This one I acquired appears to be the same as No. 102 for that date in Lawrence's Barber dime guide (I looked through a dealer's copy briefly today). Clear doubling on the 899 of the date, and of the mint mark. The mint mark was described as 'shelf doubling', but I'm not clear on the difference between that and mechanical doubling (nothing else on the reverse shows doubling). If anyone sees I have mis-identified this variety please comment.
I'll take a stab at it. The mintmark appears to be what I call 'strike doubling' (aka machine doubling). I have never heard it called 'shelf doubling'. This type of doubling leaves a shelf when the dies come together to strike the coin then lift slightly and chatter (which is probably where that term came from). The date looks to be an repunched date, not doubling. Someone will correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that at that time the date and mintmark were punched into each working die by hand. If the placement of the date (or mintmark) was slightly off the date (or mintmark) was punched again which sometimes left portions of the first numerals (or letters) visible. This created what we know as an RPD (repunched date) (or an RPM (repunched mintmark)).
acanthite Well, it looks like are have a winner here. I agree that it is the Lawrence 102, which is unlisted in Flynn's book (as are many items). When Lawrence wrote his book the scarcity of the 102 was unknown, but there probably haven't been many found since publication. Very nice find. Also, it does apear that the mintmark has shelf doubling. Hobo: Shelf doubling is just another term for 'strike doubling' (aka machine doubling).
Thanks Hobo and Treashunt for the comments. Yes I should have said RPD for the obverse, that would be the correct term. And now I know why shelf doubling looks so much like machine doubling, lol.
