I am sure this is too good to be true but I thought I would share. Looks like Mechanical double to me thought I would ask you.
That's about the most prominent example of MD I can remember seeing here. Worth keeping on that basis alone, in my opinion...
It's a cruel irony that 1969-S seems to have a larger than normal population of MD than other dates, or maybe it's just that every single MD coin is pulled out as a hopeful DDO. Finding a coin with strong MD does get your heart going, doesn't it?
Look how rounded the bottoms of the doubling are in relation to the actual letters in Liberty. That in itself tells you it is going to be mechanical doubling here. Basically the motion of the die (not doubled on the die) as the coin is struck is giving it this appearance. Mechanical doubling does not give a sharp crisp double image with similar height as the die with no doubling. On a doubled die, you would be looking for doubling of the same height usually and also you would be looking for the sharpness to also be there. In other words it would not appear like on your coin with more rounded flat edging. The process for a doubled die comes not in striking the coin but in the making of the die that strikes the coin. Once you understand the differences in processes that lead to this, it becomes easier to notice the things you need to to decide.
Ahh, that's what you meant. I was thinking you were suggesting that die wear could cause the coin to appear as if it had MD. I'm not sure about die wear causing MD, but I am not expert on MD. Perhaps someone with better knowledge about the cause of MD in this era could elucidate?
I’m not sure about here, but stronger examples certainly exist. Still, I do agree with keeping it though; why not? Also, I do believe this would fall under what’s called “push doubling”.