Seems like I remember hearing, well reading, that incuse doubling takes on the look of machine doubling. Have I got that right? I have a 2000D New Hampshire quarter that looks like MD inside "Old man of the mountain".
In the knowledge we have encuse doubling is not machine type doubling as we normally think about it. When we most often say mechanical or machine type doubling we are referring to that type of strike doubling where both images are raised but simply scooted, pushed or pulled. It's machine doubling simply because it has to do with the mechanics of the coining dies as they are striking. We had a discussion about certain late 1980's early 90's Lincoln's with this type doubling but no answers as of yet. I put forth some theorys of thought on this type doubling (encuse) but it's so far a we're at a loss. It could be something to do with the die having some type of void but I'm still working on this. All we know right now is if it does not happen during striking of the coin it must have something to do with the die and that might make make it a die variety. It will not ultimately matter very much because I have seen it thousands of times and it's very common. Not only that but it's not very exciting when compared to other die varieties IMO.
Thanks bhp3rd, I remember that discussion. I'm not trying to revive a debate. Just to be clear, I'm asking about doubling on a device, or in this case, inscription that is supposed to be incuse. I should have posted pics to begin with:
