I can't see the MM to see the placement, but I am thinking it looks a lot like 001. The E of WE looks the same. The slant to the top of the 1. The last 9 looks very similar to the MDS pics. Try to match it up to one of the die states. http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1959&die_id=1959d1do001&die_state=eds http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1959&die_id=1959d1do001&die_state=mds
I think your right. It does match 001. Except for the weird tail on the 5. I was Looking for that on the pages but that could be PMD.. Thanks. My lucky day!
I am not seeing any splits so my opinion is MD. Could you post a pic of the date and mintmark in one photo?
Jay, the coin you linked to is a class VI and is identified due to extra thickness, not because of any splits. From the pictures provided, I don't see evidence of extra thickness...only flat doubling. That doesn't necessarily exclude a case where it happens to be the doubled die and also has mechanical doubling, but unless the mintmark matches up exactly, I have my doubts on this one.
Yeah, I agree about the right side of the 59. I was assuming based on the curl of the 9 and the I (LIBERTY) and E (WE). The pickup point is the first 9 anyway and we don't have a photo of it. The first 9 is really thick on 001. I just wanted to give him something to compare it to. I have doubts also.
I have my doubts too but there are some things that match. The top right corner of the memorial, the D in god, The thickened top of the S in trust, MM position (but the MM is different), Liberty is thickened but mine has more separation lines on liberty and a thinner tail on the first 9 of the date. So it's probably not it, put it in a 2x2 and save it.
Your mintmark is close, but not exact IMO. If you compare your picture to 1DO-001, your mintmark looks a little farther west than the one on the doubled die. In addition, the doubling that you are pointing out on the D of GOD, for one thing, does not resemble class VI doubling, so in that sense 1DO-001 would not really be a match. I would say that this coin is not a doubled die, and that it suffers from mechanical doubling, which can be seen most clearly on the date and IGWT.
I agree with noncents. The MM on your coin is slightly NW of the MM on 001. Also, the first 9 isn't nearly thick enough.
