!942-S Mercury Dime Doubled Die?

Has anyone ever heard of or seen a 1942-S Mercury doubled die dime? I checked CONECA and didn't see one listed. I found something that looks alot like a true Doubled die but the coin is a little worn. It does show clearly on a few areas of the OBVERSE. Particularly on the DATE and near the TOP of the head. I can post pictures later tonight if anyone is interested...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Some pics...

 

Your dime has mechanical doubling and not true hub doubling.

 

1942-S 2 over 1 Mercury Dime Overdate

Sorry, I haven’t heard of one either. I’m trying to figure this 1942-S possible overdate.

I’m curious regarding explanations, but my mind’s made up on this one. The reverse bares an “S”, I assure you. Perhaps I’m unaware that the 2 over 1 overdate is already known to this variety (San Francisco), but have yet to see it. I already own several of the other overdates (42 and 42-D).

Thanks, A.J.

 

KingsAndEights,

On reexamination of my 42-S, it looks exacktly like yours. I think yours is a possible doubled die, although the two "ones" are clearly evident in your image. Originally, I thought my coin an overdate -- I'm sure it's one if not the other.

 

Looks like mechanical doubling, the flat and "smeared" look points to that.

 

Hi,
This coin exhibits mechanical doubling and not die doubling. The doubling is flat and shelflike and the pictures show clearly that the metal has been moved around.
Thanks,
Bill

 

The Verdicts In

Hello,

I noticed there were no responses regarding the 2 over 1 theory. Well folks, the verdicdts in on this one...any one willing to venture an opinion (or are you all gutless....?

 

Hi
I am far from gutless I sure don't have to go out on a limb with this one. The coin shown is mechanical doubling and as far as I know, there is no evidence in the pics of a 2/1 in the date. Also as far as I know, there has not been a 1942/1 S Winged Liberty dime discovered.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but this coin "ain't " it . Also, the fact that two coins appear to have the same mechanical doubling characteristics is not uncommon. A close examination of two side by side coins will show differences that let us know that there is no die doubling on a particular coin or pair of coins.

Have Fun,
Bill

 

It looks like die deterioration doubling to me.

 

Ther ehas never been an overdate on the 1942 S, and the photo shows mechanical, or die deterioration doubling.
Not a true double die... Or my collection would be worth a fortune.

 

Maybe not a fortune, but those do sell for quite a bit at the coins shows I go to. Unfortunately with Merc Dimes there are just to many minor errors to make an error collector jump at those. For sure no a 2/1 though. I basically collect error coins and have about 200 or more Mercury Dimes with some sort of error or other.

 

Carl:
I agree that there are a lot of Merc errors that are worth a lot of money.
But it is acknowledged that mechanical doubling (or machine doubling) is not worth any additional money. In fact, some collectors consider it damage and discount the price-- unless, of course, they are selling the coin.

 

Precisely what I mean. We have coin shows around here every week and like I keep saying, error coins are becoming a big thing for dealers to sell. I've seen Merc Dimes, for instance, with so small an offset you need a magnifying glass to notice it and it is priced at $5.

 

Regarding this topic:

11/16/2006 3:56 PM

Unfortunately, the coin I alluded to – the one where the verdict was in – had already been certified as an overdate (1942-D 2/1 by the PCGS). I feel obliged to tell all that it was a 1942-D, not an “S” as previously stated. I want to apologize for being deceptive, but the issue was one based on the image presented, and whether an overdate seemed possible. Please accept my further apologies in not providing a better quality example or photo. If you have the patience to read on, perhaps you shall sympathize with my motives.

AS a person who writes a few words here and there, I feel obliged to write briefly regarding a strange topic – numismatics – or more accurately coin collecting. Now I am not an altogether ignorant fool who has just examined (or proclaim to have examined) the subject – like C. Chung or some other idiot.

Actually, I collected coins when I was a boy – in my early teens – but eventually felt utterly bored with it. In the two brief years of frenzied collecting (with what little I had), there seems in retrospection, that I have amassed quite a modest collection. (By fate or luck I have all the Buffalo Nickels except two – not including the well known mint errors – obviously a product of time and chance.) After leaving the collection mentioned in a safe deposit box for some 29 years, I have finally re-examined or reacquainted myself with what seemed of little extrinsic value. It is on this topic (exchange value or immediate compensation) I wish to speak.

The web might be a great outlet for someone trying to sell their coins, but I have yet to have accomplished or even tried selling any coins. For the last six months I have watched the latter activities, and on the whole feel a bit disillusioned. The main area of attention has been coins that have mint errors; I allude to doubled die coins and overdates. The listings for authentic items in this regard are shockingly high; that is, they have increased in value way above any reasonable margin. Because of the huge difference(s) in value, I always felt it a matter of hopelessness to inspect the coins (many of my coins, if not most were acquired before these errors were known to exist). It is amazing for example that a 1914 4 over 3 Buffalo Nickel was not listed and authenticated until around the year 2000.
(This indicates a reluctance to accept change, or is it impossible to impact the market?) Disbelieving I could have such a coin, I examined my 1914 Nickels anyway…and after many more inspections I finally believed I had one.

What is so disturbing about this error mania is the way the experts and members of sites continually negate any possibility (the frequent “mechanical doubling” or “die deterioration”, or “it’s not a hub error” response(s) are prime examples). I think the whole business reeks of the stench of greed, and I further state that the very errors themselves are at times delayed and controlled; however, with regard to authentication by various agencies and professional services (PCGS, etc.) I cannot say. There are a few honest people out there who are genuine and trying to educate the collector (Ken Potter, for instance, is a man of careful, reasoned analytical character). Other experienced individuals (like some on this site) are repeating similar responses they may have encountered (better to be on the safe side). On the whole, I believe legitimate coin errors are far more common than supposed or reported. Please beware of the “ubiquitous rarity trend.” Those that have been around awhile want the premium, and they shall not pay that same premium unless necessitation or true fascination prevails. Call your local coin shop and see: ask how much for a coin, then call back another day and see what they’ll pay. You may hear something like this: “That’s a specialty item.”

I’m going to try sending additional coins to the PCGS, and I hope for a more optimistic view.

A.J.

 

Exactly, and those are the dealers that I stay away from.

 

Hi,

I am going to go on record as saying that I try to do the best that I can when I look at a picture and not the coin itself. The date on the coin shown here has severe die deterioration doubling that is easily visible. I use mechanical doubling interchangeably as a term with respect to doubling when it is not hub doubling.

In this case, the picture is not done in a way that makes the 42/41 very evident. The person posting this little "test" has to realize a few things.

1) The 42/41 D variety is less visible on a coin that is worn.
2) The 42/41 D is not as obvious an overdate as is the 42/41 P
3) The picture does not highlight the overdate in a way that helps to make it visible
and
4) I don't usually expect deceptive questions. The question that I answered was answered correctly by saying something to the effect that while it is not impossible, I hadn't heard of a 42/41 S variety and that the doubling visible was other than hub doubling, I called it mechanical doubling.
5) The most obvious thing about this coin is what I focused on and that is that the doubling that is predominant on this date is not hub doubling and those that commented on that were correct.

Except for selling a few dupes on ebay, (havent had anything in about 6 months) I am not a dealer so I have no incentive to try to talk someone out of a coin, so to speak. I do the best I can with what sometimes are poor pictures.

Thanks,
Bill

 

Coinage 10,

I think one reason you may not have gotten much in the way of responses on your coin was because you hijacked someone elses thread. The discussion was about the 42-S dime pictured in the first post. When you came in talking about the same date, mint and doubled die/ overdate possibility Most people probably thought you were talking about the original posting. I know I did. Then the link you had in your post was obviously not a link to a picture but to a Word (text) file. So I didn't even bother clicking on it.

Now you mention the rush that most people have to negate the possiblity that a coin is the error that the owner suspects it to be. Yes this happens frequently, but that is because many of the responses are NOT coming from experts. But I do agree that it happens way too frequently. The reason it does is because most people either do not keep an open enough mind, or they are answering the wrong question. They do a knee jerk answer. Someone posts say an 1918 D nickel and asks if it could be an overdate, and they immediately get back answers telling them that it can't be because it doesn't have these features that the overdate has. They have missed the question. It was asked if it could be AN overdate, and they checked to see if it was THE overdate. People as a rule only look for what they expect to see. That is why the 14/3 took so long to be found. Everyone KNEW the overdate was on the 1918 so they never looked for one on the 14. The only reason the 14 /3 was discovered was because a reward was offered for anyone discovering a new over date. It got people actually LOOKING for overdates on other years.

Only looking for what you expect to see is also why the 42/1-D dime and 43/2 nickel took so long to be accepted. Both of them were discovered LONG before they were ever accepted. For the 42/1-D the 1 is not easy to see and whenever the discover tried to get people to look at it they just told him the overdate is on the Philadelphia coin. and never seriously look at the D overdate. The 43/2 nickel was discovered decades before it was accepted, but it suffered from the problem that a variety guy had listed a 1943 nickel with a "diecrack through the lower curve of the 3 making it look like a 3/2". Every time he showed it to some one they would say "oh Spadone says that's just a die crack". They never really looked at the coin and they saw what they expected to see.

Now I have gone back and looked at the link tat you posted. The photo image is not really very clear but there is clearlu something go on with the 2. Buy saying it was an S mint coin I would have ignored the diagnostics of the P and D overdates, and though about whether or not it matched anything I am aware of on the S coin. Well I don't know of anything that looked like that, but the picture isn't clear enough to really say for sure what it was. But then you say that PCGS has certified it as the 42/1-D overdate. Looking at it again with that information I compare it with what I expect the known 42/1-D to look like. In that case I have to wonder if PCGS screwed up. The 2 APPEARS to have something completely closing off the loop of the 2, but it doesn't look like what the known 2/1-D should look like. On the known 42/1-D the 1 just shows as a "nub" at the top of the 2 and one at the base of the 2. it does not close it off like that, even on early die states. (It does on the P issue though). So either this is something new, the coin is damaged, it isn't a D, or PCGS errored. From that picture though there is no way to know for sure.