I'd say mainly because of the notching...you can see it most noticeably on the leg of the R of TRUST, and you can see some notching to a lesser extent on the bottom of the T.
you need to stop saying VD and say MD for mechanical doubling if that is what you are asking about. then everyone on here can understand what you are talking about. I hope my coins don't get VD. I forgot to answer your question. the reason we know the coin you are asking about is a doubled die is because numerous ones were found and they were all exactly alike plus the doubling is slightly different from MD. on MD coins what looks like doubling is slightly different from coin to coin and this is the reason that not many people collect them
Vibration doubling seems more appropriate terminology as I have explained previously, if you care to pursue that do so where I did it and we can have a cup of tea and discuss it. Either your coins got that at the mint or they didn't. ' exactly alike' ... Which could still be VD farther back in the process or just similar VD. This coin looks to be classic VD. Point to something in those photos that proves DD. Or, show me a bunch of those identical coins. Is there some secret I am not privy to, or is this a bunch of hooooey?
The grooves and notches , particularly on the R of TRUST as well as the direction of the doubling indicate that the coin is a doubled die. Also, in the images, the doubling may appear flat but in hand, it is more rounded and duplicates the doubled portions. Also, the lettering is larger in appearance and not made smaller by the metal movement caused by machine doubling. The term is machine doubling although many years ago, mechanical doubling was a term in use by those who didn't know that the term really was machine doubling. "VD" or vibration doubling is not a term that exists since it is near impossible to determine if machine doubling was caused by a twist of the die, a hop of the die, a vibration of the die, or a problem with the coin being ejected from the die after the strike. They all look the same. Also, I am not revisiting this thread to hash out the same old , same old.
Flat as a pancake. Look at how skinny it makes the lower part of U. Seems to have been made smaller by the metal movement. Where is there any extra thickness? Please explain how direction indicates doubling.
hey give us old timers a break , what can possibly be wrong with us older folks saying mechanical doubling instead of machine doubling ? if we want to really get high tech why don't we just say MDD and this would cover everything .
Hey rascal, I'm an old timer too, so to speak. I've been at this for 45 years I would say that up to about 20 years ago I called it mechanical doubling too. Then as I got involved heavily with errors and die varieties, several of the major die variety and error experts corrected my usage of the term and I've stayed with Machine Doubling ever since
well 45 years of collecting would include you in the ole timers list IMO. I have been into collecting coins for a few more years than you. I remember finding a 1943 steel cent and this got me interested in coins . a lot of coin experts like Wexler say mechanical doubling like I do and others use the term as machine doubling like you do. In the end the results are the same.
I have to admit, I had doubted this coin in the past. When I first started I was into Jeffersons hardcore, so I tried to study as many pics of die varieties I could. I never have found a doubled die nickel. I finally discovered the wonderful world of Lincoln varieties and started to find some. I am now sure that coin looks different in hand than in those pics. There are some coins photographed on coppercoins that look like MD. I think it is just hard, sometimes, to capture the true depth in a photograph. I'll guarantee that if you hold one of these and match it up, it would surprise you. It just takes finding some real ones and comparing them to photos to see actually how different they look in hand. You can tilt and twist them in hand to see the depth. You can't on a photo.
jay you are right about what you typed. having a coin in hand to examine it is a lot different from just looking at images of it.
