I'm really wanting to lean toward the 804 but am open to inputs. And that includes MD which is possible but trying lean the other way. Hopefully the pics are good enough.
My gooness you'all it's simple mechanical/machine type doubling - it took exactly 2 seconds to determine that. What in the world are you'all looking at???
Fish- I'm just not seeing doubled die here. I'll go with strike doubling for now and wait and see what the experts say. Edit: Must have been typing this at the same time as BHP.
I maybe wrong at Times but & I will always be the 1st admit it Everyone is an expert here they think,and I am not talking about you!photo are one thing that can fool 100rds of expert,but in hand and under a lop it were you can tell for sure. But* *If I am wrong,I will be the 1st one to say.I seen very few folk do that and I am one of the few!:bow:
99.9 of variety experts who view these exellent photos could easily tell mechanical doubling. If I am wrong I admit it also but, I am sort of alarmed at this one because it's so simple. I am an expert but I think almost anyone studing doubled dies can see this machine type doubling instantly even after only a short time of study. This one really bothers me because: 1. It looks nothing like 804. 2. The doubling is not the same. 3, The thickness of lettering is not present. 4. There is no splits in the serifs. 5. The doubled extra images are not even close to resembling the known varieties images, not even close. 5. There is doubling on both sides of this coins lettering. And if all that were not enough the spread on the pictured coin is to wide, way to wide. Some of you should know this by now - it's simple one, This really concerns me, wow!
I'm confused. As I was looking at the coin, I thought "OK, I see the MD, but I don't see the DD". I would have just moved on. If I were showing this coin, I would have been completely ignored and not even get a reply. Now I'm lost.
Sorry if this one "bothered " you. I am far from an expert and look for help from the forum. That being said, have you looked at the 804 recently? Not being rude but the 804 seemed alot like MD and therefore I posted this coin for question. There is no "doubling" on obverse. And your comment "The doubled extra images are not even close to resembling the known varieties images, not even close." makes me think you may want to check the cherry picker again. This is in no way to be taken as rude but honestly, it does resemble the known variety.
A 2 second look is not the proper way to determining anything but a flat tire or a broken window I understand your concern but this is not a life or death situation it just an option Shadow and angels on any photo can fool many of the member's here and I know that I am not a grader or DV specialist for any TPG but I have post few coin here that I was told no way is that it But after sending it to a TPG I was right& have been wrong too.and 2 times I had found a new DV Here just one I still waiting for John Roberts of Anacs to determent what vam# to assign to the 1885-O http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1946&die_id=1946d1mm010&die_state=lds
Well I don't know why you would be ignored or get no reply but,, With this coin there was great photos and posts asking about or linking it to a know Cherry Picker variety #. That plus some members somehow thinking (and your right that is the most amazing thing) it's is a true doubled die then also thinking it's #804 was the most alarming thing for me as looks nothing like that known doubled die. I mean if they are having trouble with this one well, this one is 1st grade stuff. I mean I really don't want to offend anyone, really I don't, but I was shocked! These folks, (some of them) should know better, and no better long ago. I was able to cite six reasons instantly of "doubled dies 101". I'm not talking about the original poster but some of the follow ups. I hope if you post with the same type question it gets it's proper attention - I'll keep your future post in mind regarding such.
Your original posting did not "bother me" in the least and I am sorry for not making that clear to you, the original poster! I should have, my bad! Yes, of course I looked at #804 but didn't need to to know that your coin was not a doubled die. When I went and looked at it was after a follow up or two stating that they thought it was #804 - I was shocked that it was missed and missed so badly that I thought "what am I missing here, let me go look at that bad boy", and then it got worse. That's why I went and checked, I thought for folks to have this one so off "I gotta look and see, maybe I'm wrong about something here". It then was even more amazingly wrong that anyone looking at the photos of your coin compared to #804 in the Cherry Pickers Guild could possibly think they look alike - I'm still stunned. That is why I provided 6 reasons in detail to tell the difference between the two coins. They may look alike to you but to anyone studying doubled dies they do not. "I did not say doubling on obverse of the coin I said doubling on both sides of the lettering". I should have added rev. lettering. An early lession in coins that are not true doubled dies is having doubling on both sides of the lettering.
Your coin is neither an 801 or an 804 but merely machine doubling. bhp3rd is absolutely correct. However, if you continue to insist or believe otherwise, might I suggest you send it to CONECA for attribution (and disappointment) or better yet, post it on the CONECA Die Variety Forums. http://board.conecaonline.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=-1&f=3
Anyone that thinks that this coin was a doubled die or the CPG coin #804 Washington Quarter needs to be very careful about giving opinions about die varieties. This one absolutley floored me. Not the original poster but some of the follow ups as I thought these folks were better informed! All I'm left with regarding this topic is maybe they commented before thinking or were not awake? I don't know but there have been much harder ones (coins, ?'s about doubled dies) than this on CoinTalk and much worse photos for sure. There is nothing at all wrong about "being wrong" from time to time - we all are but this one is really something! Some responces were from people I think that sell die varieties or have in the past and claim to know about them - that's what bothers me so much. I guess I'm just a little shell shocked - this was one of the easiest ones I've ever seen so I'm at a loss for words here. I know this is not heart surgery and that it's just folks opinion and I guess we all "just do our best" but this is one for the records. Such clear photos and all, I'm speechless is all and many of you are probably glad about that, wow!!!
I did figure that it may be MD as I posted earlier. Just some novice anticipation of finding such a great one I guess. Thanks all for comments, espically about the photos. I hate photographing silver. Off to the soda machine!! Just Kidding
I know you did and your photos are fabulous, they "tell the tale"! Keep that coin, and then when you get a doubled die rev. quarter compare the two. Doubled dies, for the most part will never have that much spread. Plus the spread, in this case will not appear "all flattened out"! True doubled dies look fat, thick, puffed up, rounded, overlapping in a closer type manner meaning that the doubled letters, numbers or whatever are hugging the primary image but slightly adjar. Remember the portion that is doubled from the primary will be another image but never quite the same. It will be under, over, on top of, next to but not a copy of the primary. It is hubbed twice (to keep it simple for this) so another image was formed adjacent to and not a copy of. If a design element is doubled in this way as it was slightly adjar from the original hubbing the doubling will be only on one side or another and not perfect or overlapping to both sides as your coin was. If I remember the "L"s or the "D" or "E"s' of letters in dollar were alinged up with the side of the letter looking the same all the way up on the west side, even almost doubling. Doubled dies do not look like this except in very rare cases and only then with thick extra images not flat - your were flat and even. This is a dead giveaway to mechanical doubling as the primary image is scooted, pushed or pulled and as not been formed by hubbing. Remember to that we have looked at hundreds of thousands of coins. The above has been simplified for this only explanation and no, I can't spell well nor do a care, much.
It is all machine doubling. Anyone who has argued against it needs to do a little more research. There is no evidence of the coin having been struck by a doubled die. Sorry Guys... Bill
