kennedy and the explanation of the ddo is on point. I do understand it as never before. Thank you for the insight.
Back to the last 5 coin images posted. Hadn't got to the point that I needed to make. If you can bear with me and continue this topic, I will show you something quite interesting by the end of our conversation. Don't mean to take your time but the understanding of this coin if I am right will be as intriguing as it is to me. I will start with a partial image of the date and mint mark on the coin and go on from there. My apologies that I am taking this approach but you will understand as we move forward, as I am trying to understand this coin one step at a time as a whole.
Here is the partial image of the Date and Mintmark. Please lmk if you think that this is also MD or otherwise? and will post the final Images afterwards. Thanks

---

---

Here is the photo with arrows. What I see is a lower flat surface here. If you look where the arrows are, look closely at the highest point of the letter or number and see how thin this looks, especially on the mint mark. To me, this is classic machine damage.

Back in the 1960's they made the working dies first. Later on, if the working dies needed a mint mark, they added them. Doubled dies would be made before the mint mark was added. Then later when the mint mark was added, it was not associated with a doubled die. That means for the mint mark its either a RPM or its machine damage.

On this coin, areas like the "9" looks a little different than the mint mark and the "6". But, it still has machine damage on the coin. Can it be both a DDO and have MD as well? Yes it can.

It also depends if it is a proof coin. Typically proofs are struck more than once to ensure the entire design has transferred to the coin and the details are outstanding and acceptable to the collector.

To me this coin looks slabbed but in the end, it is some times tough to assess a coin through photos. lighting and depth of field have to be presented just right in order to determine if the image looks "flat" or gives that depth of field to see whether a person can determine if the area is actually raised up enough to be considered doubling. IMO, these photos have been great, compare to many I have come across.

The slabs can cause any auto focus cameras or microscopes to focus on the slab and not the field of the coin. I don't know about the newer versions of the semi-cheaper versions of the scopes on Amazon. My AMSCOPE is all manually focused.

Lastly, I will say this with a little hesitation and it may ruffle a few feathers, but so be it. In my opinion, both the CONECA and varietyvista documented examples like to show some sort of modest separation for it to be classified a variety. There are a few other sites out there that may allow listings that might allow a different "strictness" and allow items to be listed where CONECA and varietyvista would not. I tend to stick with the mentioned websites since they are well known and often are associated with FS numbered coins. I am not saying the other websites don't produce bell ringers. They do. But I like the mentioned websites a lot better.



20250520_054956.jpg

[Rene D]

Yes you are correct I did take the photo through a 2x2 as it seemed that the lighting was reduced and also the glare. In this photo the coin has been removed
from the 2x2.
Allow me to best explain what may be true doubling in the Date, and discuss the Designer Initials and Motto after this portion of the Discussion. Will not reference the MD that has been identified at the top and left of the date until at one point will be appropriate. (As it has already been identified as such.)

1.) Date: on the 1 of 1968
Reference point at the bottom of the 1. There is a small protrusion mark at the base of the 1.
True Doubling or Mechanical Doubling. Please collaborate?

2.) Date: on the 9 and 6 of 1968 as they have the same dog tail
Reference point where the serif meets the bottom loop of the 9 and where the serif meets the top loop on the 6. I will reference this as a dog tail.
This is where things get interesting. That dog tail is what I believe is True doubling and if it is (please confirm). The MD that has been previously identified at the top and left of the entire date could be True Doubling and this is my assessment. (The chances that I may be wrong are great)
This Dog tail on both the 6 and 9 if it is true doubling lead into what has been previously identified as MD and I believe that it is a part of the dog tail,
which imo if the MD is part of the dog tail then it is part of the true doubling and may not be MD. If we look at the 9 dog tail, it is a little more clear to
look at. LMK if I am wrong. Please collaborate?

3.) Date: on the 8 0f 1968
If the top and the left side of 1, 9, and 6 is as previously identified as MD then the same applies to the 8 at the top, left, and the center of the
loops in this number, but to the Right of the 8 there is what I will refer to as Ghost Doubling and it actually applies to right side of all the digits in the date.
I read somewhere in an article that there is such a thing as Flat Field doubling or something like that, and maybe this applies to the right of all these digits.
Note: This Flat Field Doubling/Ghost Doubling at the right of the 8 is actually also struck on top of the Rim. In fact this part of the 8 that is on top of the Rim
is strong enough to say that it could be True doubling as it is just as strong as the primary digit itself and leads right into the Flat Field/Ghost Doubling
Please collaborate? I will have to post a second image so that it can be seen clearly (bottom right east of the 8 on top of the Rim.) Please collaborate?

Respectfully appreciate you patience, Thank you

[MintErrors]

I understand your logical approach toward this and i will attempt to get to this later today. Yesterday was a busy day, and today will be errands. I am going to take your latest photo and try to create an overlay with it. This might take a little time.



The best website I use for errors and non errors is having ssl (https) issues, but can still be visited. All the machine doubling types are on this site in alphabetical order under "completed entries" section. There are some amazi g folks who have and continue to add to this website.

https://www.error-ref.com/multiple-machine-doubling-in-one-direction/

Https://error-ref.com

I hope to address each of your concerns listed above as best I can later today.
I do not know if Eric eaxtellcoin has any more to add.

[MintErrors]

Yes you are correct I did take the photo through a 2x2 as it seemed that the lighting was reduced and also the glare. In this photo the coin has been removed from the 2x2.
Allow me to best explain what may be true doubling in the Date, and discuss the Designer Initials and Motto after this portion of the Discussion. Will not reference the MD that has been identified at the top and left of the date until at one point will be appropriate. (As it has already been identified as such.)

---

---

Proof coins are subject to multiple strikes in order for the coin to achieve that outstanding look of quality that collectors want with a proof coin.
This coin does have some sort of "flat field doubling" that you described. The article below describes some of what happens to a coin when these planned multiple strikes to a proof coin occur.


I will attempt to describe the design of the working die. Its basically a round piece of a stock cut to size. They eventually take the working die and put it into a press that sinks (incused) the design into the metal rod. Then when this working die is placed into a minting machine the dies come together and squeeze the metal. The design of the coin that is sunk into the working die becomes raised onto the coin.

For this dime, the rest of the area is called the flat field. The first strike of the proof coin is as normal.

Now, if the working die shifts or the coin moves ever so slightly for whatever reason between strikes it may seriously effect the appearance of the coin.

If the coin or working die is not in exactly the same axis/location as it was for the first strike means that some of that flat field area will be lined up over part of the devices (numbers, letters, buildings, animals, ect). Remember - the flat field area is flush with the top of the working die. The design of the coin is sunk into the working die. The second strike occurs and the flat field it will flatten parts of anything that was risen on the coin from the first strike.

Now, additional things to this coin can occur. Like machine doubling damage. This is due to the coin not being entirely flat nor is it lined up as should have been for the second or multiple strikes. That flat field doubling is that "ghost" doubling that you are seeing on the coin.

Below is an article that describes the issue:

https://www.error-ref.com/flat-field-doubling/

[MintErrors]

1.) Date: on the 1 of 1968
Reference point at the bottom of the 1. There is a small protrusion mark at the base of the 1.
True Doubling or Mechanical Doubling. Please collaborate?

That area looks extremely small and its probably related to one of several strikes that these proof coin receives. The post above I tried to explain how the shifting of the coin or working die would make the second strike flatten some of the design. I think that the "protrusion" under the 1 part of the second strike, or strike related. I do not believe it is due to a worn die, since proof working dies have a limited life cycle.

2.) Date: on the 9 and 6 of 1968 as they have the same dog tail
Reference point where the serif meets the bottom loop of the 9 and where the serif meets the top loop on the 6. I will reference this as a dog tail.
This is where things get interesting. That dog tail is what I believe is True doubling and if it is (please confirm). The MD that has been previously identified at the top and left of the entire date could be True Doubling and this is my assessment. (The chances that I may be wrong are great)
This Dog tail on both the 6 and 9 if it is true doubling lead into what has been previously identified as MD and I believe that it is a part of the dog tail,
which imo if the MD is part of the dog tail then it is part of the true doubling and may not be MD. If we look at the 9 dog tail, it is a little more clear to
look at. LMK if I am wrong. Please collaborate?

The dogtail areas you are talking about are located extremely close to where the flat field doubling occurs. I am going to have to show the area with a photo, but the dogtail appears to have been created by the second strike and the flat field doubling. I do not believe its doubled die related.

3.) Date: on the 8 0f 1968
If the top and the left side of 1, 9, and 6 is as previously identified as MD then the same applies to the 8 at the top, left, and the center of the
loops in this number, but to the Right of the 8 there is what I will refer to as Ghost Doubling and it actually applies to right side of all the digits in the date.
I read somewhere in an article that there is such a thing as Flat Field doubling or something like that, and maybe this applies to the right of all these digits.
Note: This Flat Field Doubling/Ghost Doubling at the right of the 8 is actually also struck on top of the Rim. In fact this part of the 8 that is on top of the Rim
is strong enough to say that it could be True doubling as it is just as strong as the primary digit itself and leads right into the Flat Field/Ghost Doubling
Please collaborate? I will have to post a second image so that it can be seen clearly (bottom right east of the 8 on top of the Rim.) Please collaborate?

In my last post above, I gave some clarity on how the flat field doubling occurs and what the experts at error-ref.com give as an explanation. This flat field doubling definitely affected more than one area on this coin. Its predominant on several areas of the coin so far and it may be on other locations as well. I will have to revisit the photo of the "8" and try to determine what it is.

Yes, it looks like the rim was affected by the flat field doubling. It was not by much. This sort of cofirms that the coin was held by the collar when it was being struck multiple times.

It gets complex and also subjective and an educated guess what might have happened to the coin during the minting process. But, in my opinion, its all some sort of worthless doubling.

The best articles with decent explanation on worthless doubling which is also compared to a true doubled die is at

Https://doubleddie.com

Under the worthless doubling area.

If you have any further questions or info to post on this coin, please feel free to do so.

[Rene D]

I do understand these Articles that are being posted as I have read them on more than one occasion and have diligently studied them as they may apply to
some coins that have been in my possession and I do understand that discernment is key when identifying errors and varieties when applicable.
Here are the final images of this coin (Designer Initials, Motto, and Top of head)
Please take a look and see if these images detour the focus away from any other identified focal points of the coin that have already been observed.
Thank You for your help