1996 LINCOLN CENT DDR

Not being able to see the coin in hand, my opinion will only reflect what I can see from the photographs provided...and I don't see anything that would say "DDR" on this coin.

Not being a world-renowned expert on die varieties and mint errors, my opinion is basically worth only what someone is willing to believe.

Not being physically present for a real discussion between human beings, the vital meta-messages that add context and meaning to my written words are missing, so I ask that you don't become offended by my statement contrary to what you believe about the coin.

Not having taken your pictures, but having struggled to capture my own variety finds in a picture, I can understand that there may be more to this coin than we can see.

Perhaps the OP could attempt to use the powers of technology to re-image the coin to provide more information? Otherwise, I'd have to agree that this just looks like a worn die that I've seen no thousands of Kennedy Halves (as foundinrolls stated earlier). This looks totally different from the example the OP provided from Wexler's site, where none of the images Wexler provides have the die trails that your coin exhibits.

Just my two cents FWIW.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

BNL, I have to disagree with this. I still feel as I am a rookie at this. I have only been searching for a year and a half now and when I feel strongly about true hub doubling, most of the time I get confirmation. I have spent many hours, though, researching this. I have also studied hundreds to thousands of pictures. Sometimes I am wrong, but that ratio is shrinking every day. You have to put in the time. I promise if you do your research you will be rewarded and MD will stick out most of the time.

 

I've known John and Ken , and when he was still with us, Alan Herbert. I know most of the major error and die variety people, like BJ Neff and Mike Diamond. I've known and learned from some of these people for more than 25 years. I feel confident when I say that each of these gentleman would probably say that I know what I'm talking about 99.9% of the time. Again, I screw up occasionally but not often.

I've written hundreds of articles and columns for CW and for several websites that unfortunately are off line right now. I've contributed to the Numismatist and I've had editorials published that have included my corrections to other articles seen in the magazine. I've answered thousands of emails for my website askaboutcoins( one of the offline sites due to a server issue) and so on. I know coins and the processes that go into making them.

I make a mistake every once in awhile but it "ain't" often that I do.

Those folks who just show up and don't have the knowledge or experience to understand the concepts involved with the classes of doubled dies tend to see whatever they want to see when they examine a coin. They don't understand the intricate parts of the minting process and they haven't seen thousands of coins that really are doubled dies in order that they might know what they are looking at.

Some people with limited knowledge want to tear apart the knowledgeable. I suppose so they can make themselves feel better, AND...some people truly want to learn about the hobby.

I suspect that by now, readers of these threads can figure out who has a clue and who is just stirring the pot by sharing their almost total lack of correct information in order to get a rise out of some of us.

You know what...When I started out in numismatics many years ago, I didn't know squat from Shinola....but I learned. Do you know that I still have the first 1956 D Lincoln cent that Ken Potter used to teach me what machine doubling was, more than 25 years ago? Learning from those who are willing to teach what is useful and correct is one of the great parts of a coin forum.

Well, enough for now. Those that want to learn, can learn from many of the people here. You can figure out who to pay attention to.

The sad part is that some of the longest threads in these forums are long because some of the least knowledgeable people want to convince others that they have a clue when they have almost no idea what it takes to make a coin.

Anyway...I'm off to read another thread. This has gotten too long already.

 

Well Said Bill.

I know several of the people he mentioned above and all of them are great teachers. Matter of fact I spoke today to Potter, actually we talk 2-3 times a week. I also know that most of the Experts in the hobby simply refuse to come into forums for the very reason that Bill talk about in the last post. They got tired of arguing with people who enter the hobby for 2 weeks and know more about errors/varieties then people who have spent the last 40 years LEARNING. Enough said.

And Yes, Bill is respected as an expert in this area of numismatics.

 

Couldn't have said it any better myself, Bill.

I myself am far from the experts that post and are mentioned here, but I do know enough to know that claiming that only I am right and everyone else is wrong does not get us anywhere. I say that if someone feels that they are so obviously in the right and everyone else that commented otherwise is wrong, then they shouldn't have anything to worry about sending a coin into a renowned die attributor to prove their point.

Saying things like

and claiming that people disagreeing with the OP are turning the thread into an "I know it all about coins fest" (which seems a bit hypocritical in this case), and misinterpreting/incorrectly applying a point made by a die attributor do nothing at all to prove a point.

Tommy, I hope you take all of our comments to heart. We are not here just to disagree with you...we are here to provide information and education about the coins posted. There's no need to take our comments personally.