1986-D Lincoln Cent

I’m pretty unfamiliar with Lincoln varieties after ’82. At first I thought the doubling was a result of the rising or “bubbling” of the plated copper, but on closer inspection it looked different. I know there are no DDOs listed (CONECA) for an ’86-D Lincoln.

I’d sure welcome any opinions as to the nature of the doubling.

Thanks, A.J.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The 'Liberty' looks like rotated hub doubling, but the date looks different. Attn: Mike D.
Maybe Mike will see this thread and comment.
EDIT: I got them backwards, Date=rotated hub, Liberty something else.
Maybe ejection doubling. Mike really knows his stuff regarding doubled coins, my post is just a guess.

 

I would say it's a double die looks like a hybrid two different classes of doubling class 1 rotated and 5 pivoted hub doubling. The speration seems pretty dramatic by the photo. I would like to know if you could post better pics then that. I would be able to determine and make a positive assesment on the coin.

Jazzcoins joe

 

On LIBERTY, that's more common than you might think on cents around then; and anybody, I'm sure, who has searched rolls of cents for a spell can tell you that. I have no idea what it is, but that it doesn't look exactly like what I'd expect from strike-doubling (it's something different, seems to me). On that date, though, that's interesting, and I agree with CK...that's a rotated hub.

 

This coin was struck by worn dies. This is what they look like when a worn die strikes a copper-plated zinc cent.

It is not a doubled die.

Thanks,
Bill

 

MDD…Machine Damaged Doubling

Larry Nienaber

 

Tha is correct. Check the IGWT, also around the portrait of lincoln.

 

1989-d worst year/mint for quality.

 

Check out 1960 D and 1982. Pretty bad also.

 

Thanks for responding to my inquiry. I was hoping someone would have a more specific explanation as to why this doubling is so common on copper-plated zinc cents. Skrilla’s comment about the ’89-D is right on the mark. I’ve seen it so frequently on that year, that when I find an ‘89 in the mix the coin is invariably tossed without further inspection. I will say however that the doubling (date) on the ’86-D is a bit more dramatic and there is more spacing evident than on the ’89s.

Thanks, A.J.

 

take a better picture of the 1986, that one could be something but the picture is not much help at this point.