Here is the mm. It looks like this one but maybe more extreme on the date. http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1972&die_id=1972s1do002&die_state=mds The die markers are not there though. MD? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LOL
It looks like machine doubling to me. FYI - The mintmark was punched into each die by hand until sometime in the early 90's, so it doesn't matter. Chris
Exactly..... if it is MD the mintmark would be doubled too. That is one of the giveaways for MD is the doubling of the MM. Since the MM is pressed into the die it means the doubling was there before the MM.
I'm with Chris on this one. The little hump isn't on the 2 either. One other tidbit: Just because the MD isn't on the MM doesn't rule out MD. You can have localized MD on a single letter. When the date & MM are doubled, it's a highly accurate sign of MD, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I agree with you about the mintmark not having to be doubled. I also agree that the doubling looks like MD however if you followed the link above to the pics on Coppercoins.Com you would notice tha the doubling also looks flat like MD.
I admit the hubbing is weak on that die, but the 72 looks normal, except for the doubling adding to it. The 72 on yours looks like a tiny fraction of the tops were smashed flat. For instance, look at coppercoins' example. Look at the tip ends of each bar of the 7. They are practically the same width. Look at how much thinner the tip is, on the top of your 7, versus the tip of the vertical bar. MD takes away. The mint mark placement is wrong for 002.
