2018-P pictuerd rocks DDO-001

I'll add one last thing to the thread any classification other than class 9 for single squeeze hubbing has been caused from starting the hubbing process and then stopping and then starting it again the mint has already admitted this

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think the coppercoins listing has the correct classification. Class 9.

 

How class 9 is center Dubbing and the outer devices are what is doubled even the doubled ear shield cent isn't considered centralized doubling

 

People talk with their mouth, walk with their feet and act with their money.

If you don’t agree a doubling variety is true, then you:

…say “no way!”,
…walk away,
and
…don’t pay.

…imo…Spark

 

I agree that most of the more obvious doubling occurs at central points for Class 9 doubling, but it's not exclusive. For example, the RTY or the 20xx devices show the more obvious doubling relative to devices closer to the rim. I think that Roly Poly (Type 2) applies here. My speculation: the shape of the rod might be in play here as well. More movement will be seen where the tip of the cone meets the hubbing die.

While the Class 6 definition does not preclude the possibility of a single hubbing, and while the distortion seen on the specimen does not rule out lateral expansion, given the date of the specimen makes me lean away from Class 6 and more towards Class 9. I do find it interesting that Coneca doesn't even associate with Class 9. I never noticed.

 

I know for sure the doubled ear is clsss 8 and that requires being hubbed twice

I think the biggest issue here is we're in such new grounds that it actually takes the experts to go to the mint and become a reporter ask the tough questions

I believe Mike Ellis has done that

 

For what it's worth, I am still undecided about what's completely happening for a Class 9. I suspect that my experience around tool and die guys has something to do with it. I tried talking about it to a few of them...but their not being coin hobbyists, they never really entertained the discussion for very long.

I have noticed that classifications of all classes have been applied to the single squeeze candidates. I started looking into this more a few years ago when wondering about the 2004 P Jefferson DDO...I was noticing things on subsequent years but were never classified (or hadn't been) a doubling candidate. The idea about the conical rods and the 'snap' that folks attested to at the mint got me thinking about experiences in the various stamping houses I've worked with. Equipment slop or loose bits in the setup as possibilities got my wondering.

I'm reasonably satisfied with the various explanations I've read over the years, but I especially like the discussions we've had here at CT over the years: folks have raised good points and from my perspective, caused me to adjust my own personal theory about what's going on. To your point, the folks-turned-reporters going in and questioning the operators about what's going on...lends to some of the insight as well as some of the confusion. I guess I don't need it to be a settled matter...but the longer the debates go...I kind of want to know what's going on.

 

Well let's ask this question the only difference today with the hubbing process is a computer's lining everything up not a human

So the mint wanted everybody to believe that it would be a flawless process now

I do believe that during the hubbing process that machines could get stopped and then restarted which would start the hubbing process all over again

Keep in mind humans can adjust to this computers can't they're set on a straight path we learn to adapt and make things right I would think you would have to reline everything up

I've been a mason most of my life adult life
I can remember years ago they tried to replace us with a machine what a laugh that was

 

I do recall reading about the pause you describe and that in part lends to my wondering about the way material flows as the hubbing process is interrupted. Does a partial imprint become mostly obscured as the process resumes where devices, especially the portion of the rod that makes first contact with the hubbing die (center), is mostly obliterated by the completion of the squeeze? It might explain why the outer devices are mostly intact while the inner devices see a majority of the expansion. That 'snap' described by operators might attribute to the lateral movement in the setup (or be the result of it), even if the computer aided alignment forbids it. Somebody must have done a study we haven't seen especially if there were interest in eliminating some of the root causes...whatever they may be.

 

We would like to think that the first attempt would be obliterated by the second and final squeeze that just isn't the case. Once a high point of the working hub contacts the die surface, it leaves an indent or a recess in the die face, those cannot be erased because the rest of the hubs surfaces are in lower relief.