Greetings all! Some 30 years ago, I found a 1960-D large date cent that continues to mystify me. Images are posted below. In an effort to compensate for my poor photography, I have included drawings that highlight some of the relevant features. Captions: A and B are my best efforts at photographing the coin. C provides arrows that point out the important features. D is a drawing I made to emphasize those features. E shows large dates that are offset NE/SW with the points of contact that match those in figure D shown in green and the date areas that do not show on the coin in dark gray. I recently submitted this specimen for evaluation and was told that the markings on the digits of the date were caused by die breaks. However, I do not think this is the answer because many of the markings are grooves rather than raised ridges, as they would have to be with a die break, and the markings exactly match the outlines of a large date impression, which they certainly would not do if die breaks were involved. I thought of strike, or machine, doubling, but as I hope is evident, there are no flattened, shelf-like features in the date. All areas in the digits are of approximately the same height and are rounded. The closest parallels in appearance I have found to this coin are, coincidentally(?), on large over small and small over large date 1960 DDO specimens. My theories are as follows: 1) this is a doubled die with a very weak second (or third) impression that left marks only within the digits, or possibly with some very slight thickening of portions of the 9, 6, and 0. 2) this is a form of strike doubling in which the die actually bounced rather than moving laterally, leaving rounded impressions within the digits rather than the usual flattened "scraped" margins that are much lower than the date itself. Any comments or questions would be appreciated.
Who did you submit the coin to for eval? I think that it is minor die deterioration doubling, as the digits aren't quite right. See Wexler: https://doubleddie.com/144843.html
Thanks for your reply. Could be die deterioration, but I don't think so because the match to offset large date impressions is so perfect and the margins so clean on the whole. I'd prefer not to say who evaluated it, but it was a reputable expert.
I don't see anything that says that the devices are any thicker or wider than normal. Very interesting Lincoln, but I believe that the answer you got was the correct one. A slight die chip or break on a numeral will raise the devices higher, this will leave the impression of a crevice. A die crack is much different than a die break? Is there any other devices that show any doubling? The IGWT, Liberty, etc?
Thanks for your input. I haven't noticed any other doubling on the coin, except for a minor, unrelated RPM. My problem with the die crack (I think he actually said die chips) theory is that it doesn't explain the correspondence of the markings with an offset large date impression. Please note my images D & E above. I don't see how the breaks could line up perfectly with an offset impression that parallels but overlaps the date. It seems to me that die breaks would appear at the center of the digits, on the edges, or in a random pattern - not in a perfectly offset duplication of the date.
P. S. One argument against either die breaks or a doubled die is the apparent uniqueness of this specimen. I've never seen another coin like it, which would support a strike doubling explanation of some sort. That's one reason I posted this - to see if anyone else has found one.
P. P. S. Correction: I forgot that there is slight doubling on Lincoln's portrait - at the bridge of the nose, lips, and neck.
I’ve always known this as ejection doubling. Which I guess is a form of die deterioration doubling. Scroll to the bottom of this link for example. It presents as a raised ridge along the edges of numbers and letters, exactly like yours. http://www.lincolncentsonline.com/mechanicalDoubling.html
Interesting. I wish there were more examples for comparison. I still don't see the rounding on both sides of the margins, however. If you look closely at the top half of the 9 on my coin, you might see what I mean. Also, there is a raggedness in some places on my coin (e. g. the 6 and the 0) which doesn't match the ejection example. I tend to think that my coin shows some sort of machine doubling, like ejection doubling, but there is no flattening or shelf-like "step down" like I think I see on the ejection example and that is normal on most forms of strike doubling. Thanks for the input! That is closer to what I see on my coin.
Possibly, but please note that the markings exactly match an offset large date impression. I don't see how crud or grease could create that effect. Thanks for checking it out!
I’m sticking with what I described above. What you’re seeing is a raised lip of metal above the normal digit, right? That’s not what a DDO looks like. I’ll dig up a similar thing on my 1959 half dollar when I’m back on my laptop.
Thanks! I look forward to seeing the half dollar. There are raised lips of metal as you describe on the zero and the bottom of the six, with somewhat jagged margins. But there are deep grooves on the nine and there is no flattening or gradual depression anywhere, as would be seen in strike doubling or on the example of ejection doubling in the article you mentioned. There is however just a hint of twisting, as if the coin stuck to the die and was twisted off, bending the metal slightly. In overall appearance, the closest parallel I've seen is on the 1960 small over large date DDOs, such as Pr WDDO-002 here (scroll down a bit). The ragged margins on the zero and the lack of flattening are very similar to my coin.
P. S. I should say that I don't really think my coin is a DDO. I have numerous undoubted doubled dies from several classes and none of them are close to my coin. But I just haven't seen any other form of doubling that resembles its features more than the small/large 1960 DDO I mentioned. I think ejection doubling or some other form of MDD is mostly likely the answer, but I have yet to see any example that resembles my coin, with it's distinct grooves and full rounding on both sides. Your input has been greatly appreciated, by the way.
I think I've figured it out, thanks to your remark about a raised lip. I found a higher powered lens and what I think I see is that there is indeed a narrow raised lip that creates the appearance of a groove. Whereas the examples of MDD that I have seen involve the die pushing against the edge of the digits, flattening as it goes, I think the die must have just clipped the tops of the 9, 6, and 0 in this case, creating a very narrow ridge and not disturbing the roundness of the digits on either side. This would indeed be some sort of ejection doubling or strike damage, though of a type I haven't seen before. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction on this. I've learned something new - I think.
I hope I'm allowed to post a link to another forum. https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=253031 and note the response from @coop. His example of a 1960-D is almost identical to yours. His also has it on the 1 though. Note that he lumps it generically into "machine damage", but I think it's a different mechanism causing it. The way I recall seeing it described is that the coin briefly sticks in the die and forced against the die edges as it's being ejected, which raises that lip of metal on the tops of devices. It's curious that it seems mostly associated with the date. Then there's error-ref.com, which has repurposed "ejection doubling" to apply to widely offset features caused by something else! https://www.error-ref.com/ejection-doubling/ Here is that 1959 50c I mentioned previously. From looking at all the stuff in that folder, I went down a rabbit hole with it. There are other examples for 1959, and I found them for 1957 and 1958 too. I think I was particularly focused on the 9, since that raised lip is so similar across multiple years. Perhaps it's only a function of the machinery being used at the time. It does make me ponder though. A working hub and a coin are created in fundamentally the same way. A working hub is "struck" against a master die, which goes on to make many working dies. A working die is struck against a planchet to make coins. So if the working hub is "stuck" and shifted against the master die during hubbing, it could have the same raised lip type thing seen, but then produce working dies that have it too. This is essentially the kind of DDO/DDR attributed as varieties following the mint switching to single press hubbing. When the hub is pressed once into the master die, sometimes it "snaps" into place and shifts slightly, causing doubled features on the working hub. I see it as kind of the same as the worthless machine doubling we so often see on coins, except it's on the die and then there are many coins made with that "machine doubled" feature. (Edited to clarify)
Not sure I would call it in the category of strike doubling, and neither ejection doubling even though it really looks like ejection doubling, The 57 above shows a die crack that spans the top of the whole date. It also shows the die deterioration doubling that caused it. The above coin wasn't the result of hubbing in my opinion It is a deterioration issue. Neat coin, I would love to see it in hand.
I'm convinced. The 1960-D on coincommunity.com is indeed very close to my coin, as are the features on your 1959 half dollar. Thanks for solving a mystery that has perplexed me for decades!
I agree that the equivalent of ejection doubling could happen when the working hub is made, but it seems this would be a much more common phenomena if that was the case. One thing I've realized is that "worthless doubling" isn't. It is often interesting and spectacular examples are quite rare (except for San Francisco cents of the late 60s-early 70s) and therefore I have always considered these coins worth collecting. It's probably wise to call them worthless so the ebay sharks don't pass them off as valuable, but value is in the eye of the beholder. My ejection doubled 1960-D is every bit as interesting and valuable to me as most of my genuine doubled dies, though I'd never expect anyone to pay me more than one cent for it.
