Circulated 1985 Roosevelt Dime - Very Sharp AU 58 - Possible Double Die

http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/coins/11252008/ros_dime_1985.png
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/coins/11252008/ros_dime_1985_1.2.png
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/coins/11252008/ros_dime_1985_rev.png


I think this is a real double die..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ruben,

What part do you see that's doubled?

 

Dates, Letters - its really everywhere. Look at the large photo's esp the reverse.

Ruben

 

I don't know... I'm not seeing it, but maybe I'm just not seeing it. :goof:

 

what do you see in the lower loup of the 8 of 1985?

Ruben

 

To be honest with you, the image isn't sharp enough and the reflection is blocking me from seeing fine resolution detail (not that I could do any better on the image). I'm not saying the doubling isn't there. I just can't see it.

 

I'll see if I can get a better pic. The tip off was that I took all those pictures together in about 30 minutes with the lighting and camera the same and that dime looked different than the others. Closer looking at the date made it clear to me, anyway, that the who dime had doubling. I don't know if it is mechanical or die, but it does seem to be doubling.

Ruben

 

How about the I in AMERICA?

 

Just from the way the coin looks it almost looks like a worn die. I am not an expert at this, but that is what I think I see. It reminds me of that jefferson nickel I posted a while back.

 

Looks like strike doubling to me, but I'd love to see a really huge and tack-sharp version of the image to be more sure.

 

p.s. an extreme closup of a few areas of doubling would be even better.

 

Next question: On this dime what made me think of worn dies were how fat the legends appeared to be, especially around the reverse. The way it looked reminded me of that nickel I posted some time back. Almost like the worn dies made things fatter and weaker in appearance. Is this possible?

 

truthfully, when I was editing these images it occurred to me that this might be the first true double die I ever got because the doubling seems distinct in the lettering and the tail of the 9 seems very distinct. I'm going to have to pull this coin out of the stack of pulled circulated coins again and look at it closer.

I'm glad to see that my routine coins are being enjoyed and being used as learning tools. There is more to collecting than chasing riches and arguing about economics.

Ruben

Ruben

 

Agreed better pictures or close ups would help. What I see "IN GOD" is under IN then left sides of "GO". With both "IN" and "WE" weakly struck - then on the right side of the 8 in 1985. Still better pictures for you experts.

And yes Ruben I agree - these are good learning examples. I know I invited one person to this site - he turned me down cause we are "serious" collectors here and all he collected was some state quarters and a few nickels and dimes. If nothing else maybe a newbie(and YN's) to the site will feel more comfortable with some of this modern change collecting - rather than thinking we are all serious rare coin collectors.

 

The dimes in those early 80's exhibit thicker letters, at least what I've seen.

 

Ruben
Have you recently inherited a large quantity of energy drinks ? Switched from coffee to espresso doubles? Ants in your pants perhaps?

:whistle:

 

http://www.gorillacoffee.com/

also

http://greylodge.org/gpc/?p=310

 

Sorry folks... I still don't see the doubling. All I see are what look like mushy letters to me from the pictures provided. Maybe I'll change my mind with different pictures.