Although this coin has severe environmental damage , I was impressed buy the squareness on the rims and most of the devices. Then the date caught my eye. I am sure that it is machine doubling and the only areas that show any doubling are on the date & the nose.
Definitly a double date. I agree with you. Even though it has enviromental damage it is still in very nice condition. Very nice find.
this type of doubling does not make a coin worth anything extra . I hope no one get's mad at me for saying this but this is just how it is. If you buy one like this off ebay or anywhere else you are just throwing your cash away.
rascal is correct, it looks like MD, mechnical Doubling, Maching Doubling etc.. you can tell by the flat/shelf like doubling it has.
While I agree with you 100%, it is still a neat find. I would love to have a first year coin from a series with doubling like this in my collection. I wouldn't pay much of a premium for it (although I might a little)...because it is interesting.
As mentioned in my initial post this is machine doubling or degraded die , which I know is not worth a premium as it is post mint. What I found interesting about this coin is the square rims and devices in contrast to the messed up date. Additionally , coin collecting, for me, is not all about acquiring investment quality coins. Instead it is about collecting coins that I find interesting , like woodies or worthless Austrian coins with really cool looking reverses. Peace
Machine doubling is not "post mint". This kind of doubling occurs as the hammer die is withdrawing from striking the planchet. I wasn't sure if you understood this or not. Chris
I was under the impression that anything that happens after the initial contact with the planchet is considered post mint , including changes caused while the die is being withdrawn, like lamination peels.
How much time must elapse from strike to withdrawal of the hammer die before it is considered post mint? 1 sec? 1/10th sec? 1/10000 sec? I think you're being too picky. The coin is still in the coining chamber and has yet to be ejected. A lamination defect is not a good example. It can occur as the blanks are being punched from the sheet metal, while in the upsetting mill or even as it is being struck in the coining chamber. Granted, a proof coin might accidentally be damaged by a Mint employee assembling the sets and this would probably be considered post-strike damage, but isn't it still in possession of and within the confines of the Mint? I think it would be so much easier, as a definition, to say that post-Mint damage occurs after the coin has left the control of the Mint. Chris
I would definitely be in favor of the post mint period not starting until it leaves the control of the mint. That would make things so simple.
Ohhhhhhhhhh NICE! and to answer this discussion, In some eyes this may not be worth much, but to some it is :hail: :thumb:VDB 1909:hail:
