1991 penny- Just die deterioration on the date?

Can I have your help on this one? What Am I seeing here? Thank you guys!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It looks like die deterioration to me!

Chris

 

What you see on the date is called
DDD - Die Deterioration Doubling
http://www.error-ref.com/die-deterioration-doubling-incuse/

Worthless doubling

 

Thanks Chris!

 

Thank you @paddyman98 !

 

I wonder how many times folks called the 1958 DDO cent a worthless find? Just asking cause I didn't know it even existed until recently. I tend to keep anything 'off' and save it indefinitely just cause of incidents like this. With the 'professional' grading companies not even acknowledging discoveries until much later (as was the case with the 58DDO), I hold everything.

 

Do you understand at all the difference between DDO and DDD?

DDO and DDR is a Doubled Die Variety

DDD is an issue that occurs because of a worn die and has nothing to do with a true Doubled Die Variety...

Don't worry, you will hopefully understand this soon.

Here read this - http://doubleddie.com/144801.html
And
http://doubleddie.com/144843.html

 

Yeah I do realize the many, many different varieties. I suppose I incorrectly classify them in a lump together when obviously I shouldn't. All I was sayin' is that when it takes NGC or PCGS so long to recognize some varieties (as was the case with the 58ddo), I hold anything that looks odd enough to stick out. Granted there are more 'varieties' that are worth little to nothing than there are true rarities but like I said, since they are quite slow to recognize such varieties, who knows how long it might take before they officially acknowledge such. I appreciate the links and I did know the difference prior. My ongoing point continues that if I pull something out and ask here, and it is classified as 'nothing' and nobody acknowledges it until perhaps 10 years later then I'm kickin' myself for not holding onto what I once had that was dismissed as nothing. Know what I mean?

 

DDD - Die Deterioration Doubling is not a Variety

 

Again, I apologize. VARIATIONS then, albeit DDO's or DDR's (Obverse and reverse doubling), DDD's being triple punched (RPM's) or whatever. Yes, it makes tons of difference when discussing it with all types of collectors (which I guess is your point) but all I'm saying is that 'errors' in general are very slow to be recognized. I'll admit I am not as well versed in the numismatic terms everyone seems to place such extreme importance on but I am aware of the difference between the die being deteriorated and the resulting strike versus doubling of the image (one being completely different than the other). I collected many different 'oddities' (how's that?) over the years and I notice that in general, the finds folks come up with are quickly dismissed without much consideration and all I'm trying to say is to hold whatever looks off and had I dismissed everything that is so easily dismissed, I might not have some of the finds I've found. That's it. Boy, that was exhaustive.

 

OMG.. You are totally confused with all this! Listen.. Forget it. Believe what you want to believe. I'm tired of explaining and giving you websites with clear explanations.

By the way.. RPM's are varieties that have nothing at all to do with Doubled Dies.

Adios!

 

Wow. We have reached a disconnect. Sorry man. I know you mean well and have no ill will. I guess I am confused. So be it. Errors. Thank you. God Bless.

 

You are totally lumping everything into being an error or variety.

A Die is like a car tire. It wears down, as it wears down the tread gets thinner, details get lost, the tread imprint may soften. If a inner belt or something breaks the consistency of the tread can change (get a bulbous area, shift side to side etc. This is Die Deterioration and can create false visual impressions of doubling.

REAL Errors/Varieties are due to human intervention. They do something to make the visual change. RPMs is someone stamps the die to make sure the MM's impression is clear, which they could have buffed out when they did maintenance on the die. DD's are an early human problem from not being perfect in their maintenance/ work.

So you have WEAR (Die Deterioration) vs HUMAN Intervention (Errors/ Varieties)

Hopefully that is understandable. They are totally different.

 

Understood. Now and prior but thank you. Quite understandable.

 

Alright so I reread my original post and I'm still not sure where it went sideways. I guess the point is long lost.

 

this statement

and RPM is due to Human Intervention / maintenance on the die.

a DDD is your worn out car tire. It still works, but your hydroplane in rain and it doesn't steer nor break well anymore and leaves skid marks all over the place like a badly worn die.

and then if you combine Die Deterioration and Zincoln planchet .. it's like the stuff that comes out the back of cows after they've eaten ...

 

Thank you. Never knew that.

 

Let's take it another simplified step.

Let's say you make coins.
You start with a Perfect Die. The image is PERFECT for the first, #1 stamped coins. Let's say the life of that die ends up being 10,000.

If you put all those 10,000 coins in a box you could technically put them in order from #1 to #10,000 all due to slight deterioration of the die (like that car tire wear). If they had a serial number and you didn't look at it you'd be somewhat close.

As the die gets older you notice that the Mint Mark is getting really shallow around 9,250. So you stop and you Repunch the Mint Mark but slightly off. Now you have a RPM with a shifted RPM.

As you continue you start getting die cracks at 9,500; then some die chips at 9,750; then your start having chunks fall off such as a large Cud at 9,990. You then stop at 10,000 as the die just has that large cud that totally makes it worthless as a coin for commerce.


So now you throw away that die and as many of the Cuds as you can find, and start all over again with a new die.

that process, just like wearing out a tire, starts all over again as you just got new tires, or new dies.

 

Yes, okay. I believe I understand, now and before. Is there a more specific problem you have with my post? Perhaps I can clear up the intent of it and what I was trying to convey (albeit unsuccessfully).

 

I think as you continue to learn and strive to use numismatic terms properly with a stronger understanding, you'll look back a year from now with a better command of the numismatic terms to not drive @paddyman98 nuts.