This.... is a doubled die.

Nevermind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

One more time, a double strike is when a coin has been struck twice. The 1955 is not a double strike. In making the dies for the 1955 cents, one or more of the dies was made with a double strike (on the die, not on the coin). Thus you have an error in a die which can make many doubled die coins which will be identical. If a coin is struck twice, each one having this kind of error will be unique. Doubled die coins are scarce, but have markers showing which ones came from which dies. If you look at the cent in the original posting and look at the tops, bottoms or ends of straight line elements you can see notching, showing that the die the coin was struck from was doubled. If the striking machine moves, or the die moves in the machine you will get the flat, shelflike doubling that is called machine doubling. I think I can see it, but I might be fooling myself, but I really can't distrust people who have been doing this successfully for years.

 

Actually NEITHER is a 'double strike'

Nope, but they are doubled dies (abbreviated as DD or in this instance DDO- for obverse.).

Your experiment in the 1950's was one we all did, and kids are probably still doing today, but anyone can tell an inverted second strike from this example.
Go to othere threads or search for double strike

 

No, No and NO!

Please buy a book!
Then read it, there are excellent references out there on errors, varieties, and the good 'ol Red Book.

See the section on books, or ask for suggestions.

Things and klnoweldge have changed since the 1950's, and Frank Spadone was great in his day, but he had many errors in his books, with today's knowledge.

Please: BUY A BOOK!

agreed, I give up.

 

Awesome.

 

OMG, Frank Spadone?!? LoL! Now there is a name I literally haven't seen written or heard in decades and decades.
Actually I do have 1 or 2 recent vintage books. Let me say the 2013 Redbook is of minimal help when it comes to error coins. Yes, sure pics of some extreme examples, but little guidance in identifying errors, or error classifications. Likewise, no value is shown for many, many known error coins, or if they do show a value (as far as pennies go) it is only for MS or PF state pennies. Many, many of the penny coins I handle are G4 - EF, so discussion of unseen MS or PF is of only value to set a 'not more than' price.

Yes, agreed that Page 121 of the 2013 Redbook refers to the 1955 as a 'popular double-DIE' error. To me, this is a new term. I called it what the ad 'do you have this coin in your pocket?' inside the 1960s comic books called it. A 1955 Double Strike.

So okay, I shouldn't use the old term anymore. Point made.

That terminology issue being settled, we return to my point. I am and will probably remain unable to discern (without a much greater than 5x magnification) in worn business class coins the difference in the case of wider letters or filled in mintmarks between a doubled die coin and a coin damaged and worn in use unless it is something really extreme like the 1955 double die coin pictured.

What are the implications from this? A) I am probably not alone. Knowing something exists is of little value if you can't discern it.
B) I am losing money because I handle and pass by wide lettered and filled in mint mark coins by the scores every week. C) If you have one, it may be worth more tomorrow because I will be throwing a few pounds of them into Coinstar today and while some may enter circulation again, some probably won't.

​

 

I agree.

 

I've always liked the "hot lips" because the second hubbing affected the bust's profile, and one of few DDOs that does. The '34-D VAM-4 is another one I know of.

 

Here is a thread about a very nice but little known about DDR buffalo nickel.

http://www.cointalk.com/t188096/

 

Is this a D/S quarter. The year is 1950.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I need another cup of coffee to attend this horse race. Nice Pics Matt. : )

 

The 55 is a double strike, not a variety double die

 

Rick, what are you talking about? The coin referred to by the other user in this thread was a 1955 doubled die...

 

Read thread 26, thats the way I know it as too, its not the same as your aveage die variety, or double die

 

But saying it is a double strike is incorrect terminology. They are 2 differently occurring anomalies, and if it were a double strike, we wouldn't be finding multiples of the same exact coin. It may not be your average die variety in terms of strength, but to say "the 55 is a double strike, not a a variety double die" is wrong and a disregard of the facts and information established by die variety experts for decades.

 

Why couldn't you just create a new thread??? Why did you did up an oldie with this blurry photo?