1967 p kennedy ddo?

Again, stating that you have a registry set, and even showing said set means nothing.

I'm glad you recognize that fact, but I'm not sure where it was ever said in this thread that the two couldn't exist side by side. I'm assuming that with the example you linked you are referring to the flat-field doubling that is very common on proofs. Technically this doesn't typically fall under the term MD, but is instead more akin to multi-strikes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Something that only a few people know is that the PCGS Showcase, “Caleb’s Kennedy Varieties by CONECA’s Numbers” that Caleb posted, have all been physically verified by James Wiles.



If you want to use an outstanding reference source for Kennedy varieties there it is!



Larry Nienaber

 

Coming from a self proclaimed “Varieties is my field of expertise in the world of numismatics” it is obvious that you don’t know what you are talking about. I guess there is some truth in the saying “there are some that do and others that just talk about it.”

I am still waiting for you to list two examples of Kennedy half dollars varieties that are listed in the CONECA files that has the same or less doubling on them then the three photos at the start of this thread. Of the four that you mentioned earlier, I have to assume that you have never seen them. The 1964 DDO – 013, 1964 DDO – 016 and 1964 – 025 are much stronger doubling and the 1964 – DDO – 023 has be delisted in the files waiting for a replacement to take its place.

If Larry gets the time or inclination to post a few pictures of the 1964 DDO-013, DDO-016 and DDO-025 then maybe everyone can see the spread on these three varieties are much more then the three original photos at the start of this thread.

Anyone who self proclaims that “Varieties is my field of expertise in the world of numismatics” should know that MD (Mechanical Doubling or Machine Doubling) is synonymous over the years with “ejection doubling”, “strike doubling”, “shift doubling” or “shelf doubling” (please see Wexler explanation at this link):

http://www.doubleddie.com/144822.html​

According to Ken Potter, who is not just a self proclaimed expert in the field of varieties but an established expert, “Flat field doubling” is a form of “strike doubling”. As Wexler pointed out, the term “strike doubling” is also known as “Mechanical Doubling” (MD), so technically the coin linked does fall under the term MD.

I’ve wasted enough time on this thread. It has been an eye opener that some know what they are talking about and others don’t.

Caleb

 

I thought you already had the DDO-034?

 

Then you might ask Mike Diamond why he doesn't include flat-field doubling under the MD category. If you knew the subtle difference, you wouldn't need to ask in the first place.

 

Why would I? If I have a question in school, I ask the professor and not a substitute teacher. The same here, if I have a question on Errors I would ask either Fred Weinberg or Ken Potter, why would I go to the second string when I can go to the top experts.

The same can be said for Kennedy varieties, if I have a question then I will ask Larry or Dr. Wiles. You have proven that it would be a waste of my time to ask you.

Lee – Yes I have a 1966 DDO-034 but not as nice as yours, mine is only MS-65 L

 

Ha ha. Just wow. That's the first time I've seen anyone with even a smattering of knowledge in the field of errors refer to Mike Diamond as a "substitute teacher" or "second string". I guess they'll let just about anyone write the "Collector's Clearinghouse" column over at Coin World. Or for that matter elect them as President of Coneca.

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/viewarticle/imperfectly-aligned-proof-strikes-produce-fla

 

Jallengomes...I have to take exception with your list of CONECA listed doubled die obverse’s you think are as minor as the 67 half dollar at the beginning of this thread. Here are photos of the 64PR DDO-013, 64BS DDO-016, 64PR DDO-023 (witch is scheduled to be un-listed) and the 64PR DDO-025.



Larry Nienaber

 

In my opinion all of these lesser doubled dies should not have been attributed as such in the first place. what benefit will they ever be to anyone ? all they do is cause beginning collectors to get really confused. the ones that are not easily seen with a 10X loupe or smaller . look at the Minessota extra tree doubled die coin for example , there are about 10 or 12 really good DDRs then some that are called doubled dies only have a tiny dot on them.

 

Compared to Fred Weinberg and Ken Potter reference “Error” coins, Mike Diamond is no where near their league.

If the U.S. Mint has a question on error coins that they produce, who do you think they call? I think you will find the answer is Fred Weinberg and not Mike Diamond.

As far as writing for “Collector’s Clearinghouse” I believe you will find out that was because Ken Potter didn’t have the time to do it anymore.

If you are trying to impress me with the fact that Mike Diamond was the President of CONECA, which might have worked if he had finished his term instead of being asked or encouraged to resign which he did and the Vice President had to take over. So I will give you this point when you state: “I guess they’ll let just about anyone write the “Collector’s Clearinghouse” column over at Coin World.”

So yes! “If I have a question on Errors I would ask either Fred Weinberg or Ken Potter, why would I go to the second string when I can go to the top experts?”

Larry – Thanks for posting those four pictures. I think they demonstrate nicely that they have stronger doubling then the original photos. It is too bad that others are not big enough to admit when they are wrong, especially when they proclaim that “Varieties is my field of expertise in the world of numismatics.”

What is the old saying, “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

 

We'll see Larry. If you ask me, those are all pretty typical of the minor doubled dies we see for the series. But remember, the real issue at hand is whether or not this is a doubled die.

 

Just keep digging your hole of ignorance Caleb. It's really very pathetic to see you dragging the names of good, highly respected people through the mud.

 

Varieties aren't for everyone, and even for many who are interested, it's only the CPG or Redbook stuff that's going to be of interest to them. I think at a certain point it becomes academic, but there are still numerous people who take an interest in all doubled dies. I myself am one of those interested. As with any specialized area of numismatics, beginners are going to be confused regardless. While different attributors might have differing opinions on the legitimacy of a particular variety, I see no issue in listing the minor varieties.

 

Lots of folks misinterpret the term "light spread" with "barely presceptible spread".

Thanks for posting the photo's Larry!

 

Based on the photos above, I could fight both sides of this battle. I would need a clear shot of the top of the U in Trust and a clearer shot of the closeup picture. I can see what I think is notching, but then again taking into consideration the glare in the pics, I can also dispel that.

Inconclusive.

 

Definition of IGNORANCE

: the state or fact of being ignorant: lack of knowledge, education, or awareness


Who was it that said CONECA has Kennedy varieties listed as weak or weaker then the three photos listed at the start of this thread? Who was it that listed three 1964 recognized CONECA Kennedy varieties and one that is being delisted and stated that they were as minor or more minor then the photos at the start of this thread (even the one that CONECA is delisting is stronger then the one this thread is about)? Who proclaims to being an expert in the field of varieties? Who has demonstrated a “lack of knowledge, education, or awareness” of what a coin has to have before it is a recognized variety?

If you need help answering any of these questions, I suggest you utilize a mirror and the answer will magically appear to you. In the mirror, you may even notice the shovel in your hands that was used for digging the hole you find yourself in.

Your statement: “It's really very pathetic to see you dragging the names of good, highly respected people through the mud” is just false, it never happened. You use the word names (in the plural sense) meaning more then one. The only names I have interjected into this thread are; Larry, Lee, Ken Potter, James Wiles, John Wexler and Fred Weinberg and I do not believe I dragged any of their names “through the mud”. I did mention that I thought Wexler would list almost anything in his filing system, but that is more of a fact then dragging through the mud.

You on the other hand are the one that interjected Mike Diamond’s name into this conversation, not me. I never said that Mr. Diamond wasn’t knowledgeable in the area of “ERRORS”, just if I had a question in that field I would go to Fred Weinberg or Ken Potter who in my opinion are at the top in that field and they are both willing to answer my questions. You are the one that suggested; “I guess they’ll let just about anyone write the “Collector’s Clearinghouse” column over at Coin World” and I just agreed with you.

It appears that you like to re-write history but you were the one that listed being elected President of CONECA as being something prestige or a qualification for being an expert in the field. I just mentioned the fact that he never finished his elected term of office so it didn’t mean that much to me. No mud slinging on my part except agreeing with you that just about anyone can write for “Collector’s Clearinghouse”.

I have dealt with cyber bullies and trolls before, you do not frighten me. I have figured you out and anyone reading these posts can come to their own conclusion.

Just remember, I wasn’t the one that just paid $20 for a forty percent Kennedy half dollar that is only worth melt value. I would think that someone proclaiming himself to being an expert in the field of varieties to have a little more common sense.

 

Can't we just wait for new pics to be posted? That will tell us once and for all if the coin is a doubled die or not. All this extra banter is kind of unnecessary in answering the original question of this thread.

 

When you have something relevant to add to the conversation, please let me know. Otherwise, try to stop calling people out on random things.