Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="desertgem, post: 1454986, member: 15199"]I am very uncertain that it is #20. It does look more like MDD. Let me try to explain by pointing out the "9" in the date. Blur your vision a little and don't look at the "doubling lines", but look at the overall width of the lower part of the "9". Now compare that with the same area in this photo 0f #20 from CC.<a href="http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1962&die_id=1962p1do020&die_state=eds" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1962&die_id=1962p1do020&die_state=eds" rel="nofollow">http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1962&die_id=1962p1do020&die_state=eds</a> To me , the "9" in the CC photo looks much thicker ( wider) than Dollar's . The reason that when a true double die occurs, the original "9" stays and the doubling adds to the width, whereas in MDD, the "9" starts out normal thickness, and a part of the edge is sheared by the mechanical doubling with maybe a portion increase, but not as much. Also , still looking at that area of the "9" in the CC photo, notice how the line separating the original and the doubled part is a faint line because the height is almost the same as the original , but in Dollar's coin, the difference is more pronounced due to flattening. Anyway, hard to tell from photos without a good magnification, but that is IMO. Jim[/QUOTE]