I Need Help With This

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It is not grammar. It is terminology. You are being corrected on your incorrect use of terminology. And when you understand doubled dies you will understand the need for correct terminology. Hopefully.

 

I understand that Enamel and I am making a valid point of using the correct terminology to avoid any future conflict or confusion. I appreciate everyone on here who is eager to help, because I'm always eager to learn. (In the beginning of this hobby) I'd see a lot of people use the term "Double Die", so I began using the same terminology without realizing that it was incorrect. I assumed that is how everyone says it. This post is water under the bridge now and had nothing to do with the need to "have thicker skin". I "needed" it explained in a better and more elaborate way (which it was). I hope that you and your family have had a wonderful Christmas and I wish you all the best in the upcoming new year

 

Thanks for your input Kasia, it was much needed and I value it dearly. If you weren't already aware, I have been informed that I was using incorrect terminology and I am making a very conscious effort to put a d at the end of doubled. When you read back over this post, hopefully you will see that your validation of this subject is unnecessary. Hopefully

 

Doubled Dies are not errors. They are very small (except for a few instances) misalignments in pressing the design from the hub into a previously pressed design into a die. No one screwed up, or was drinking on the job. Just a very minute rotation in realigning. It is actually amazing that there aren't more readily obvious.

And that is why one of the biggest dealers in errors (Fred Weinberg) doesn't do much with them - they aren't errors.

 

It's actually very interesting that you are pointing this out, because I've had a bit of an opposition with posting them (doubled dies) under "Error Coins" on here. I consider improper alloy mixes and lamination/ cud errors (very visible and obvious without looking for them) to be much more amazing and profound (as errors) than most doubled die coins. Doubled dies are of course errors, but (to me) they are in a league of their own and need some sort of separate classification. I know that no one at the mint was drunk, lol. I was just speaking metaphorically.

 

You are correct. The 1955 Doubled Die was issued on purpose by the Philadelphia Mint. There was a coin shortage due to a hurricane in 1955, and the person in charge had to decide whether to release 20,000 doubled die coins, or melt them and be short. He made the decision to release them. If they had been errors, they would not have been released (cracked planchets, laminations, double-stamped pieces, etc.).

 

I think you are on the right track, I mean...you are here on CT getting the best info around to help you learn and understand, after all. But we all have walked this path about doubled dies, resolving our pre-conceived notions with knowledge.

I share your frustration dealing with "extra thickness" doubling. But I also use VV and Wexler almost daily to compare known varieties and the extra thickness types make my eyes cross. Kudos to Rick Stachowski (again) for his expertise on thickness and classes of doubling.

But make no mistake...you are not the Lone Ranger...you are not alone, even he had Tonto. We have hundreds of experts to bounce questions off of. And, if you noticed, we have no other pursuits in life because we are on CT all the time (just kidding).

"Ask not for whom the (post) tolls, it (posts) for thee"...Spark

 

Funny!

 

That's very interesting information! I had no idea.

 

Lol, thanks Spark. That's sad, but true! If I'm not at work, I'm usually looking at coins or trying to clear out my workspace. I've got this bad habit of letting everything get cluttered up (BUT I know exactly where and what everything is)