What is this? A attribution exercise for the NEWER people.

[MintErrors]

Hello,

I'd appreciate the Veteran, seasoned collectors to offer hints to this.
Let the newer folk see if they can attribute this coin.

---

I have dug out a new coin. It's a 1963-D Lincoln Cent BU. Look it over and let me know what you think it is.
This is a little harder than what I have shown in the past.

It will be either

An RPM
Or A Doubled Die Obverse
Or worthless doubling like mechanical doubling, strike doubling, machine damage or die deterioration.
OR a combination of any.

Photos to follow. That's all I got.

1963-d-WTH-date-mmX2.jpg

1963-d-WTH-in-X4.jpg


1963-d-WTH-GOD-X4.jpg


1963-d-WTH-WE-X4.jpg

1963-d-WTH-trust-X2.jpg


WTH-1963-d-liberty.jpg

[MintErrors]

Ok, one last photo.

A collage of the date a little bigger.

date-collage.jpg

[ericoins]

Vomit inducing machine doubled turds?

[MintErrors]

A unique answer which ends in a question mark. You do not appear to be confident in your call. I think I appreciate the response but it is a bit brash. This is supposed to a learning experience not a call for unnecessary attention.

[mustbebob]

Vomit inducing machine doubled turds?

Not called for. Even if you think it was just a joke, basic courtesy is a must here. Please refrain from other comments like this one.

[considine]

Hi Mint Errors. Wow you do have head scratchers! I see the DDO with the big bar under the L and seems to resemble 1963D-1DO-005 but the date does not match up. The 1963D-1DO-003 does look kinda like this one but the chip on the 9 is not there maybe a later die state on your coin? I believe the date has MD due to the fact that there is no OMM for that year that I can see and the shelf is reducing the devices. But I really am not sure...there is a notch on the nine and lines on the outside of the 6 and inside of the 9....hard for me to know for sure, for sure!

I forgot to talk about the IGWT. Geez, inside the D & O but not widening devices. WE split serifs but...and that S is funny looking. Doubling? Not sure!

[MintErrors]

Hi Mint Errors. Wow you do have head scratchers! I see the DDO with the big bar under the L and seems to resemble 1963D-1DO-005 but the date does not match up. The 1963D-1DO-003 does look kinda like this one but the chip on the 9 is not there maybe a later die state on your coin? I believe the date has MD due to the fact that there is no OMM for that year that I can see and the shelf is reducing the devices. But I really am not sure...there is a notch on the nine and lines on the outside of the 6 and inside of the 9....hard for me to know for sure, for sure!

I forgot to talk about the IGWT. Geez, inside the D & O but not widening devices. WE split serifs but...and that S is funny looking. Doubling? Not sure!

Well you are taking the time to sort this one out and that is good.
On Variety Vista don't reply on just the initial photo they offer, make sure you click the link offered and look at a few other photos and see if anything looks like what the coin above shows.
That's all I got.

[Bargainbidder62]

Looks like MD and DD but I'm just a beginner.

[DoubleYou]

I suppose we don't have a cross-reference for Wexler? I guarantee he has it listed, based on available information on the VV listing, but it's not pictured on his site, and Coppercoins doesn't have the cross-reference. Guessing it shares the same number by the "Best Of" designation. Sadly, it doesn't appear in my ARLC.

I like the dot above the T of LIBERTY as a die marker, although it isn't mentioned on either the VV or Coppercoins listing, but it appears to show on both listings and the coin above.

[MintErrors]

Well, I am hoping that you all can come up with a good solution before Thursday afternoon. I am headed west to a coin show and where I will be might be extremely busy and the internet may not be the best.

All of the photos I show above are important.

---

Hint #1: If this is listed on variety vista, date photo may be less pronounced that you see in the photos above.

Hint #2: If this is listed on coppercoins.com, it may show a significantly better photo.

For coppercoins, go to the top left and click on the DIE VARIETY SEARCH

In that advanced search window:
fill out the top date (1963)

in the mint area tick Denver

For variety type, tick what you think this variety is (doubled die obverse or whatever)

at the bottom of the form, hit submit search.

For any reason a blank form is returned, either there was an error filling out the form, or no coins are listed.

That's all I got.

[MintErrors]

I suppose we don't have a cross-reference for Wexler? I guarantee he has it listed, based on available information on the VV listing, but it's not pictured on his site, and Coppercoins doesn't have the cross-reference. Guessing it shares the same number by the "Best Of" designation. Sadly, it doesn't appear in my ARLC.

I like the dot above the T of LIBERTY as a die marker, although it isn't mentioned on either the VV or Coppercoins listing, but it appears to show on both listings and the coin above.

I won't commit at this time whether it is machine doubling or a true doubled die. My post above give a few additional subtle hints. I don't know why John W does not have this one listed. I'll have to check his book on Lincoln's tomorrow to see if it is in there.

EDIT: Nope, Volume two of his LC book does not have it either. (that is either a good thing or a bad thing. )

I have more than 30 of these in a holding pattern. I have not taken the time to sit down and see which are of the same die stage yet, and if any markers are constant on each coin.
Soon, I will have plenty of time on my hands to do things like this, and I am soooo looking forward to it.

[MintErrors]

OK, this has gone on long enough. It is a doubled die. The best advice I can offer for this sort of Doubled die is ensure the devices are thicker and not thinner. I wanted to show this one for two reasons. It is a DDO and it is well documented. I feel people a little ore fine tuning of their attribution traits and you will be able to call something like this without issue..

This DDO 002 probably does not show the best photos to attribute on some of the attribution sites. But I offered decent photos, or at least I believe I did. The two take aways should have been the "69" of the date as well as the "L" in LIBERTY. Those were pretty important and I hope people caught on to them.

Look, all of these cannot be too hard nor too easy. People remember the difficult ones.

I am at a coin show this weekend, so no additional in office photography for us,

Please feel free to ask any questions and any of these season veterans can chime in and offer advice.

[DoubleYou]

I fully expect that if we asked Wexler, he would tell us this cross-references to WDDO-002. I believe that because he mentions "Best Of" Variety next to that listing, and the VV listing mentions it was reported by Wexler.

Only difficulty with the photos here is there were no self-described die markers readily visible. I almost glossed over DDO-002 because I didn't see the die scratch above GOD apparent on the stage A image. But I noticed it had disappeared on the stage B image. Coppercoins shows a die scratch above LIBERTY, but that is cropped out of the photo above, if it is present. It also doesn't help that the Coppercoins coin looks like it suffered a hit to the L of LIBERTY.

[mustbebob]

This was a good exercise in persistence. However, there are a couple points I would like to make. As an attributer, we have to deal with the coin we have in hand. As Wendell noted, any damage, or other issues, will be on that coins listing. If a coin has plenty of markers, the attributer will pick out a couple to add to the file. I can't tell you how many times I see threads where people chastise the attributer for not annotating a specific marker. Why would I want to take 30 photos when two photos will identify a specific coin? This is all part of the job. Imagine doing this over 3000 times! You can't please all the people all the time.
I chalk this up to ignorance of what it takes to attribute a coin. What I see and put on an attribution file, James Wiles, John Wexler, or Chuck Daughtrey may not put on theirs. Die states and stages also add and take away markers over the course of the coin's striking. It is fun though, and like I said, this post is a good exercise in persistence. The giveaway on this one is that there are very few (if any) that has doubling that looks like the date on this coin.

[MintErrors]

OK, one thing that people tend to forget about a coin is, that it was struck at an instant in time. Everything associated with that strike is close to unique. We can't make an exact example of those conditions again. It had its own planchet, strike, timing, ejection, and eventual conditions which allowed it to leave the mint. Coins are dependent on one thing. The quality of strike. That amplifies or nullifies the existence of any markers or pups to help others attribute a coin, I know a few who are so good, they can tell which markers came from the master hub. I personally have to sit back and honestly attribute a coin. You look for markers. But let me say, markers are typically see when something has changed over the life of a die. You see a maintenance of a die set. But, what if that machine is running almost flawlessly? These
recipes and almost necessary pups aren't there. Then what ? As an attributer, I never expect different stages to aid my call. I look meticulously at the die that has the variety because that can be tied to the die itself. Opposite dies when changed out makes attributions a bit more difficult,, especially if the variety is still producing coins.

Attributers are asked to document coins, in a period that was frozen in time. The problem here is, what they have in hand can significantly differ with what another is seeing. In my opinion, the attributers who are willing to go that extra mile and set stages to their findings are at the mercy of their findings. They
Have what is available around them for samples. It may not be the widest best answer, but the run seems to suggest a certain pattern. I for one don't see attributers scouring the US in search of other samples to include into their historical database, I do not blame them one bit. We typically known dies life expectancy is so many coins and live with th data provided.

When some one else comes along throws a wrench in what is acceptable will people start to ponder how much effort does the existing attributers DO in order to provide the stages and die markers in order to correctly document each stage and possible pup ? It boils down to samples.i personally don't hold anyone liable for giving this Hobby a chance at succeeding, and volunteering the time an effort it takes to document all of these varieties. I myself, I probably have close to 16,000 rpms and I have spent tens of thousands of hours under the lights taking photographs to document what I see. I consider myself minor when it comes down to the documentation of numismatics but, my goals someday is to change that stance. We have to believe that the path which has been paved for us is good and correct. Anyone that is willing to challenge the proven path better be able to back it up with better documentation. It is easy for people to judge.... it is far more difficult to do something that is in place, better.