1985D Cent, doubled south earlobe, tie.

[signofthedimes]

doubled tie going south with the earlobe.

image_34813.jpg

C30AAC44-86EE-4183-A372-509743DAE51C.jpeg BCC0A3EC-E763-4686-90A8-71BE16929C13.jpeg C107F11E-1677-4494-8FB0-277512D50154.jpeg 50292B6D-2DFF-47E8-AA74-37D071BD0FD3.jpeg

12F73118-1792-4D08-A8D3-54671DF5C942.jpeg

[occnumis2021]

another interesting one.

[signofthedimes]

I can’t help but hear the loud difference of tie end doubling. One was hubbed in one direction angle on the end, the other being the other angle direction on the end.

That’s something unique. It has uniform north movement to expose the earlobe, but class 3 design hub doubling.

[signofthedimes]

I know that if tie overlapping did not occur. It would look like one device, but it took two hubbings to make that one device. Not one design carving. If it was one design carving, we’d see two of the same angle ends of the tie.

Its an answer to the oldest class 7 modified hub doubled die argument, why would someone leave an image on a hub, which is not the same one on the other hub and hub it together?

Well, it would look like one design, not two offsetting designs when properly hubbed, not having the north separation. In the end it was used, and we didn’t know, to make the image we’ll be garnering contrast against. The known 1985D tie bottom.

Wherever the tie point end went, where there can be freedom to display a disputed form to the end of a normally used tie point.
***you’d have to know the point would be missing not to need to stick to one normal design.***

That could be a sticking law for the class 7.

And while you knew it was missing, to not need to stick so judiciously to form, another form appeared.