Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Spark1951, post: 8292746, member: 90692&quot;]No, I think he is saying it should not be considered doubling, and I happen to agree with him.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>With the application of single-squeeze in die manufacturing the powers that label everything had to call “extra-thickness” something to catagorize it.&nbsp; At the same time, notching, slanted letter bottoms/tops and distorted striking results were included as well.&nbsp; I believe that was the mistake that precipitated the polarizing confusion among collectors.&nbsp; A new category should have been created, something along the lines of: “Die Strike Distortion” (IMO).</p><p><br /></p><p>[USER=92083]@JCro57[/USER]&nbsp; [USER=19250]@Paddy54[/USER]&nbsp; [USER=74863]@Collecting Nut[/USER]&nbsp; [USER=114675]@potty dollar 1878[/USER] …hopefully, by now, you all have had a chance to see what [USER=42872]@Rick Stachowski[/USER]&nbsp; has confirmed and that others also agree, that this is truly a listed doubled die at Wexler: WDDO-001.&nbsp; As stated, whether it should be labeled a doubled die will remain a matter of conjecture.</p><p><br /></p><p>One final note:&nbsp; [USER=133572]@Gorham_Collector[/USER]&nbsp; is the wave of the future for Coin Collecting, in the sense that he is specializing in Shield cent anomalies.&nbsp; He has shown his extensive reading and research regarding them.&nbsp; He is among those in our hobby whose work may become as important as any coin discipline done in the past, and become important data for future collectors.&nbsp; One may not agree with his focus, but no one should fault him if he produces accurate research.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in