1957 D LWC damage

[Ronald]

I refrained from posting this coin but then thought I would ask opinion before tossing it in the junk bag.
Question is, what, if any part of the minting process could generate this split chin and forehead? The anomalies seem to parallel the actual outline of the chin and forehead.
IMG_3133.jpg IMG_3135.jpg
IMG_3138.jpg

IMG_3128.jpg

[MintErrors]

Machine doubling. Lower and shelf or step like.
Not a ddo since it is not at same height.

[Ronald]

Machine doubling. Lower and shelf or step like.
Not a ddo since it is not at same height.

Thanks Gary, I guess one could assume that with the 1 billion, 51 million D cent coins minted in 1957 and only four different die varieties seen, this coin must have been in a very late die stage to cause this kind of damage. Yes or no? Thanks in advance for continuing to my education on coin errors.

[mustbebob]

this coin must have been in a very late die stage to cause this kind of damage. Yes or no?

No. The die state has nothing to do with machine doubling. They are two separate parts of the minting process, one being the wear on the die due to the continued striking of coins, and the other being the machine used to strike the coins which had a loose component.

[Ronald]

No. The die state has nothing to do with machine doubling. They are two separate parts of the minting process, one being the wear on the die due to the continued striking of coins, and the other being the machine used to strike the coins which had a loose component.

Thanks Bob, I appreciate your input. In my mind I was thinking that the looseness was created from wear on the die at the die seat due to many strikes on that one die, not looseness in the die seat on the machine side or other machine looseness which would allow even a new die to create this type of damage. Thank you

[mustbebob]

That is correct. This can happen at any time during the striking process, and it doesn't happen to the die, but to the coin itself. The loose part is normally the collar in the machine. However, the die itself could also be loose enough to 'bounce' which causes a secondary hit on the devices that makes the flatter image just like your coin shows.

[Ronald]

That is correct. This can happen at any time during the striking process, and it doesn't happen to the die, but to the coin itself. The loose part is normally the collar in the machine. However, the die itself could also be loose enough to 'bounce' which causes a secondary hit on the devices that makes the flatter image just like your coin shows.

Thank you, Bob.

[Ronald]

That is correct. This can happen at any time during the striking process, and it doesn't happen to the die, but to the coin itself. The loose part is normally the collar in the machine. However, the die itself could also be loose enough to 'bounce' which causes a secondary hit on the devices that makes the flatter image just like your coin shows.

Bob, you mentioned on another coin I posted (1957 D) that had very defined MD at the date that you had seen that die several times before.
just in curiosity, have you seen this die before.

[mustbebob]

I can't be sure I have. Remember that some of these may change a bit during the striking process. I do not collect these personally, so I may have seen a similar one, and just threw it back in change. The real strong ones (like yours) are collectible to some people though.

[Ronald]

I can't be sure I have. Remember that some of these may change a bit during the striking process. I do not collect these personally, so I may have seen a similar one, and just threw it back in change. The real strong ones (like yours) are collectible to some people though.

Lol, I didn’t know I had collected these either until I found them in my stash, but with this I have been able to learn error differentiation and causation.
I appreciate all inputs.