What is this????

I'm sorry I shouted.
You owe me more than that though cause you know I know doubled dies in the first place. It's not like I was just pulling stuff out of thin air then.
I really try to help people understand this stuff with every post. I did not deserve your added commentary painting me like a fool, you know better than that or should.
If I had been a new person just making things up (out of the blue) then I may have fit that description but I am not and I tried to explaine some of the things I think may cause this type of doubling.
You can learn to say I dissagree with or do not think your theory is valid because of this or that and more work is needed.
I'm know you know better than to say those things your just not thinking clearly right now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The Poorman's 'doubled die' is actually just machine doubling on the last 5, die deterioration is not doubling, just a worn out die.

 

Never heard of the poormans being that of MD., always known of it as over polishing of the dies...

 

Very well, then. Since you've stopped shouting and cussing, I am quite willing to apologize for an unusually blunt reply. Here's the deal. The doubling is incuse, and strongly so. So you can't argue that away. There is no die polishing and it is never an ingredient in this form of doubling. Your contention that the die face flattens with use is possible but cannot be corroborated. As far as I know, it's never been corroborated. In any event, a flatter die face should be even more effective at preventing metal from extruding laterally from the die recess (at least that's what I think you're getting at). The characteristic appearance of die fatigue is never related to unwanted movement of coin metal. It has everything to do with degradation and distortion of the design on the die face. I've never heard of a "rocking effect" and if there were one, it would probably cause machine doubling, not die deterioration doubling.

Every aspect of your explanation was completely off base, and yet you presented it as glaringly obvious fact. I think that's what irritated me.

 

The "poorman's double die" is an example of die deterioration doubling. It is not due to machine doubling and is not due to die polishing ("abrasion doubling"). The poorman's doubled die is associated with, and most strongly expressed in late die states. As far as I know, it's never been found in an early die state. It's also never associated with die polishing lines. It doesn't form the shelf usually seen in machine doubling.

 

Quite different, although they're both related to die fatigue. The "poorman's double die" is raised while the doubling on this zinc cent is incuse. The doubling on the zinc cent has nothing to do with the plating and everything to do with the nature of the zinc and its effect on dies.

 

Thanks Mike. For years I've thought the 'poorman's' was machine doubling. I stand corrected. I bet lots of collectors thought so. It's great that you post on this forum. Thanks.

 

Thanks for the explaination to those above posts.

 

Since zinc is a soft metal, you wouldn't expect to affect the dies so seriously. My suspicion is that zinc displays variable visco-elastic properties. Under rapid deformation, it may stiffen up, like silly putty that's pulled (or pushed down) too quickly.

 

I have a 1987 just like this one! I also have a 1988 and a 1989 with the incuse numbers shifted rather significantly. I see it a lot with 89's.Very interesting thread.

 

Well, being very very very new to coin collecting...I am a little lost. What does incuse mean??

 

Zinc does have some stress (work) hardening capacity due to a shift in the metal crystals, but during the 1940s, many foreign countries used zinc for their minor coinage and I haven't seen or heard about much of this on them. Maybe someone that is an expert in foreign errors could comment on zinc. I do not know how many of these zinc coins were minted per die, so maybe it just didn't get to that point of die condition.

Jim

​

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incuse

 

Thank you, now we can be friends.
You know I certainly could be way off on these, these are tough to figure.
From what you have said I must be going in the wrong direction. Maybe we need to look at the planchet more on these types, or the amunt of press/die preasure?
I will be spending some time considering these in the mean time.
I'll try and talk to Potter and Crawford, maybe Bordner about this in the next week.

Thanks,

 

OK, you say that the poormans has nothing to do with (abrasion doubling), so the information in the book "Price Guide to Mint Errors" pg. 163-164 is false information?
For those of you who don't have the book here's the definition of;
Outside Abraded Die Doubling;
A die which has had a design element doubled by the use of an abrasive to cut into the field surrounding the element,so that it appears on the struck coin as an enlarged, irregular outline of the element which does not overlap the original design element".
Is this definition out dated? Thanx in advance...

 

Herbert is indeed wrong on this, as he is on a number of other issues (e.g., "jam strikes"). All of the examples he has floated as examples of "inside abrasion die doubling" are clearly examples of die deterioration doubling. In fact, the entire category of abrasion doubling ("inside" and "outside" abrasion doubling) is highly suspect.

 

What I can tell you is that the incuse doubling generally occurs (and is most evident) where the normal raised design intersects a swollen area on the coin surface. The swollen area is where the die face sank in. I still can't figure out why this should generate incuse doubling.

Incuse doubling also occurs on state quarters struck by deteriorated dies, although these usually take the form of an incuse outline. However, I have seen one Idaho quarter with strong offset in the incuse elements. No swollen area was involved.

I'm stumped, but that's not unusual. There are many mysteries that have yet to be solved when it comes to errors and varieties.

 

Thanx Mike, I had a written conversation with Arnie Margolis last year and he basically wrote-off much of what Alan Herbert has written and many of his definitions... DDD it is...

 

Herbert's right on most things. It's just here and there he provides inaccurate information or unsupported speculation. For example, the whole notion of "weld seam planchets" is very dubious.

 

Well I've looked very closely again at this 87-D also I have seen this thousands of time in the past. I also have thought about this now for 2-days.

What about this:
The area of the encuse doubling (87) is perfectly centered on the raised mound of planchet material with the regular struck "87". Mike says this is the die face where it sunk in. So it has to do with the raised area pushing up, (thickening, puffing up) exactly where the "87" are located. For whatever reason, die fatigue, to much pressure or to thinly rolled planchet, the movement of the raised area between the planchet and "87" in the die are to blaime. The encuse area of the "87" is directly connected to the properly struck "87" right? So the mound in this case under the "87" as the coin was struck pushed and worked as a wedge slightly kicking it out just in an instant. In other words when a coin is normally struck with an even (normal) planchet's surfaces the "87" in this case strike up and finish staight and single in appearence. If struck on a mound, raised or rippled effected area the image (because there is now simply more material beside it) has to kick out and in these cases the kicking out leaves this secondary encuse impression. In a way the area of the "87" was struck through more material and on a slant or bubble - the encuse "87" dug into the extra material leaving an edge of an encuse design.
I bet if we look closely in that '87" the "west to east' portion is much deeper and defined than the "east to west" portion. The die had no choice but to mimic the "87" because of the pushed up material and uneven surface.