I found this looking thru some old change i had. I think it is hub doubling, but it makes you look twice.
1969S Cents are notorious for mechanical doubling... which is what looks like is going on here. It wouldn't be Hub doubling because the mintmark is doubled as well and this is added after the dies are hubbed.
The separation on the FAMOUS 1969-S DDO (FS-101) is much stronger on the date and all obverse legends (but no doubling on the mintmark, as noted), much wider than here. In particular IN GOD WE TRUST the doubling is separated by nearly a half-letter width. See the new Cherrypickers' fifth edition, vol. 1, p. 138 for some excellent photos.
no, as dies wear... sometimes they show doubling in certain places...simply from the dies being used... Defer to the board experts for certian... but I think that's the simplest explanation
OCOPR48; I don't know if you sow my 1969-S in discussion, about 2 month ago. Yours look better and I think what you have is a Double Mint Mark; "CURIOSITY" can you put the entire Oberse?
Carlos, No it is not a Double Mint Mark otherwise known as an RPM! The Mintmark and the Date both suffered from Machine or Strike Doubling! Also, per your previous posting, it is not a Double Strike as in Double Struck which would mean that the coin was struck once then struck once again and in most cases the second strike is either rotated from the first or off-center from the first. However, there are flip-over Doubled Strikes where the coin is struck the first time and for some reason it is not ejected and actually flips over in the Striking Chamber and gets struck again. When this happens, if another planchet does not enter the Striking Chamber and the coin is struck unobstructed, then this is a Double Strike or Double Struck. However, if another planchet does enter the Striking Chamber and is between the Die and the coin, then it will suffer a Partial or Full Brockage. Frank
I've had rolls of them! I've had rolls of them - what has been said before is true. Mechanical doubling or strike doubling is very common esp. on this year/mint - you can't sling a cat in this house without hitting some of them. The comment about the mintmark and doubling warrants further study and it would be helpful to any of you'all to learn it. I only hope it also has not been beat to death on here before: Prior to about 1990 the mint mark was applied by hand to the working die thus resulting in those varieties we love RPM's. A doublED die is just that, the die is doubled during the hubbing process The working die is prepared, (hubbed) THEN the mintmark applied. DoublED die occur before the maintmark is added - there fore a doubled die with a mintmark doubled in the same direction with the same sort of spread cannot (99 of 100 times) be a true doubled die. Conversely a mintmark cannot be a portion of a hubb doubled die until sometimes after 1990 because it was not even there during hubbing. The 1995-D DDO-003 has a mintmark being a portion of that doubled die because it was in place during hubbing. There are exceptions as Potter noted on that 1969-S DDO-001 that was found last year had some die shift or mechanical doubling also along with the major doublED die. Earlier there were also doubled dies with RPM's also, RPM-100 and the 42-S come to mind. We also found 1957-D quarter that had a "D" in the wreath about a quarter inch away from the primary but later determined to be on a master die or master hubb - some of you may remember we found the same "D" on at least 4 different working dies. Wiles never thought it was one by I have a gem one and all you have to do is see it one time and you would flip-it's a "D". Now if you think this is complicated I gave the simplest of explanation as I could here. Mechanical doubling as on this cent is only one of the criteria we use to help explain what type of thing occurred to cause the doubling. But my ain't it fun!!!!! Ben "took me ten years to get all this stuff straight" Peters
The term is machine doubling, some will add a word and call it "machine doubling damage". It is damage caused at the moment of strike so machine doubling is sufficient. Adding damage is redundant. It has been called "mechanical doubling" in the past and that terminology will be seen all over the place but it is fading away Have Fun, Bill
And that's a good thing Initials are good I will admit to being a semi-nutcase about terminology No Comments please Have Fun, Bill
My friend OCOPR48. This is the reason I would like to see the entire oberse. As you can see in my 1969 S, A xtra little face was about the ear of Mr Lincoln. I'm curious if it's in your too.
I'm starting to see the need to use proper terminology in my post and I appreciate when you point out the improper use of terminology used in the past improperly. Thankshya:
You got that right Frank!!!!!!!:crying: No, fishaddicit I have a large selection of pic that I can referance. Some I have and some I don't. This one unforunately I do not.
