UNUSUAL 2000 LINCOLN CENT: doubled die and trails

[Novicetoerr]

Just FYI...

Reference to BJ's subject thread...

Since this has been corrected as "die clash" instead of a "doubled die- extra beard", published articles (e.g., below web link) on this subject saying it as a doubled die are still out there without note of corrections. This could mislead today's readers and new enthusiasts. Also could make owners/attributors (and organizations they are related to) look erroneous or unskilled on the field.

http://coins.about.com/od/errorcoins...xtra_beard.htm

J

[wavysteps]

J - it is unwise to make such comments about not making corrections without looking into the subject matter first..

The particular thread DID have a correction, so you are definitely wrong in your statement.

Please refrain fron such comments until you first, know what you are talking about and second, throughly research the subject at hand.

BJ Neff

[Novicetoerr]

J - it is unwise to make such comments about not making corrections without looking into the subject matter first..

The particular thread DID have a correction, so you are definitely wrong in your statement.

Please refrain fron such comments until you first, know what you are talking about and second, throughly research the subject at hand.

BJ Neff

BJ,

You may have misunderstood me. What I'm referring to is the web link not posting a correction in reference to your findings, that ---> it is not a doubled die but clashed die. I believe the providers of the photos are with this Team.

J

[Steven]

Disreguard, Changed my mind

Steven

[Novicetoerr]

- I have a very good intent when I posted that comment...to help avoid
potential unpleasant perception of the authors of the web link I'm
referring to.

- I had enjoyed reading that article as it was an exciting error. It was very
informative and autoriative of the DD topic. When I came across BJ's
detailed analysis and otherwise, different conclusion, though surprised,
having known and heard of the article's authors, they are still the
very experts and exprienced authorities on this field.

Just concerned on other people and newcomers' perceptions who may not
know the authors.

J

[russellhome]

Once something is published and released to the world - what is done is done. It is up to the 'owner' of the site or publication to do any modifications, retractions, or corrections. This "Extra Beard" was reported in major coin magazines as a DDO - and there is nothing that can be done to make all those issues go away. A later article was published to report new findings and that is just about all that can be done. This is just the nature of presenting news to the world.



When a new variety fits the mold of existing varieties - it are pretty easy to make the call that they are true Doubled Dies. When something new comes along - the DV pros have to do the best they can to figure out what caused it. This "Extra Beard" variety was listed as a DDO by just about every attributor before new facts came to light. And this is not the only variety to be delisted. Some have been listed for years before something comes along to sway opinions enough to overturn an earlier accepted cause of the anomaly.

In some cases, attributors don't agree on a particular variety. A couple of coins that I found were listed by one or two DV pros and not listed by others. They are all smart and experienced people - they look at the evidence at hand and make the call the way they see it. Yes - there are egos involved - that is part of the hobby too. But IMO - it is ultimately good for the hobby to have different perspectives on the table for new and controversial discoveries.

So there is a certain amount of uncertainty in this hobby - and newcomers are just going to have to learn what this hobby is all about. That is what sites like this are for. I know it took me quite some time to even get the basics down regarding hub doubling vs. other kinds of doubling.