New pick up - 1971-S Kennedy Half Dollar DDO-0??

[Tim]

Pick up a Kennedy half dollar on eBay and trying to figure out what number DDO it is or if it would be a new one. The coin is the ODV-002 and the CONECA Master Listing list the Series Doubled Obverse (SDO) only for the ODV-003 for 1971.



Several die scratches running through hair below the R in LIBERTY




No doubling in IN but the G of GOD has a nice split.




Two different angles for photograph of (t)RUST




Coin does not have; short die gouge on trunk of bust west of W of WE (DDO-003), die gouge in hair just to the left of the E in LIBERTY (DDO-004), long thin die scratch southeast though hair (DDO-011), diagonal die scratch south of upper T in LIBERTY (DDO-013), die gouge under east of designer's initials (DDO-014), die gouge dot west of upper O in DOLLAR (DDO-017), and die gouge on trunk of bust North of W in WE (DDO-018).

Any comments would be welcome.
Tim

[atrox001]

Tim... I don't think this die matches anything in the CONECA Master Listings. In my collection I found a die that matches this half dollar, all the doubling in every photo including the die scratches under the R in LIBERTY, that is very unique. I had sent this die to James Wiles for an attribution on 7/9/2011 and received "too minor to list". The question with this one would be is it strong or unique enough to be listed?

71S Die Sratches R.JPG

[RollMeUpAbe]

Kudos to Tim (author) for some great pics.

What guidelines may exist to determine varieties that might be too minor to list. As an amateur collector I see the doubling on this coin to be more significant than some of the eye lid or other similar type doubling varieties. This coin also seems to have similar doubling to some 1964 Kennedy Half dollars that are listed. The 1964 year may have been given more since focus it was the first year for the coin. Just trying to understand how judgments like this are made by the experts who manage the attributions.

[Tim]

Kudos to Tim (author) for some great pics.

What guidelines may exist to determine varieties that might be too minor to list. As an amateur collector I see the doubling on this coin to be more significant than some of the eye lid or other similar type doubling varieties. This coin also seems to have similar doubling to some 1964 Kennedy Half dollars that are listed. The 1964 year may have been given more since focus it was the first year for the coin. Just trying to understand how judgments like this are made by the experts who manage the attributions.

It would be great to see some written guidelines on what makes a double die listable.

[mustbebob]

It would be great to see some written guidelines on what makes a double die listable.

This is the question that can't be answered. I attributed coins for a couple of decades, and it isn't easy to put a 'Too minor to list' label on a lot of coins. You can tell by going through each of the attribution places that the attributer makes that determination. Some clubs allow really minor stuff, while others insist on something that can be seen with a 10X loupe. You are never going to get all of them to agree on a certain standard.

As an attributer, I always wondered if people can actually see the doubling they want me to authenticate, or if it is only wanting to get their names posted somewhere. I guess there is nothing wrong with that, but I just wondered every time I was asked to list something.

You also need to understand that the magnification used is easier to obtain now days. Digital cameras and microscopes allow you to take pics that just scream to be listed. Sometimes, standards are made. When the column bar cents were prevalent on the later memorials, we bypassed hundreds of varieties because the doubling was just too small. At coppercoins.com, we made the determination that the doubled bar had to be at least as long at one of the statue arms to be listed. There are also other subtle determinations that most folks just won't know about.
Imagine trying to attribute any coin series if there are a thousand really minor doubled dies listed. Try to attribute a 1960D Lincoln cent, and you'll know what I am talking about.

It would indeed be great to have written guidelines, but I don't ever see that happening. There are too many variables and there will always be people who feel that their coin deserves a listing, even if the attributer disagrees.

Right now, the chances are good that if your coin is listed as too minor, you might want to try another club. Take a look at what's listed on some places versus others. I don't think it will ever make everyone happy.

[RollMeUpAbe]

Bob, your reference to 1960D Lincolns is a great perspective. I have a pile of uncirculated 1960D cents that I would like to attribute but exhaustion sets in each time I spend an hour on one coin with no success. Even when I am successful the coins never turn out to be worth much more than a shiny new penny.