No, I don't think die deterioration generally counts as a "variety", does it? Just a particularly low-valued class of error. ...Until someone finds a way to market it, as happened with these coins. I remember the classifieds in my brother's coin magazines (late 60s - early 70s) being full of ads for "poor man's DD 1955". That DDO-001 had some big coattails, and lots of people tried to ride them. I got a dozen or so 1955 cents in a lot a few years ago, and something like a third of them had this feature. Not rare at all, but they still earn a double-take.
Hmm, actually I'm not exactly sure what the qualifications are in order to be called a variety. Something that got minted consistently and repetitively, I suppose? If so, would the 1955 doubled die (real one) also be considered a variety because 20k+ were minted? Honestly though, I just called it a variety because that's what The Lincoln Cent Resource site called it.
Then they're dumbasses because varieties are die-variations not strike-abnormalities and this wasn't on no die it was from the strike.
I thought it was a die deterioration issue? That would make it a die-state variant, right? (Just not an especially interesting one.)
I doubt the die mirrored this effect off the second 5. Both 5s are intact, not even so much as chipped anywhere. That's not die deterioration coming off to the right of the second 5, it's strike doubling. Die deterioration only increases the chances of it.
I think you're right. The ones I found looked more like die deterioration to me, but then again, I'm not an error guy. If I can find them again, I'll try to post an image or two.
As I have it, FWIW, die deterioration manifests mostly in the fields. As the dies fail, they of course crack, too. That's not to say "retained" cracks don't manifest in the devices, they do. But they're not as prolific. Chips are mostly what manifest in and between the devices as the dies deteriorate. The irregular surfaces strike different than the undeteriorated surfaces, too. They rattle more instead of slide from side to side. I'm of course being melodramatic, but to make the point. I just throw it all into "strike doubling" so as to differentiate the origin. Is the origin the strike or the die? More particularly, is it the striking of the planchet, or the pressing of the die? That's all I want to know. And we've got our telltale signs. And that's it. And I'm open to being persuaded different, I ain't heard it yet.
