2011 Shield Cent Coneca DDO-001

Is the 2014 d/d on liberty or date

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I still like the 2014 DDO-003 and think it shows the doubling better. I'm hopeful it will make the cherry-pickers guide. Well, maybe I'm just biased because this was the very first 'true' DD coin I found when I started collecting just a few years ago (even a novice couldn't miss it).

http://varietyvista.com/01e LC Doubled Dies Vol 5/2014PDDO003 cent.htm

 

This is going to open a rabbit hole among potential error collectors. Even now you have new collectors displaying their 1969-S and 1955 coins asking if they have the big DDO, when it is obvious to everyone but them it isn't. They go as far as becoming belligerent when photographic proof is shown, still declaring theirs is the big one.

These modern "DDO's" are even more problematic. The difference in most cases is not obvious at all, not when you need a microscope to see it and even then, not obvious. These new collectors will be posting their photos declaring they have the real deal even when it has no resemblance to authenticated examples except for the presence of letters or numbers.

 

Experience variety collectors know, that there's eight different kinds of classifications for varieties .

 

Isn’t there a difference between varieties and mint errors. DDO and DDR are errors, not varieties.

 

Here's the link to it .
http://varietyvista.com/01e LC Doubled Dies Vol 5/2014PDDO001 cent.htm

 

Just the opposite .
Their varieties, not errors ..

 

EDS MDS LDS. What do they stand for marker types. Seen them in your link. Trying to understand how to help myself to id the 2011 and others on my own. Any help would be appreciated

 

Oh. Early mid and late. Right?

 

Excellent yet regrettably true points.

 

Yeah but varities seem easier to understand. I stand corrected by rick. I'm going with him

 

Like Rick said above...

 

Thanks. I'll never see those

 

I stand corrected. Never too old to learn. What would be an example of a well know error coin?

 

Do you mean like double struck, off-center strike or the like?

And just to be clear, I didn't repost that for you or to press the issue. It was only in case Cheech missed it.

 

Thanks books.

 

Believe me, I have no problem with what you, Cheech9712 or Rick had to say......good info.

After hearing for the last 60 years the 1955 DDOs are mint errors, I need to be re-educated on the terminology I've been using. I didn't realize the die was made like that by design and not in error.

 

Thank you. I had only hoped that the earlier post didn't come off as rude.

I also know exactly where you're coming from as I too referred to doubled dies as errors earlier in my hobby involvement. In fact, I once used the terms interchangeably, and only some years later did someone clarify the difference.

Still, you have an excellent point about the dies being made in error. Obviously the doubling wasn't the intent and in this respect it would seem perfectly logical to refer to the coins they produce as "errors". Perhaps it would be best, instead of using the simplified "errors" or "varieties", to say "die varieties" and "striking error"?

 

I used to call everything an error as well. When the CPG came out, It changed my thinking. Do you guys think of clashed die coins varieties or errors?

 

Another interesting question....

Perhaps "die variety" would be most fitting due to the fact responsibility rests with the individual die used to produce them?