Kennedy 1971-D DDO identification help

[hogleg71]

The strongest splits are on the ends of the "T's" in TRUST, the lower end of the "S" in TRUST, and in "BERTY" getting stronger and stronger closer to the "Y". The dark crud is just adhesive that could easily come off with "conservation." I need help in identifying the attribution. Anyone? Thanks for the help!

[coin-crazy]

Look pretty good to me..

[wavysteps]

Since there are 12 listings for DDOs in the CONECA master files, it would be very hard to pinpoint which one it is without an in hand examination.

BJ Neff

[atrox001]

It seems to me that BJ’s response on this forum when it comes to attributing doubled dies is usually that it needs an “in hand examination”. I think it is time that people make an attempt to use the descriptions in the CONECA listings to attribute doubled dies on there own, or use this forum to get some help using the listings and making their own attributions. It is too easy to just send something to someone else and have them attribute it.

That said...BJ is almost right when he says there are 12 listings for the 50c 71D DDO, actually there are 13 if you count the 71D MDO-001. If you check out the listings in this case, you can easily start to eliminate dies. Notice there are two different Obverse Die Varieties (ODV) for the 71D, ODV-002 (weak R) and ODV-003 (strong R), see attached photos. If you have an ODV-002, that means there are three possible dies, if you have an ODV-003 that shows 10 different possibilities. There is another possibility...you have something just to minor to attribute at all. You can start to eliminate some of the ODV-003’s by checking for doubling on the reverse...it is all about checking the pick up points (PUP) in the descriptions. See if you can attribute you half dollar.

Larry Nienaber

[wavysteps]

My reasoning behind saying an in hand examination is needed is that the pictures provided do not show die markers, which are essential for making the correct diagnostics for that die.

The CONECA master files do not provide pictures to identify the die in question. A word description of the die markers and even the description of the doubling is not the best tool to do an attribution with. Only a full array of pictures of the die and each associated die stage would give you the true story of what that die is.

There is not one variety expert that will make a diagnostic of a doubled die by using just pictures provided by the owner of the coin. So, that leaves an in hand examination or a guess to what the actual die is by the owner of the coin.

BJ Neff

PS - I did say that there were 12 DDOs, which is correct and I did not mention the MDO for the simple reason that it is a master die doubling.

[19Lyds]

My reasoning behind saying an in hand examination is needed is that the pictures provided do not show die markers, which are essential for making the correct diagnostics for that die.

The CONECA master files do not provide pictures to identify the die in question. A word description of the die markers and even the description of the doubling is not the best tool to do an attribution with. Only a full array of pictures of the die and each associated die stage would give you the true story of what that die is.

There is not one variety expert that will make a diagnostic of a doubled die by using just pictures provided by the owner of the coin. So, that leaves an in hand examination or a guess to what the actual die is by the owner of the coin.

BJ Neff

PS - I did say that there were 12 DDOs, which is correct and I did not mention the MDO for the simple reason that it is a master die doubling.

I think both of you are correct in your advise. More so for BJ than Larry though since most folks do not have access to specific ODV definitions. The Variety Vista Page has nothing available for the Kennedy Half Dollar regarding design varieties and it's apparent that the OP doesn't have a clue either in which case, an in hand examination is most definitely required.

Given the limited scope of the photographs and limited doubled as far as devices goes, it's possible the OP has a well circulated yet EDS version of the MDO but with out additional photo's of say "IN GOD" or "L I B E R T Y", it's really impossible to tell.

Besides, if folks really want to know what they've got then they'll not hesitate to get a definite ruling from the experts. I know I do even if I have isolated the die to a specific variety since my word is meaningless in the Real World. I need that documentation from CONECA to prove that it is what it is.

Yes folks should familiarize themselves with the CONECA Listings but as it's been said before, "One picture is worth 10,000 words" and the CONECA Master Listing has a definite void in the picture arena.

[atrox001]

My point is that someone should first start with the descriptions in the CONECA listings when they find a doubled die and are looking for an attribution. I believe that the “experts” on this forum should help them through that process if they need help. When I see someone say it needs an “in hand examination”...I think the individual who has the coin is best to give it the in hand examination first using the listings. It is obvious that some of the photos that are submitted are limited...but how about helping someone get it right instead of saying “it needs and in hand examination” (which is the reply most of the time).

19Lyds (why don’t you ever give your name on your posts so we know who we are responding to)...do you really mean to say that, “I need that documentation from CONECA to prove that it is what it is.” Do you think someone would be able to attribute a 50c 66SMS DDO-017, 50c 66SMS DDO-013 (FS-50-103), 50c 64D DDO-018, or even a 50c 67 DDO-008, using only the CONECA descriptions, with no photos? Do you think sending it to someone for a “in hand examination” is necessary? I know there are some exceptions and everything in the listings can’t be positively identified by description only...but I think most can.

Larry Nienaber

[19Lyds]

My point is that someone should first start with the descriptions in the CONECA listings when they find a doubled die and are looking for an attribution. I believe that the “experts” on this forum should help them through that process if they need help. When I see someone say it needs an “in hand examination”...I think the individual who has the coin is best to give it the in hand examination first using the listings. It is obvious that some of the photos that are submitted are limited...but how about helping someone get it right instead of saying “it needs and in hand examination” (which is the reply most of the time).

19Lyds (why don’t you ever give your name on your posts so we know who we are responding to)...do you really mean to say that, “I need that documentation from CONECA to prove that it is what it is.” Do you think someone would be able to attribute a 50c 66SMS DDO-017, 50c 66SMS DDO-013 (FS-50-103), 50c 64D DDO-018, or even a 50c 67 DDO-008, using only the CONECA descriptions, with no photos? Do you think sending it to someone for a “in hand examination” is necessary? I know there are some exceptions and everything in the listings can’t be positively identified by description only...but I think most can.

Larry Nienaber

First off Larry, those folks that already know how to read the CONECA listings and know what they have, don't usually come on here and ask. They either catalog the find or get it graded then sent in for documented attribution.

Second off, personal misattributions occur on a daily basis but with James or Mike's concurrence, there usually is no dispute. Exactly what do they use for indentification and attribution anyway? The CONECA lisings or the CONECA library of photographs? And really, new listings occur on almost a daily basis so whose to say that some new fella hasn't stumbled across a new listing? Besides, concurrance is always better than singular opinion.

You want folks to use the CONECA Listing then just point them in that direction without the diatribe and see where that gets you. There's a good possibility, since these forums are only listed on the CONECA site, that they've already been through the CONECA listings anyway and just cannot make a determination one way or the other.

Varieties and Error's are really a specialized field that some folks simply do not want to get that deeply involved with. As such, they post photo's and ask questions. They want answers so they can either pursue their find or move on to something else. They have no clue as to how these come about and what processes had to have occured to create them. They could not identify CCW from CW doubling much less Distorted Hub Doubling from Jack. Hopefully, just hopefully, good positive encouraging answers from this forum would encourage them to learn more about that which the seek answers to but I can tell you from personal experience that sending someone to the CONECA Listings on the first run through is pretty much a no win situation for newbies as they just don't know what to look for or how to interpret the information provided. Light Spread, Medium Spread, Strong Spread, Extra Thickness are all relative terms that mean little to folks new to Doubled Dies. They just do not know one way or the other.

For experienced variety collectors, I have no doubt that they all go to the listings first and then ask questions such as what you did with your 71-S RPM. There's nothing wrong with that and it's good advice that you've given in that respect but to expect new folks to go there "first" because you think it's time they do that, is just not realistic thinking since most folks just do not operate that way.

To answer your direct questions:

1. Do you really mean to say that, “I need that documentation from CONECA to prove that it is what it is.” YES. Especially since a bulk of the varieties that are out there do not recognize CONECA attributions. Only CPG attributions and as such, coins would get labeled as minor this or minor that. Yes, I try to get my important "finds" graded and no ANACS attributions may or may not be corrrect.

2. Do you think someone would be able to attribute a 50c 66SMS DDO-017, 50c 66SMS DDO-013 (FS-50-103), 50c 64D DDO-018, or even a 50c 67 DDO-008, using only the CONECA descriptions, with no photos? - NO.

3. Do you think sending it to someone for a “in hand examination” is necessary? - Yes. Especially if the submitter is NOT sure.

Lee Lydston