1961 PR Dime DDO?

[Coindog]

There are only 3 varieties in Variety Vista and 5 in Wexler's Doubled Dies. None of them match what looks to me like a new variety maybe.
By the way, I think I solved my scope lighting issue with external lighting. Doesn't match anything I looked at on file.

[Kloccwork419]

Thats not a Doubled Die, its MD Machine Doubling/Mechanical Doubling

[Coindog]

Thats not a Doubled Die, its MD Machine Doubling/Mechanical Doubling

Thanks, that's what I thought. Actually I'm glad that it's not. I posted it to get a second opinion before I send it out for grading.

[Coindog]

Thats not a Doubled Die, its MD Machine Doubling/Mechanical Doubling

What do you make of these?

[Kloccwork419]

What do you make of them? Have you looked at the link I posted above?

[mustbebob]

These are classic MD Coindog. Are you doing any study at all about the characteristics of doubling? We don't mind helping a bit, but sometimes, you have to help yourself. There are literally thousands of photos on the Internet about hub doubling and other forms of doubling.

[Kloccwork419]

Thats how I been trying to help them. Point them where to figure it out. Seems to work a little. Where I posted about MD above, thats a link to Wexlers pictures comparing MD with a Doubled Die. Thanks Bob

[Coindog]

These are classic MD Coindog. Are you doing any study at all about the characteristics of doubling? We don't mind helping a bit, but sometimes, you have to help yourself. There are literally thousands of photos on the Internet about hub doubling and other forms of doubling.

Yes!!! I study a lot. I have Wexler's book and a few others. As for the last three photos, they are straight off of Variety Vista 1956 Franklin DDR-008, and classified doubling.
Sorry to say, but I'm returning to my previous process of just taking questionable errors to J. Wexler. I'm leaving coneca so I won't be a bother anymore.

[Kloccwork419]

Lol. You must be taking his text out of content. At least try. Theres many sites to learn but just posting picture after picture wanting an answer isnt helping you learn why it is what it is. That IS Machine Doubling. If you look at the rest of that listing you can see where the doubling truly is. It not the MD part of it that you showed. VV takes many pictures of most coins to show markers of different stages. So you can see how not being more specific isnt going to help you. But do what you want, I’m sure Bob will sleep just fine

[mustbebob]

You are free to do as you please Coindog. No one is forcing you to be here. As Jason stated, I will not lose sleep at might should you choose to go elsewhere. I call them as I see them, and if you don't like that, then so be it. The last photos you posted show MD, not the doubled die portion that Dr. Wiles was trying to show. Jason tried to explain that to you.
I will not lie to you and tell you something just to make you feel good. Since you got here, I have noticed many instances of you just plain not doing the research, you will be required to do to progress in the hobby. In other cases, you are misunderstanding what is shown. You want help, then fine. You wanna complain about the services offered, you are free to move on down the road, or prove your point so that we can re-evaluate our response. There are many other members here who deserve our attention, and I can not deviate from my position here and keep coming back to one person who will not help themselves.

[MintErrors]

Some people cannot comprehend what machine doubling is. They want to have fame and fortune at every turn. It's simply NOT the case. I think the odds of finding a DDO or DDR quite low for most coin types now a days. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it's close to 1:1,000 or higher for coins PRIOR to 1990.

That is the issue here. Should they take the time to understand what damage is and what thickness is then lightbulbs might come on. I might have to come up with a post on my website that will help them, and that will be my stereotypical answer when it comes to machine doubling on this forum - go read that future post and ponder, THEN come back and tell us what you think.

Some people cannot grasp normal / equal height DDO's or DDR's so it might be MORE confusing when I mention that there is some other type of lower level "doubled die" is a doubled die because it adds thickness to the letter. One hundred percent of that letter is there, without damage and there was another very slight impression right beside it. As long as there is no damage to the original devices, and it is thicker, it might be considered a candidate for a DDO or DDR.

FIRST, they they SHOULD be looking for items like below, then, ringing the bell and showing things like these photos. It has the cookie cutter style lines, it has notching and it is slightly thicker devices than normal.....It's a Lincoln cent sure, BUT, it IS a doubled die...

Its TWO die impressions of the master hub pressed onto the working die that are SLIGHTLY off in most cases...., then that "doubled die" is added to the minting press and hammers coins.

A coin collector would go broke if they constantly rely on other people to do what THEY should be very capable of doing. The variety and error examples that researchers, experts and authors have created were very precise on what to look for.
There is no "it looks close enough" the coin in hand has to look extremely close to the example on line or in the book.

If there are NO matches for a particular year, there is a VERY high probability that is is NOT a die variety, especially if the coin is older than 1990. LOGIC has to play into attribution. You have to tell yourself - it's probably NOT a variety, accept it, mark it as such and move on.

People should not force an argument or continue to push the "debate" if it is something that they do not want to hear. If they are able to prove a point, then they should do it at the front of the post, not when trying to back pedal and toss more inconclusive evidence that does not change the outcome of what is in their hand.

Tossing additional photos that are not the coin is not good attribution practice - for one, it's not the coin in question and two - in this instance above they are NOT even close to what the OP has in hand. The reference files have a lot wider surface area around the coin, and it is not even at the same magnification - NOR are they on the same letters - there is a reason why those are shown - that's where doubling is seen - not randomly where a person wants to see it so, I don't understand the point there.....If the doubling is so minor that you need above 20x power to see it, then it may be deemed "minor".

I agree with Bob 1,000% - we are not here to make judgement calls that are inaccurate. The majority will praise you when you find something worthy and tell you their opinion on the coin in question.

My sidekick Geoff, is 75 years old. He has nearly 60 years experience with varieties and errors. About 15 more years than I.
He has submitted quite a few coins into the Cherry Pickers guides so they could have the examples to photograph.

He sets up the ANACS submission table and I set up my MintErrors.org tables. Throughout the shows that we both attend, we bounce potential varieties and error coins off each other that collectors and customers bring to us.

One of the motto's we use as people walk away with what is not clearly what they thought it was is - "Crushers of Dreams". It's the truth, we tell them why it is not what they think it is, show them examples if we can find one handy or hand them a reference sheet of info and a business card to get them on the right track. We'd like nothing more than for people to be correct in every one of their attribution calls - but it is on THEM to obtain the knowledge, confidence and coins in order to do so.



STATES.jpg



EPU-x4-1.jpg EPU-x4-2.jpg 15-OF.jpg