DDR or MDR guaranteed

[Ronald]

Hello again. I went through 7 rolls of 1950’s wheats today searching for the infamous 1955 DDD. I have to report it is still hiding in an unopened roll. Lol. But I did find this 55 D that of course I can find no attribution/variety for, but thought I’d share the error. Opinions are welcome.

IMG_2858.jpg IMG_2861.jpg IMG_2863.jpg IMG_2869.jpg IMG_2849.jpg IMG_2851.jpg

[MintErrors]

In my opinion, this is all mechanical doubling or strike doubling.
It is worthless damage.
That E shows classic machine doubling.
The E height is half its normal width.
Bring all that area up and it's a normal letter.
None of the letters are thicker. They are normal.

All the letters are damaged due to shelf, strike or machine doubling.

No notching of the letters.
No cookie cutter lines where one impression is over the top of the other.

Add in the fact that none of the Denver coins in the 1950s produced a DDR. That can be looked up at

http://varietyvista.com

[Ronald]

In my opinion, this is all mechanical doubling or strike doubling.
It is worthless damage.
That E shows classic machine doubling.
The E height is half its normal width.
Bring all that area up and it's a normal letter.
None of the letters are thicker. They are normal.

All the letters are damaged due to shelf, strike or machine doubling.

No notching of the letters.
No cookie cutter lines where one impression is over the top of the other.

Add in the fact that none of the Denver coins in the 1950s produced a DDR. That can be looked up at

http://varietyvista.com

Thank you Gary. It is definite that there is more than a 50/50 chance of being MD than being a DD. I am sure that everyone that reads your response will be twice as knowledgeable in understanding having read and seen. Thank you!

[MintErrors]

My logic is simple; if something is seen, and it is not listed after a decade or more, there is a pretty good chance that it is not what the person thinks it is.

Best attribution is your own, simply research the data and make a determination of what you see, since the person has the coin in hand.

New discoveries are found, but at an extremely low percentage.

I cannot give you an accurate level of machine/mechanical doubling to doubled dies, but it is probably safe to say in roll searching the number would be at LEAST 500+ machine/mechanical doubling to one potential doubled die. My gut tells me to add a few zeroes onto the machine/mechanical doubling number, but I wanted to stay conservative.

https://doubleddie.com - John Wexler's site has a wealth of info. The "worthless doubling" area shows some comparisons between a DDO/DDR and worthless doubling.

[Ronald]

I always appreciate resource info, I have never sold, stole or tried to create an error, just want to always have second and third opinions before labeling after finding. Future reference for others. Thanks again.

[Ronald]

My logic is simple; if something is seen, and it is not listed after a decade or more, there is a pretty good chance that it is not what the person thinks it is.

Best attribution is your own, simply research the data and make a determination of what you see, since the person has the coin in hand.

New discoveries are found, but at an extremely low percentage.

I cannot give you an accurate level of machine/mechanical doubling to doubled dies, but it is probably safe to say in roll searching the number would be at LEAST 500+ machine/mechanical doubling to one potential doubled die. My gut tells me to add a few zeroes onto the machine/mechanical doubling number, but I wanted to stay conservative.

https://doubleddie.com - John Wexler's site has a wealth of info. The "worthless doubling" area shows some comparisons between a DDO/DDR and worthless doubling.

AnotherOne I have used for reference is Variety Plus @ the NGC site.