I could use a few opinions on this one. I would say MD largely because the doubling is on the MM too, but, it is limited to the date and MM. But, as strong as the doubling is on the date and MM I have hard time with the idea that I cant see it anywhere else.
Since for this date coin,the date was hubbed into the working die and then the working die struck with the mintmark die afterwards. 99/100 times, before 1990, (when the mint mark was hubbed on the working die also), any doubling of a mintmark and the date is machine doubling. Also the flattened appearance indicates this also. Jim
I agree, based on date it appears MD. And, the first 9 in date is quite shelf-like, again a sign of MD. But, the "69" is more pronounced and much higher than what I am accustom to. Generally, I expect to see low shelf like images. This doubling is much higher than normal. Also, on the MM it doesn’t appear to have shelf look. After closer examination it looks like there may be three levels to the S. I will have to look at it again when my eyes are working a little better.
My eyes must be going or I'm too tired but I don't see the shelf like structures on the doubling. Guess I'll have to look again in the morning.
It is MD. One hint: If there is the same doubling on the MM as on the date, it is 99.99999999% MD. The reason: The Mint Mark is hand punched into the die, after the die is prepared. As a completely separate step, it should NOT show similar doubling. Of course sometime in the 1990's the mintmark was added to the hub, for die preparation, and then 1) there could be no more RPM's and 2) if there was a DDO it could show on the MM.
Agree. However, 1969 S was one of those exceptions. See the example below. (Image from Conecaonline at http://conecaonline.org/content/recentfinds.htm ) I am not deadset that this is a DD - I have my concerns; but, I can't seem to rule it out.
jmon: Sorry to disagree, but the 1969 S is NOT an exception. In the one shown, the date is a DDO, the mintmark shows MD, and is not a doubled die, at best it could be a RPM, but not a part of the doubled die, simply since it (the mintmark) was added (punched intot he die) after the die was prepared.
You are correct - this was a classic case of me responding too quickly. What I meant to say was that the MD on a MM does not disqualify a coin as a DD. In the case of 1969 S both conditions co-existed, thus an exception to the norm of doubling on a MM disqualifying a coin as DD.
Per a book by Chuck from www.coppercoins.com the true 69S DD would not have had the mint mark doubled. The chances of an RPM with the true 69S Double Die would be excessively unlikely. However, if it was a true 69S, I wonder how much it would really be worth since even the Red Book doesn't quote a price.
CopperCoins has some price estimates Advanced search - coppercoins.com But those prices seem to be pretty low because, under there recent finds section it says: Recent Finds It's about half way down the page.
The only number I can recall seeing for a 1969 S was the one referenced in Chuck's book, which sold for 126K. However, that was just prior to the discovery of the coin I posted a bit ago (the image from Coneca, not my OP). The two coins are different - I dont know what the value difference would be.
