1960D LMP D/D Double Date, DDO

[Daverage]

I came across this 1960D penny, that appears to match above topic, while going through my copper pennies. My first question is weather i'm correct and if so is it is a large date over small date or vice versa? The tail of the 9 in the date appears abit notched. I believe it has all the proper markers for the double date, double mint mark and DDO. It shows doubling on the obverse within LIBERTY, IGWT, and on the reverse with UNITED STATES and EPU. Thanks all.

[mustbebob]

This is not a large over small date or vice-versa. It appears to be a large date. The notching you see seems more like circulation damage, but I can not zoom in close enough to be sure. There are many examples on 1960 D cents where there is master die doubling present...especially on small date examples. Unfortunately, master die doubling is very common and includes no premiums.

[Daverage]

It actually lines up with vista varieties 1960D RPM -49 Bob. It has alot of doubling that lines up with Wexlers site. Thanks for the reply but I think this one is actually an error.

[mustbebob]

First of all, you posted that this was a DDO or a large over small date. Your reference of looking like RPM-049 is for a repunched mintmark. If it is RPM-049, then it is definitely not the small/large date as ALL coins struck with that die would be the same, and RPM-049 is not listed as such.

FYI, RPM's. DDOs, DDRs, and Large/Small date coins are considered varieties...not errors. I can guarantee you that yours is not a large/small date variety, but it very well could be RPM-049. I can not zoom in enough on the mintmark to verify that

[Daverage]

Tbh, there should have been a question mark at the end of this topics heading. The date and mint mark is what originally caught my eye on this coin. I'm curious as to why they repunch a mint mark or date if there wasn't an error on the die originally that needed to be cosmetically corrected afterward? Thanks as always Bob.

[mustbebob]

I'm curious as to why they repunch a mint mark or date if there wasn't an error on the die originally that needed to be cosmetically corrected afterward?

The repunching of a mintmark was not supposed to happen. It is a separate step all together and had nothing to do with the original die. The Mint technicians applied the mint mark to the working dies. The hammer blow to set the punch was normally a single punch, but sometimes, if they felt it was not strong/deep enough, they took another hit to the punch. The punch moved a bit between hits, and that's what causes the doubled impressions.

The dates were not punched. They were engraved into the master die.

[Daverage]

Thank you for the explanation Bob. I wish more others would explain things in the manner you do. It can be hard to understand workings, positive or negative, with varieties and errors when most are like Fort Knox with the information. Meaning that they dictate that it just is or isn't but don't explain where the gold went, it's just gone, so others can learn. Thank you for the knowledge in this area Bob.

[jcuve]

Here is RPM-049 and DDO-001 below that. I, like Bob, don't detect either from the photos.

IMG_4623.JPG

1960D-1DO-001-date02.jpg