Greetings all! Some 30 years ago, I found a 1960-D large date cent that continues to mystify me. Images are posted below. In an effort to compensate for my poor photography, I have included drawings that highlight some of the relevant features. Captions: A and B are my best efforts at photographing the coin. C provides arrows that point out the important features. D is a drawing I made to emphasize those features. E shows large dates that are offset NE/SW with the points of contact that match those in figure D shown in green and the date areas that do not show on the coin in dark gray. I recently submitted this specimen for evaluation and was told that the markings on the digits of the date were caused by die breaks. However, I do not think this is the answer because many of the markings are grooves rather than raised ridges, as they would have to be with a die break, and the markings exactly match the outlines of a large date impression, which they certainly would not do if die breaks were involved. I thought of strike, or machine, doubling, but as I hope is evident, there are no flattened, shelf-like features in the date. All areas in the digits are of approximately the same height and are rounded. The closest parallels in appearance I have found to this coin are, coincidentally(?), on large over small and small over large date 1960 DDO specimens. My theories are as follows: 1) this is a doubled die with a very weak second (or third) impression that left marks only within the digits, or possibly with some very slight thickening of portions of the 9, 6, and 0. 2) this is a form of strike doubling in which the die actually bounced rather than moving laterally, leaving rounded impressions within the digits rather than the usual flattened "scraped" margins that are much lower than the date itself. Any comments or questions would be appreciated.
Who did you submit the coin to for eval? I think that it is minor die deterioration doubling, as the digits aren't quite right. See Wexler: https://doubleddie.com/144843.html
Thanks for your reply. Could be die deterioration, but I don't think so because the match to offset large date impressions is so perfect and the margins so clean on the whole. I'd prefer not to say who evaluated it, but it was a reputable expert.
I don't see anything that says that the devices are any thicker or wider than normal. Very interesting Lincoln, but I believe that the answer you got was the correct one. A slight die chip or break on a numeral will raise the devices higher, this will leave the impression of a crevice. A die crack is much different than a die break? Is there any other devices that show any doubling? The IGWT, Liberty, etc?
Thanks for your input. I haven't noticed any other doubling on the coin, except for a minor, unrelated RPM. My problem with the die crack (I think he actually said die chips) theory is that it doesn't explain the correspondence of the markings with an offset large date impression. Please note my images D & E above. I don't see how the breaks could line up perfectly with an offset impression that parallels but overlaps the date. It seems to me that die breaks would appear at the center of the digits, on the edges, or in a random pattern - not in a perfectly offset duplication of the date.
P. S. One argument against either die breaks or a doubled die is the apparent uniqueness of this specimen. I've never seen another coin like it, which would support a strike doubling explanation of some sort. That's one reason I posted this - to see if anyone else has found one.
