2007 Canadian Proof Nickel Maybe accumulations error? pretty extreme!

Discussion in 'Error Coins' started by jjohnson3582506, Apr 1, 2020.

  1. Fallguy

    Fallguy Active Member

    My Reply regarding "is/is not" the coin a Proof, was to the post by NLL "What makes you think it’s a proof?".

    While my response to Mr. Diamonds post re DDD did use the word "Proof", it was in the context that with the care given to Proof dies, it was unlikely that they would be subject to the same level of deterioration that a Business Strike die would. In other words, my disagreement was with "This is 100% die deterioration doubling." and therefore I asked what it was in his observations that led him to that conclusion. My apologies if the wording in my response to Mr. Diamonds Post led to the impression that my issue with him was "is/is not" it a Proof. The word "Proof" was incidental to the "die deterioration doubling" he raised.
     
    thomas mozzillo likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. mikediamond

    mikediamond Coin Collector

    As to my reasoning, the "blobby" doubling surrounding the affected die elements is unmistakable. No other form of doubing has this appearance. A die does not have to be particularly old or worn to develop this form of die deterioration doubling. It can develop quickly and prematurely. Improper heat treatment or something wrong with the chrome plating on the die face may be the cause.
     
  4. Fallguy

    Fallguy Active Member


    Thank you for the link, I reviewed it with keen interest; much appreciated! From www.coinsandcanada.com you can access 2 pages (actually 3, but I’ll get to that in a moment) germane to the topic at hand. One is Doubled Die – Examples (https://www.coinsandcanada.com/coins-errors-varieties-list.php?error=doubled-die&id=32) and the other is Deteriorated Die – Examples (https://www.coinsandcanada.com/coins-errors-varieties-list.php?error=deteriorated-die&id=11). It is interesting to note that regardless of the page the individual photos are listed on, a few of the photos’ file names indicate “doubled” die, some say “deteriorated-die”, but by far most carry a file name with “double” die (emphasis added), and why this may be the case I will mention later. My overall take, after looking at every one of the photos listed, is that other than for possibly 2 or 3 coins the rest of the coins are examples of coins displaying Die Deterioration Doubling, Machine Doubling, or a combination of both; regardless of which “Page” they are displayed on or what their file names might indicate. In all fairness to www.coinsandcanada.com they do state on each of those Pages: “Most of the following pictures come from the generous contribution of the community. Titles attributed to them doesn't always reflect the exact error or variety on them.NB: I wish to stress that my comments above (and below) are solely my opinions based on my observations. As such, the interested reader is encouraged to use these links so that they may reach their own conclusions. Of course I would be happy to hear the response of those who have done so just to see how they compare to my understanding. With that said, here are a few representative photos.

    I lead with this 1979 cent, as it appears on both Pages: One listed as a “Double” die and the photo here with a file name indicating “deteriorated-die”. 1_error-deteriorated-die-01-1-cent-1979-g.jpg I think the latter wins the prizeJ! The next two photos (2 and 3) are 1943 and 1962 Nickels. 2_5-cents-1943-double-s.jpg 3_5-cents-1962-double-c-a.jpg Both are listed as “double”, the first of the “S” and the second of the “C” and last “A” in “CANADA”. It appears to me that the “S” is pretty clearly the result of MD and the “C” and “A” the victims of DDD or MD. Photo 4, the 2012 Quarter (again listed as a “double”), 4_25-cents-2012-double-reverse.jpg is interesting given that the “2” and “N” certainly look like MD, but the “star” and possibly the tips of the antlers seem to have the appearance of true doubling. I just don’t know and would like to hear others impressions. I like the 2009 $2 in Photo 5 due to the nice rounding on the “N”; 5_Can_2-dollars-2009-ddd.jpg sadly it appears on both the internal and external legs of the “N”. As telling, the remainder of the designs marked by the black arrows look they are due to DDD. Photos 6 & 7, a 2009 $1 and a 1968 $1, 6_dollar-2009-double-date-2009-1-dollar-2009.jpg 7_RQ_1_dollar_1968_dd_1968.jpg of all of the photos from the 2 web pages appear to be the best candidates for actually being struck by a Doubled Die; that is the way I am leaning, but I’m certainly open to others views. The last 3 photos in this series, (Photos 8, 9 & 10) a 2000 25 cents, a view of the OP’s Nickel, and a 1990 10 cent piece respectively. 8_25-cents-2000-double-die.jpg 9_OP_ELIZABETH (resized).jpg 10-cents-1990-double-legend-canadian-dime-error-coin.jpg I choose these photos because they all show “ELIZABETH”, but in what I believe different states. The 25 cent piece appears to show the effects of one type of DDD and possibly MD. The OP’s Nickel is the product of what I believe to be a Doubled Die. The 1990 Dime is certainly what looks to be the result of being struck by the penultimate Classic Deteriorated Die:

    Also, since dies showing die deterioration doubling are extremely worn, the affected letters or other design elements will have a mushy appearance as opposed to the crisp and distinct doubling usually seen on genuine doubled dies.” Wexler, Die Deterioration Doubling (Emphasis Added).

    Perhaps the best way to understand die deterioration doubling is comparing what happens when we purchase new shoes. Those brand spanking new shoes have a sharp and distinct tread on the bottom of the soles. After many months of continued walking, the soles become worn and deteriorated and we notice a mushy, ragged looking appearance when we leave an impression in the dirt or sand! Well, the same thing happens with dies that make it thru a production run at the U.S. Mint. The die first exhibits a sharp, well defined designs of the coin, but after continued use the mushy, ragged appearance becomes evident. This late to very late die state gives us the false doubling known as die deterioration doubling (DDD) . . .” The National Collectors Association of Die Doubling "Educational Series on Die Doubling" Series #2: Die Deterioration Doubling (DDD) vs. Hub Doubling (Emphasis Added).

    POST CONTINUED BELOW
     
    thomas mozzillo likes this.
  5. Fallguy

    Fallguy Active Member

    5_cents_1941_double_ada_canada.jpg
    One of the most common sources of doubling is die deterioration. As a die pounds away at hundreds of thousands of planchets, the die face slowly degrades. Peripheral letters and numbers become wider and increasingly ill-defined. In some cases the margins of affected design elements deteriorate more rapidly than the interior, leading to a form of doubling called die deterioration doubling or DDD.” Mike Diamond-Special to Coin World, Die deterioration doubling on coins can be raised or incuse, Aug 31, 2012 (Emphasis Added). NB: And I cannot stress this enough, in that SAME ARTICLE, Mr. Diamond goes on to state: “Raised die deterioration doubling isn’t always irregular. Sometimes the raised outline is clearly demarcated with a uniform width as seen in the accompanying 1993-P Washington quarter dollar. This more elegant form of die deterioration doubling is more commonly seen in foreign coins, where breakdown of chrome plating on the die face is thought to be the culprit.” (Emphasis Added) These two photos are of that coin; 11_Mike_1993p_25c_Cropped.png 12_Mike_1993p_25c_Cropped (resized).png the first is the original cropped and the second photo has been processed to remove some of the “noise” and resized. While neither image is of high quality, I think one can fairly see the clear demarcation between the actual design and its die deterioration double that the author was alluding to. I would note however, that these artifacts do appear at various locations and/or both sides of the numbers and letters displayed . . . unlike the OPs coin where the demarcations are relatively symmetric and localized.

    Finally, as mentioned above, there was a third related page that could be accessed from the www.coinsandcanada.com website: Errors and varieties listed by Hans Zoell (https://www.coinsandcanada.com/coins-errors-varieties-zoell.php). In a series of articles written by Ken Potter around the turn of this Century (Die Deterioration Doubling Common On 1999 Coinage: Parts 1-3) he states: “DDD is a term I originally borrowed from Canadian numismatics to replace other terms such as "polished die-doubling", "die fatigue doubling" and "decarburization doubling", which I felt less comfortable with but were in usage in U.S. circles in the early 1980s and earlier. As far as I've been able to ascertain, the term DDD was originally coined by Jack Forbes back in the late 1960s in Unusual Canadian Objects, (a magazine edited by Canadian error-variety coin pioneer, Hans Zoell).” (Emphasis Added). With that information in hand, I ended up again scratching my head after reviewing his photos, though I did find a possible answer to a question that had been nagging me about the way these Canadian coins were being identified. As to his photos that were listed as “double” dies, all but possibly 2 or 3 appear to be the result of MD, DDD or both (not doubled dies), just like the photos from the aforementioned pages on the CoinsandCanada.com website. Here is a compilation of his photos so that the interested reader can reach their own conclusions. 1_cent_1967_double_date.jpg 1_cent_1968_double_8.jpg 1-cent-1859-double-5.jpg 1-cent-1939-double-939-1-cent-1939-canada.jpg 1-cent-1965-double-right-obverse-canada-1965.jpg 1-dollar-1968-double-d-g-reg-regina-1968.jpg 1-dollar-1968-double-legend-1968.jpg Oh, as to the question that was possibly answered . . . I could not figure why most of the photos on the website were listed as “double” dies and not “doubled” dies, especially since Mr. Zoell was recognized as an error and variety pioneer. Well as it turns out, Mr. Zoell was (or is) French Canadian and the French word for “double” is “double”. In addition, the French word for “doubled” is, you guessed it, “double” with the only difference being an accent mark (‘) over the “e”. I believe that most file naming systems are very restrictive as the types of special characters that can be used, and I think it’s reasonable to assume that the computers in Canada are just as restrictive in their conventions. At least one question solved!

    The bottom line? To me there was nothing that I found while putting this piece together that has dissuaded me from the belief that the OP’s coin was struck with a doubled die; in fact, that belief has been strengthened. Having said that, without having the OP’s coin in hand so that a thorough microscopic analysis could be done, or even more definitively have the die with which the coin was struck, I will never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the coin in question was not the product of a deteriorated die; all I’ve had to work with, as is the case with everyone else, is a set of photos, and I think we all know that photographs of coins, especially less than professionally produced photos can be quite tricky to analyze. Questionable photos or not, the “reasonable doubt” standard is only applicable in Criminal proceedings. Given that this is more of a “Civil” dispute (we are still being civil, correct), the appropriate standard of proof is “by the preponderance of evidence”. While such a case would still have to be submitted to a “jury” for confirmation, I believe that with Observation, Information (data), and the use of Scientific Methodologies as well as the application of its tools, the development of such a case may be possible. Hopefully you will be able to find same when I finish my response to Mr. Diamond’s observations on why he believes the OP’s coin is the result of die deterioration doubling (and I truly thank him for having given a response). It may take a little more time to get that finished, especially given how long it took me to put this post together. At least it appears that “time” is something that we have a surplus of as things currently stand. Until them, Stay Safe and . . . Semper Fidelis.

    REMAINDER OF HANS ZOELL PHOTOS BELOW
     
    thomas mozzillo likes this.
  6. Fallguy

    Fallguy Active Member

    REMAINDER OF HANS ZOELL PHOTOS:

    5-cents-1946-double-5-cents.jpg 5-cents-1950-double-buste.jpg 5-cents-1950-double-canada.jpg 5-cents-1951-double-cents-1951-.jpg 5-cents-1951-double-revers.jpg 5-cents-1952-double-5-cents-1962.jpg 5-cents-1953-double-canada-95-1953.jpg 5-cents-1955-double-date.jpg 5-cents-1960-double-1-9-date-1960.jpg 25-cents-1955-double-1955.jpg

    Sorry that the whole thing couldn't have fit in a single reply. Semper Fidelis
     
  7. Fallguy

    Fallguy Active Member

    I very much appreciate your response. As I mentioned in my rather lengthy post I just made, without the OP's coin or the die that created it in hand, there is no way that I can definitively "prove" what condition the die was in that struck that coin. As importantly, I'm also not interested in "dis-proving" anyone else's observation. My issue is that I believe some parts of this puzzle need to be looked at from possibly different angles or even de novo. If you get a chance to look at my trifurcated post of today, you may see why I'm not quite ready to put this issue to bed. I have the greatest respect for your expertize and would hope all see my actions as that of an inquisitive mind who has always been more interested in What's in the "Black Box" and how does it work, than he is in the fact that the Black Box works. Semper Fidelis
     
    thomas mozzillo likes this.
  8. thomas mozzillo

    thomas mozzillo Well-Known Member

    I very much appreciate and thank you for the amount of work and time it has taken you to post the above. I'm not an expert to say either way what form of doubling is on the OP's coin. I've been reading Mike Diamond's articles in Coin World Magazine for quite a while now and it amazes me as to how knowledgeable he is on error coins. Especially his explanations on how errors occur. Having said that I find it hard to dispute his opinion on this coin. Again, thank you for your posts. :)
     
    Fallguy likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page