1987 Lincoln cent DDO with trails; an unusual combination

[wavysteps]

While both anomalies shown on this die, the doubled die on the date and the word TRUST and the trails on the word LIBERTY are not in themselves "show stoppers", they do present a uniqueness that I have not seen before. The doubled die is a minor Class II + VI, which to my knowledge has never been encountered on a single squeeze anomaly, trails. While the most commonly seen doubled die on the single squeeze hubbed die is either a Class IV or VIII (or a combination of the two) can be easily explained, this combination of doubling, coupled with trails does leave some questions how this could happen on the same die during the single squeeze process.

BJ Neff

[foundinrolls]

Just a question as I am not sure how to determine Class II and Class VI on the same coin. How is that determined?

Also, were they doing single squeeze in 1987?

The reason I ask is that I have coins dated 1983, 1984, 1984 D, 1985, 1986, and 1989 that appear to be the same as this, minus the trails on LIBERTY.

Are you saying the trails is what makes the coin unique? Or is it trails + Class II + Class VI ?

I'll try to post some pics today.

Thanks,
Bill

[wavysteps]

To answer your last question first; It is the combination of the two types of doubled dies and the trails that does make this unique. We have seen doubled dies and trails on other dies, however, they are Class IV doubled dies (Offset hub doubling) or Class VIII (tilted hub doubling) or a combination of the two.

In this case, we have what appears to be a Class II, which is distorted hub doubling, that may have been produced with a worn hub that left a thickening of some design elements toward the center of the coin, notable the R and U of TRUST. The Class VI, which is distended hub doubling, gives the same extra thickness to the design elements, however, it leaves the relief of the design element level across the width.

The big question here is "can the single squeeze hubbing produce this type of effect?"

As far as doing single squeeze hubbing in 1987, yes. It may have started as early as 1984!!!!!

BJ Neff

[foundinrolls]

Thanks BJ...Very Interesting!

Just digging a little further. I find references to the single squeeze hubbing presses being first used in 1995 at the Philly Mint when they opened their own die making shop.

Can you tell me if that is correct and if the Mint had dies made prior to that that used single squeeze technology outside of the Mint. I did find that another source states that single squeeze technology was first used in 1986. From a Numismatic News Article in 2005 by Ken Potter..."The single-squeeze hubbing process was introduced to U.S. coinage starting in fiscal year 1986, at which point it was used for master dies, working hubs and pilot testing for production dies. It was introduced to widespread use of production dies starting in 1997 and phased in for other dies over the next year or so with some exceptions."

Also from the same article: "Prior to FY 1986, all working dies were created via the multiple hubbing process, which required anywhere from two to a score or more impressions from a hub into a single die."

I'm still looking for anything prior to that ...It seems it sure could have been used on the 1987 cents. Is there away to link the technology back to 1984 or even 1983?

This is fascinating stuff...

Thanks

Bill

[wavysteps]

Actually, we both (Ken Potter and myself) went back and read the MINT's report for FY86 and it indicates that they were experimenting with the single squeeze hubbing prior to October of 1985.

Interestingly enough, John Wexler has attributed Proof die wavy step from 1984 on a Lincoln cent.

I will be doing an in depth article on this subject for ERRORSCOPE and try and give some indication of when the MINT began releasing coins that were made with the single squeeze method.

BJ Neff

[foundinrolls]

That's GREAT...That gets it back to '84 and perhaps '83.

Now I know what to look for on my 83 DDOs I have some that may fall into this category...more later...then again, they may not:-) I'll have to find them first:-)

Thanks,
Bill