2000-D & 2000-P DDO (INVERTED EAR)???

[Novicetoerr]

Hello ALL!
Back again from sickness and broken camera replacement...

- This maybe an old topic. And I'm not imagining things.
See my two 2000-P and 2000-D coins with unusual doublings of
inverted ears???

- Saw a Previous Thread on 2000 Lincoln Cent Clashed Dies.
Unsure if this is similar or related (or am I seeing things accurately?) .

Thanks,
J

[mustbebob]

I think what you are seeing is part of the normal design elements. Some coins have a sharper strike than others and more parts of the design are visible. As far as the 2000 Clash that was discussed earlier, this is not part of that. there is no evidence of a clash on your coins, and even if it were, I do not believe it would be visible in the areas you have highlighted.

[Novicetoerr]

Thanks!

Have looked at 2001 to 2008 cents and they all have similar characteristics
as these 2000 coins. I agree it's part of the design elements. Guess they used similar patterns for easier design reproduction.


J

[Novicetoerr]

Need 2nd opinions ....2000-D & 2000-P DDO (INVERTED EAR)???

Apologize agan for my persistence....

Would like to revisit and request the other experts' (2nd, 3rd, 4th ...nth) opinions -> CAN THERE BE A POSSIBILITY of what I have premised on my
2000-D and 2000-P photographed coins (even if I'm wrong on these ones now)?

Would request you look at the symmetries I have highlighted.

Bob,
Would also request your revisit (pardon me again).

Many thanks ALL!
J

[mustbebob]

J,
I was happy to take another look at your pics and what you were highlighting for us. Even after the second look, I do not see anything that would result in what you are seeing. The possibility of an inverted ear that did not obliterate any other design elements in that area is about nil. I did the same thing you did, and looked at coins all the way up to 2008. There is no doubt in my mind that you are seeing the normal design of the hair/beard area. There is no signs of a clash either. Sometimes we tend to see more than what is actually there. I think that is what's happening in this case.

[Novicetoerr]

J,
I was happy to take another look at your pics and what you were highlighting for us. Even after the second look, I do not see anything that would result in what you are seeing. The possibility of an inverted ear that did not obliterate any other design elements in that area is about nil. I did the same thing you did, and looked at coins all the way up to 2008. There is no doubt in my mind that you are seeing the normal design of the hair/beard area. There is no signs of a clash either. Sometimes we tend to see more than what is actually there. I think that is what's happening in this case.

Thanks again Bob!

Will respond back as soon as I get the set-up I need for my further verification.

J

[jcuve]

J,

I have been collecting coins along time now and started focusing on DDOs a few years ago, I felt I comfortable understood both phenomena and the evidence necessary to identify them. I was wrong. I made a mistake, nothing terrible, but I felt it was time to re-submerge myself into the manufacturing of dies and how they can be doubled or tripled. I did this by reading everything I could find on the internet as well as purchasing a few books. I also spent a great deal of time examining the DDOs I have under a loupe - I would do this insistently with the aim of acquiring knowledge.

What’s important is to understand the specific process in which a die is made at a US MINT and then discovering the many ways (or classes as they are called) of doubled dies and how each is made and compare them to ones in your collection or presented on various websites. As a visual artist, I have had to teach myself to be analytical about what I am seeing, and with DDOs I do the same - the key has been looking and looking and looking. While I wouldn’t exhibit myself as being an expert on DDOs, I do feel like I can mentally walk myself through the process of coin creation and see what is and isn’t likely to occur.

* I very much urge you to do the same kind of research *

Now, based on what I am starting to understand about DDOs, and hopefully without being crass, I would like to point several areas of illogic to the premise of an inverted ear having been doubled next to a normal ear:

1) If a die was hubbed at least twice and one of those hubbings was rotated 180 degrees, then that would place the ear down toward the edge of Lincoln’s lapel, not anywhere near the normal location of the ear as you describe – for that to happen would mean the first hubbing would have be both rotated 180 degrees and massively off-center – something almost unimaginable.

2) As Bob Piazza addresses, if there were a second inverted ear in the location described, it would have been wiped out during the second hubbing – for any area of doubling to remain, you need it to reside in an area that is in relief to the part of the design that will be hubbed over it.

3) Most importantly, it has been clearly documented that the MINT introduced a new single press method of creating dies several years prior to the coins you have displayed here. While it appears that DDOs are still being created using this new process (something about the hub moving slightly due the extreme pressure) that would all but rule out the creation of a DDO that would need a complete second hubbing.

4) While I suppose it is possible (however unlikely) that somehow, at one magical time at a US MINT, a Lincoln die was created such as you describe, the odds would be so ridiculously low that it could not possibly happen TWICE at two different MINTS in the same year.

Jason

[wavysteps]

Jason - great post and I agree with all you said. However, one particular item.

When talking about single squeeze hubbing, there seems to be two different categories of doubled die ( not classes). One can be called continuous, where the initial displacement of the die to the hub is corrected by hub pressure and the other is non-continuous hubbing. This is a bit different and it involves stopping the hubbing because the displacement of the die to the hub is to great. The die must be repositioned and the hubbing started over again.

The non-continuous hubbings are the ones with large rotations and / or distances seen between the secondary and primary impressions, most often seen on the Lincoln cent, but not in any means specifically happening on just that one denomination (OIV nickels and some of the state quarters also have this category of hubbing).

Just wanted to clear that one item up.

BJ Neff

[jcuve]

BJ

Thanks for clarifying the process in which a DDO can be created by a single squeeze method - I had yet to read anything well articulated to explain it.

Jason

[Novicetoerr]

2000-D & 2000-P DDO (INVERTED EAR)???

I'm referring the same questions referring to the Reverse on the response to my thread I on the General Forum with the subject on 2001 cent.

But here, instead of the replicated Reverse images, now refers to the replicated "EAR" images ("incused" image of the normal raised EAR design).

Thanks,
J



Quote....

Sorry to miss these follow-up msges. Thanks all for trying to clarify.

Pls refer to the previous thread "1995 two Lincolns?" where I also posted
a similar replication of a 1983 cent which were ruled to be gas bubbles.

- I may agree they may not be absolute Lincoln replicates. They, however,
can not be gas bubbles. Bubbles do not produce patterns.

- Further... is there a possibility (even the slightest of it):
...They can be repeated replication of images (certain portions of the central
design (i.e., LCM bldg and its INS & OUT contents with highest/deepest
raised/incused points) that were actually struck by an error die?
...That the replicated images are either, and/or, DDs, MDDs?
...That they are the "incused" images ( but now added as positive raised
images) to the normal central design elements?
...(How the "incused" images got included intto the die will be other separate
premises that can be explored.)

Thanks,
J

...Unquote

[mustbebob]

This is the same reply as the other thread you refer to. This is applicable to both of them as well.
=BOB=

J,
It seems as though we have answered these same questions (or questions like it) before. On each occasion, you are seeing things that simply aren't there. Your vivid imagination makes you see what you think is there. In all honesty, you must ask yourself if it is possible that type of anomaly can occur.
I would figure by now that you must have read up on the hubbing and striking process. Have you done that? I would have assumed that the same answer, time after time, would lead you to believe that maybe you are seeing things. It seems to me that you are searching for someone to say that something is possible (no matter how obscure it might be) so that you may use that as an answer for everything.
I think there comes a time when you must really listen to the folks out there who are trying to guide you in the right direction. Based on the answers you are provided, why continually revisit the same thread. We have told you that there aren't any extra Lincoln's or extra inverted ears, or trails, and yet you keep coming back to the same issues. Please take a step back and re-read your threads, and at least give the folks who have responded the benefit of the doubt once in a while. When I re-read the threads and replies, I realized there are over one hundred years of expertise in those who answered you. Many of these folks simply have ceased to reply because of the very things I have talked about here. You say you understand, but you do not.
As I have stated before, should you show something that is a genuine error/variety, we will be more than happy to congratulate you and verify your findings if possible. Believe me when I say (like others before me have said), when you find it....you will know. It won't take CSI to figure it out.
__________________

[diamond]

I must echo Bob's sentiments. Novicetoerr, you have bombarded us with your hallucinations for longer than I care to remember. We've been very patient but I, for one, will no longer answer your inquiries. They are a waste of my time. From this point on you can interpret my silence in the face of any future claim as a rejection of that claim.

[3¢nicker]

this site, i often see is more than willing to help explain the wonders of numismatism to newcomers no matter how easy or simple the question may be. this is the first time i've seen someone who has frustated some people here enough to "give up". to me it almost seems as though you may not really want the help. i've asked a couple of times how i can send some real examples to you and you don't respond. you post up a coin and are told even explained why it isn't so not by just one but multiple people yet you still can't accept the wealth of knowledge trying to inform you. is it possible that you think you can sell any coin on ebay if you through it up on here and try to get anyone to see what you see to "confirm". not being here very long i have seen a couple people jump on here and go on ebay and name drop and say it's a "contraversial coneca coin" to get bids. These groups of coins you say you sell most likely didn't sell as well as you thought am i right? that may be a sign. i may sound a bit abraisive but i am not trying to discourage you from coins, that is if you are truley a new person trying to learn. if you are looking to get rich quick, coins certainly are not the way. i, as well as everyone in here is glad to see more and more people getting into this everyday especially when they have a thirst to learn. try learning instead of deciding that you must know already

[jcuve]

After reading a number of Novicetoerr posts this is what I have noticed -

He makes an assertion about a coin or coins and then posts a collage that supposedly articulates his claim. His statements ramble on and on using disjointed language and perverse logic. The coin collections seem more akin to the one Owen had in “throw mama from the train” as opposed to any tangible error or variety…

He speaks about eBay and selling his treasures…

Overwhelming voices (usually) refute his claim(s) and politely explain why and offer free advice and or help to clear up the confusion. The members of this board have been surprisingly courteous and insightful, yet…

J (Novicetoerr) is almost entirely deaf to all of this.

And the cycle repeats.

As a former professor and someone currently working on a degree in education I can safely say that - while J seems nice and well intentioned - he doesn’t get it – he isn’t going to get it – no matter what anyone says.

Jason

[wavysteps]

Actually. the 1999 obverse trail die is legitimate and I did do the attribution on that coin. The seller, who is not "J", just got carried away by the moment.

BJ Neff