After searching 1,000 wheat pennies with a microscope I found three possible errors. 1952 mint mark error. 1939 ddo 1940 s ddo
After searching 1,000 wheat pennies with a microscope I found four possible errors. 1952 mint mark error. View attachment 862244 1939 ddo View attachment 862245 View attachment 862246 View attachment 862247 View attachment 862248 1940 s ddo View attachment 862249 View attachment 862251 1952 s mint mark error
1952 - Die Chip in Mint Mark The rest.. Die Deterioration Doubling or Machine Doubling.. Not Doubled Die IMHO
The first looks damaged, nothing there. To be sure check the eye lid. The second and third are Mechanical doubling. Always check the MM and see if it has the same doubling as the date or other devices. If it does then it is MD. MM were hand punched into the dies and will not have doubling.
The 52S is die deterioration. Same as the 52D the S mintmark was susceptible to die chips within the curves.
Yes, the latter two both indeed display strike doubling. I see no real evidence of die deterioration doubling on either. As for the date and mintmark both showing doubling being a sign of strike doubling (MD), it is generally an excellent indicator, but it is worth mentioning that there are the fairly uncommon exceptions. A genuine doubled die can also display strike doubling, as can an RPM, meaning it is possible for both the date and mintmark to be "doubled" on pre-1990 cents and still be an actual variety. If we use the 40-S as an example: the "doubling" on both the date and mintmark is in the same direction and is an even stronger indicator, but it's always best to be able to identify the different forms of doubling than relying solely on such generalities.
I agree with the others. But you did find 1 error, the filled mm. Unfortunately, it doesn't add any value to the coin. Keep looking and learning
The S mintmark clearly shows small die chips that are die deterioration. Also mistaken for an RPM. And the D missing the center post is another form of DD. Notice that I didn't say DDD. I do agree a doubled die can exhibit MD. I have seen on this forum an example or two of rare Doubled Dies that were thought to be authentic/real. Not sure that any of them were ever authenticated?
And notice I didn't even address the first coin. Reading comprehension is a virtue. As for die deterioration doubling, I didn't say nor remotely suggest you did say it. Others clearly had mentioned it, but next time I'll be sure to directly quote them instead of assuming the obvious sufficient to stand on its own.
I usually have a strict policy of not posting before a full cup of coffee. Some of what you wrote, went right over my head. That doesn't happen to often. I am blaming the caffeine. I see some areas on the coins that could be confused with some DDD. But I think that it is just the result of circulation wear and some damage.
Broken post on the D mint mark, and die chip on the S MM. No doubled dies - all are machine doubling.
