1993 Lincoln Cent DDO

Tommy not all MD has shelfing . what about die detoration ? some of the dies wears out and creates what looks almost exactly like a doubled die image on the coins they strike. this type doubling is fairely common on our newer coins and don't fetch any premium above face value. this type doubling is sometimes really confusing to about anyone. please have this coin looked at before listing it on Ebay.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

thats not die deterioration and not MD if You had compare what would You say it is?
http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/uploaded/amida17/20130211_20120529_diagram_of_doubling.jpg

 

Looking at that comparison and comparing it to your coin, I would lead towards MD. To me, it looks "cut in", rather than a fully raised, notched doubled die. I would be interested to see what an in-hand analysis would say.

Well said. That is partially the reason why I ask for the full analysis. If someone says "it may be X but I am not sure", that does not necessarily translate to "confirmed as X".

Best of luck Tommy, if you send it in make sure to report back!

 

Doubling or not...this would be too minor to be concerned with.

Larry Nienaber

 

I agree with you Larry , the coins with minor doubling should not be listed as a doubled die. I have always argued this.

 

now We back to minor.

 

No offense rascal, but why should a genuine doubled die not be listed as such? It is the discretion of the searcher as to whether or not toss out anything that looks too "minor", and keeping a database has only helped the hobby in giving something to look for, identifying already listed doubled dies, and providing educational photos and documentation, and giving beginning collectors a wider range of coins to search for. Let the collector themselves determine what they personally think is worth searching for or posting.

It is true that there comes a point when the doubling is too minor to list, I would agree with you that a doubled die with a similar strength in doubling seen here would probably be too minor to list. But I would not agree with saying "all coins with minor doubling should not be listed".

 

Coin particulars aside, what is the matter with you Ace/Jason? What kind of perverse reverse psychobabble are you tying to bait Tom with? Nothing about his post was 'un calm'. What is with your accusation of get mad? you felt that had occurred or are you being preemptive to troll him into a self fulling prophecy you lay out? For my beliefs the mods should have a word with you.

 

Thanks AWORDGREATED! Im not even upset, mad or disgruntle. beside this I just found a 1854 gold $5 dollar coin. I love the feedback on this 1993 Cent Your learn a lot
from threads like this.

 

Congrats, I just got thru that thread

 

Thanks!

 

this post makes no sense , first you disagree with me then go and agree with me. we have been thru this same discussion many times and you should know I was talking about the coins where the doubling is so minute a microscope has to be used.

look at the extra tree Minnesota quarters for example . a few are really good strong doubled dies with details showing where the extra tree design came from off the dies , then over a hundred different types with many that only has a teeny tiny dot on the coin is still called a doubled die. these is no way these lesser things could be proven by anyone as a real doubled die coin. this really hurt the sales of the really good types of the Minn. quarter doubled die coins because so many types were listed. this is only one example and I'm sure there are more examples out there.

 

What I agree with is that really minor coins that require 30x+ magnification should probably not be listed because the average collector probably only has a 10-15x loupe. I'm sorry I don't have the best memory, Rascal, so I didn't immediately know your definition of what "minor" doubled dies entails.

As to "you can't prove that this minor doubled die is a real doubled die because it is just a small dot, etc", when you find multiple coins spanning decades that show anomalies all southeast of Lincoln's eye, for example, and have overlays to confirm the strong possibility it is a doubled die, that is reason enough to believe that it is very much likely a doubled die. Is there a chance they are something else? Perhaps. But finding anomalies that are near identical in size and shape, that occur in the same small region on a coin, can be traced with die markers, match up with overlays, and span multiple decades, then that is a good deal of evidence to call a coin a doubled die.

 

This needs no microscope it can be seen by looking at, thats not minor.

 

When I open your attachments I can’t see what you are talking about. When I enlarge the attachments it actually hearts my eyes to look at it. Can you provide a photo that shows the doubling you are talking about?
Larry Nienaber

 

A question for the experts:

For this to be hub doubling (Class 4 - offset hub doubling), wouldn't there almost have to be doubling on the ear? On a hub, the devices are raised, just like the face of the coin. The highest point on the coin, in that area, is the ear. When the dies were being made, the ear would have been the first point of contact in that area. So you couldn't say that the ear wasn't doubled because one hubbing wasn't as strong as the other. The ear would have hubbed no matter what. Just brainstorming, looking to learn more about the die making process. Am I off base or what? Thanks!

 

The ear and other areas on the die may have been doubled, but polished off.

Larry Nienaber

 

You raised a good point about the ear let Me take a few more photos of the
ear it seems to be kind of thick I may be wrong but let me take a few more pics of this
Cent so You guys can have a good look at it.

 

For all the thinkers out there, just send it off to the experts, then you'll get your anwser