A guy (don't remember who it was) posted a short video clip awhile back of him slowly tilting his coin back and forth in the light. It really showed the toning and luster of the coin perfectly. I would learn how to do that if my coins were worthy.
I just received my USB microscope today amazing the detail over 8x eye glass for sure. Bill try that video idea
Been looking closely at the rim. NOW It looks like the actual coin has a flat rim that drops DOWN a bit just before the part next to the field. Yes or trick of the photo?
Nice shot! Nice coin w/streaked alloy also. So far, I'll stick to my opinions until some folks I respect take a look. Some cents up to the early 20's, especially those dated 1909, have wide flat rims that confuse folks into thinking their coins are Matte Proof.
true. I have a few of those and after not finding any of the larkers I concluded them to be just early strikes with fresh dies and nice coins
@Insider, it is strike-doubling. What's cool about it is the doubling on ONE CENT, as you don't usually see it there. Anyways, look at the bottom of the E. Do you see how the top image is much narrower than the bottom image? Look at the top of the T. Do you see how thin that top image is compared to the bottom image? When you see the top images foreshortened like that, that's strike-doubling. If it was on the die, those top images would be fully-intact.
And the obverse as well, seems to have extra details on both sides adding to the coolness and curiousness of the coin.the thin aspect to lettering throughout I know to some is damage, I think it's pretty neat... Especially the coin being in such good condition. The rim caught my eye as well. Thanks for your input...
There is a very simple truth about die/hub doubling and double strikes vs. strike/machine doubling which seems to occasionally get ignored: true doubling of the numismatic-interest type - genuine permanent doubling on either hub or die - always adds to the stroke of the coin, as there is always a "full" strike of the initial feature over top of the first. The same is true of double strikes; the last strike is going to be a full strike, of a complete stroke width in addition to the underlying first strike. Not to mention there should be clear serif splitting, which is not visible here. Machine/strike doubling does not show any of that, and normally fits into the original stroke/dimension of the feature struck. It's as much a "smear" as an extra hit. What we see here - to me - is an extreme example but cannot be anything other than strike/machine doubling. Its' extremity makes this quite an interesting coin to my mind, but MD all the same. The whole point of MD is it's caused by movement of the die during a single strike - it smears the feature as it strikes it. I wonder if the whole shebang wasn't as tightly screwed together as it should be for this one.
Nice explanation... I have reading til my eyes hurt... It kinda fits a couple MD definitions.l have found only one coin similar to this online. But still not both sides. Also, what is your thoughts on the rim? Rather curious also.
"Push"..... could it be that maybe, just maybe, you hit the nail on the head after all, albeit in a rather roundabout way? Hmm.....
This is what I said. Double struck with strike dbl. also. I have no idea how/why one poster starts writing about die/hub doubling as it has nothing to do with this coin! Further, if the first strike is complete (this coin) and the second is made and then very wildly shifted, it may look like this coin with flattened letters and then shifted ltrs. We'll just need to wait to find out when I hear back.