Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;KBBPLL, post: 26507029, member: 104064&quot;]I think I kind of get what you&#039;re saying now, but I don&#039;t think there was any separate design that could have been doubled. The &quot;regular B&quot; didn&#039;t occur in any other year. But as you say, the B might have been damaged by subsequent pressings of the usual beer belly B being slightly offset. I don&#039;t have a good explanation for what caused the slight &quot;Longacre doubling&quot; seen on some proof examples, but it appears to me that the &quot;regular B&quot; letters have filled in those areas. </p><p><br /></p><p>Here is an image of a 1908, 1909 UNC broken B, 1909 proof broken B, and 1909 proof regular B. I&#039;m sorry I didn&#039;t get the last image quite the same size. If you zoom in, you can see that there&#039;s a &quot;ghost&quot; image on the proof broken B (3rd image) for example at the upper left corners of E and R. On the regular B (4th image), this has become a knob at those corners. You can see this also on the L, the strongly struck portion of which is the same as the 1908 L, and the &quot;ghost&quot; becomes the regular B version, where the lower right tip is more squared off instead of curved. So I don&#039;t know what caused this, but as I said above I think this dated master hub was just re-engraved to produce the regular B. I don&#039;t believe there was ever any overall master design with the regular B.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1689658[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>I enjoy speculating about this stuff and getting other opinions. I don&#039;t know when the proof coins were struck but I think it was standard practice to do a run of circulation coins before the proofs.[/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