LMC 60-D Sm date Variety

I found this coin recently in a bag of 1960 cents. I did some searhing and found a listing for a WDDO-10 that has Two of four die chips "6" in Date and "O" in One, One on obverse and one on reverse and two others not shown, "E" in United and "R" in Liberty
I can't see any Doubling on my obverse, and think it is odd that
these must be two different Die Sets. And yet they have similar Die Chips.
http://www.doubleddie.com/572234.html
Is this just an Error Coin ? or could this be another Variety ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If you can't see it any better than your pictures show it, you may never know.

Just a quick glance show Wexler's pictures are much more rich in detail and information needed to determine.

 

Thank you for your help.

 

It may be and when I looked at this the other day, I recall thinking it had to be an earlier? die stage OR a different reverse die pairing.

Does your in-hand inspection reveal any of the fine detail required to confirm it 010?

This is assuming that you have maybe some 10-20X quality magnification optics to inspect it?

It appears to have the correct shapes and your images seem to cue other attributes likely present, from my recall, I haven't dug back into it this AM.

If it isn't 010, it sure has some amazingly epic die breaks both sides and is at least AU58 although just may squeak out a better grade.

You might, just maybe, squeeze out more detail from that USB scope? with some tweaking on the adjustment settings and perhaps diffusing your two light sources a bit more.

Which one are you using and if not using it plug n play, what adjustments are allowed by its software?

 

Alurid, I think you are doing it backwards, If there is no doubling visible to you, then is most likely is not a DD. Die chips are usually related to design, and inherent weakness in the same spot on the working dies of that design can cause breakage and fill in of metal ( such as the 'BIE' type between the B and E of "LIBERTY" on many cents that often results from such damage), but they can occurs elsewhere also, especially in numbers or letters that have a "Hole" , such as the inside of 0,6,8,9 or similar letters. They do not indicate a strong relationship to a single die, but to the specific year and series, so they should only be used for confirmation AFTER it is determined it is a 'real' DD. doing the reverse will drive many 'NUTS' and make verifiers Well-to-do on fees. They would not look at the chips until they had confirmed it as a DD. IMO. Jim

 

Carefully compare what limited information he is showing to the attribution pictures and you may change your mind.

It is definitely worth looking at in much more detail.

 

Then be more specific about what you see or suspect and the foundation. Hinting to all that you have reasons but not releasing them is not fair to him. Trying to teach by frustration is not successful.

 

Jim, he isn't the student on this one. He already suggested which one it is and has articulated seeing the cues, which his images hint to and even do reveal some, and with respect to other fine and difficult to render details, simply fail.

Again, look carefully at the attribution images, Alurid provided a link directly to it, which most asking for such help here seldom do, and gave plausible reasons why it may be 010, and compare to his coin. Perhaps split your monitor and open two browsers for convenience.

He and I are certainly on the same page, and I am assuming with absolutely no reason whatsoever, mea culpa if I am mistaken, Alurid is male.

The "same page" in this instance is simply that his images do not contain enough data to make the determination and if Alurid wishes to disclose what is on hand to work with, I, and I'm sure others, would be glad to help him optimize and probably manifest his objective of capturing a sufficient digital likeness to attribute this coin as DDO-010, if that is what this coin truly is.

It appears very likely.

 

Here is what is interesting about Wexler's DDO-010, if you look carefully, you'll see the reverse die shown in the attribution pix, is DDR, yet not even hinted to....

I would love to see the rich details of the OP coin's devices, obverse and reverse.

Now I haven't dug into VV's list of DDO's for this one, but, I'd bet the same obverse die indeed had been married with another reverse.

For that matter, I haven't scoured Wexler's DDO and DDR lists for this coin to see which way may be up on his site.

 

Thank you all for your posts. I am working on getting more detailed photos. I have looked closly with a 10x loupe, and have not been able to define any Doubling.
I found this coin in a bag of 200 or so 1960 cents, mostly "D"s and mostly Small Dates. This one I labled Die Chips and set aside. Then saw a post about 1960-D
DDO's. That's when I noticed the Die Chip likness. And on with the questions.

 

10X may not do it. It may take 15-20X. Stack two tens together or two whatever you have, if you have another. I'd say the images on Wexler's site are between 20-25X. When stacking, loupes, magnifying glasses etc, they add.

What I can see is that the shapes appear correct, the chips along with the fat letters in the EPU on the reverse (you did see the reverse of the 010 is doubled too, didn't ya?) make it immensely interesting and worth a much closer look.

If you have good rapport with a jeweler, maybe he'll let you inspect it under his stereo gemscope?

 

I have been trying to get close up photos, but to no avail. Just theses.

I have looked at this coin and still no sign of Doubleing as I said in my OP.
This coin does have some wear on it. I would not say it is an AU. XF+ at best.
It still has some luster around the devices. Thanks to all that replied.

 

Let's see up close of this area on the back just for grins and I still don't think 10X is going to be enough to pick this one off, if your coin is related on either side. Amazing this one missed the Master Hub and strongly resembles 010.... TRU.... see the lower eastern leg of your R with the same split line barely distinguishable?



Do you see he IBUS is doubled? Faintly split and fat. The M more so. Yours seem pretty close to these shapes.

Nice pix btw.

This is the doubled master hub and yours isn't this one. Your R's leg is to fat for starters.

 

Lighting too harsh, try diffusing it with tissue or maybe a plastic curtain cut out of a milk jug. Slightly underexpose.

If you're using your loupe, it isn't very crisp, maybe the harsh light is fighting you?

 

I really like this statement, it made me think alot more indepth about the die making process. It also got me to realize that my coin was most likely struck
with Later Stage Dies, due to chips.

 

It most likely wasn't struck with fresh new dies although I suppose it is possible there could have been some problem with the tool steel in those areas and the commenced breaking early on.

Not quite enough detail in the images to see on this end much info about the stage or any reworking, markers etc.

 

Loupe; color shifting and optical distortion illustrated.



You want to use the center of a loupe square and true on its center.
The outside edges distort both the shape and color.

 

I see nothing that would make me think that was Wexler's 010. The only similarity is the chip in the 6 and the O on the reverse. Wexler's B in LIBERTY a chip & the OP's coin has a chip in the R. If you study the 1960-D small dates (doubled dies, RPMs, tilted die clashes, BIEs galore), you will see that there are many, many die pairs with chips everywhere. That is believed to be why the mint went to the large date. LIBERTY rules it out. The chip in the B or the R couldn't have disappeared if it was a different die state.

 

I see nothing that would make me think that was Wexler's 010. The only similarity is the chip in the 6 and the O on the reverse. Wexler's B in LIBERTY a chip & the OP's coin has a chip in the R. If you study the 1960-D small dates (doubled dies, RPMs, tilted die clashes, BIEs galore), you will see that there are many, many die pairs with chips everywhere. That is believed to be why the mint went to the large date. LIBERTY rules it out. The chip in the B or the R couldn't have disappeared if it was a different die state.

 

do you see that 010 isn't correctly attributed with respect to it's clearly obvious DDR?

do you not see the shapes of the characters that strongly resemble the TRU, for starters, in 010?

it may not be 010, but, it is something

the 10X pix and harsh lighting isn't going to reveal what is there.