Last follow-up clarification on this 2004 DDO similar to this 1986 post

[Novicetoerr]

First of, thanks all, for putting up with my persistence. Just a slow learner on this field.

Although, too minor, (if real DD and unreported or unlisted), it just gets me excited to post, thinking I found a new one!

I was also thinking that if the focal subject of the post is assessed to be unreal and/or too minor, but if the other hilited design elements will be real DDs and if more than minor, it can also be interesting to collect (for me at least).

I have attached this similar 2004 LMC which seems to have similar Doubled earlobe attributes as my 1986 post. Have hilited seemingly same design doublings also in the other design elements. Will this still be too minor or unintesresting to collect (though it does interest me if real, since not reported or listed yet).


Respectfully requesting your follow up comments.
NVTE

[diamond]

I see no doubling. As we've advised you over and over again, try focusing on more obvious specimens.

[19Lyds]

I see no doubling. As we've advised you over and over again, try focusing on more obvious specimens.

I'll start:

[wavysteps]

Wow - Let's bring in the 500X, electron microscope and see what we have. Since this is a definite single squeeze die, we may have a bit of slippage, which would account for the infinitesimal doubling observed.

As quoted from the mint "all dies made have a degree of horizontal movement" [and they are talking about the single squeeze process] and this would equate to a highly magnified doubled die.

So once again you have posted a die that has no interest to anyone. When do you give up on this silliness and post something that we can sink our teeth into?

BJ Neff