This is strike or mechanical doubling very common when This is strike or mechanical doubling very common when dies work loose.
You have got to be kidding me!! Looking around coppercoins I've seen alot less on some coins. Look at ALL the 1964P on coppercoins. You are telling me that those are considered doubling and this isn't?
To all CT members that have help me I just want to say "Thank you for your time and patience". I am out of patience so good luck to all in any endevour you pursue. I will follow this thread for 24 hours and then I bid you farewell.
It just seems to be getting out of hand. I see the slightest "mark" on coins get attributed as an eror but when I post a coin that seems to be something it is called MD. Do I have to pay for it to be an error? I've taken most statements and understand the reason why. But this coin has way too much for me to agree with MD. I'm just getting burnt out possibly.
Sounds like you need to take a break. I hope you don't leave for good. For what it's worth, for every genuine Doubled Die coin there are probably scores (if not hundreds) of coins with strike doubling.
OK, yours is not strike doubling. If it were strike doubling it would have happened during the strike and not after as in machine doubling.
Fishaddict, Please reconsider your thought. It is difficult at first to be able to distinguish the different types of Doubled die coins and machine doubling on coins. There are many many more machine doubling coins than true doubled die coins. So any doubling one sees should be considered as machine doubling until it can be ruled out. Most true doubled dies have been documented since there are usually thousands to hundred thousands all the same except for small differences that occur as the die wears. The best indication of mechanical doubling is the flattened surface of the secondary image. Yet notice that in regular coins, the date and letters are not flat topped ( except for some proofs), they have a rounded top. So if the hub did press 2 offsetting images on the working die, they would both be rounded, and about the same depth. Thus if the offset is small, there is usually notching on the devices. The extreme case is like this 1955/55 DDO. Notice how both images are rounded and about the same depth of impression ( same height numbers). If the spread wasn't so extreme, there would be notching ( LIBERTY). Obviously this is a very extreme case, but the indicators will be the same. Here is a jefferson 5 cent piece. Maybe some would first think it was a MD, but notice the split notching at the end of some letter serifs, as well as a more rounded appearance. Now here is a harder one. Is this MD or DDO? It is a 1909 VDB DDO. Don't give up, it takes a while to develop the eye. A forum is so much faster to develop such, it is like having an expert at your shoulder. If you call every example someone shows a MD, you will be correct 99% of the time. It is the other 1% that makes so many look so carefully. Jim
It is not part of the strike, the damage occurs after the completion of the strike, so obviously it cannot be strike doubling. The cause is the bouncing of the die or die holder assembly on the struck coin. The strike ends with the final impact of the die pair. That's why I feel the term 'strike doubling' would be an improper term because MMD happens after the strike.
You'all are making it much harder than it need be. You'all are making it much harder than it need be. It is (that coin) strike, or mechanical, or machine, or shelve, or bounce - the plain fact is it is not a die variety - if it happened during striking, after striking, or on the pavement, it just don't matter cause it's not a coin that is going to be worth research as a die variety. If it were we would say so. Listen, we went through the same frustrating learning process as you are going through right now - there is no other way to learn this stuff. Fish thinks, or so it seems, that the strength of doubling has something to do with being a true doublED die - it does not - what makes a doubled die is the hubbing of the die and not the end result on the coin - that is the bonus, what we see on the struck coin is the result of the hubbing of the die multiple times with adjustment or other type problems - until you get this you will have a very hard time understanding the difference. If you continue to get this frustrated over not fully understanding this area of numismatics then it may not be for you but I hope you find some other area that satisfies you - for the other guy tying to explain to us about strike doubling, whether it is or not, or at the end or not, well, I have no advice.
Fishaddict, if that's N-S doubling from the die (i.e., prior to the coin having been struck), why then is there also traces of it, N-S, on the S mint mark...which was hammered on the die subsequent to the die having been hubbed? Unless you're prepared to say that N-S orientation on the S mint mark is strike doubling coincidental with your hub doubling. Do you understand?
Hi, What gets a little frustrating is seeing someone leave a forum because of something like this. The hardest thing to explain is that not all things doubled are from doubled dies. Some look to the untrained eye, very much like what they would expect to see on a doubled die but then it turns out to be machine doubling. The amount of doubling also makes no difference. A doubled die has certain distinct characteristics that we look for and can consistently identify. A coin with Machine doubling also has certain distinct characteristics that we look for and can consistently identify. There is no doubt that the first coin in the thread exhibits machine doubling and it has all the characteristics needed to ID it as Machine doubling. It has none of the characteristics needed to attribute it as a doubled die. Doubling does not automatically mean doubled die. I would humbly suggest that rather than use the doubling as a way to discern a doubled die from something else, that you take a look at the many websites that explain the differences between the characteristics. A search on this site would probably turn up some good results. I understand your frustration but it is not because the coin is really a doubled die and we are saying it isn't. It is really because you are not sure yet just how to identify a doubled die based upon the specific characteristics. There are some situations where a doubled die can look like machine doubling if a first hubbing was pretty light and was then followed up by a proper hubbing. There is not an example of machine doubling that I have ever seen that can fool me into thinking it was a doubled die. That is how different the characteristics are. Please reconsider. as there is a lot to learn. At the beginning as I got into the study of die varieties, I got pretty frustrated too. Thanks, Bill
I think the terms "strike doubling" and "machine doubling" can be used interchageably to describe the same thing. I do not think there is a difference between the two. I'm not trying to split hairs or start a nasty debate but to me the action of the die chattering after the coin has been struck and the hammer die is starting to move away from the coin is still part of the strike. Others may disagree but I believe that is the general concensus among collectors and also the view of "experts".
