There was a thread here from back in 2006 about this but I think it's too old to add to at this point. One of the coins in the 2009 P Lincoln Cent series, Formative Years, came back to me from Wexler as die abrasion doubling. But there are no references I can find on these as being listed, likely because they are so very minor. While searching the net for explanations, there seems to be quite a bit of talk about this but all the posts seem to differ in that these are actually doubled die coins. Some of the current listings on Wexler's site shows some of these as doubled dies. This occurs at the crook of the thumb and index finger and appears as a web. This seems to contradict many findings on this subject. If this area of the coin is supposed to be nice and clearly defined, then why is it that these are not considered true doubled dies? What are some of your thoughts on this? Thanks. Tom
I don't see why ANYTHING during the single squeeze era is treated as a "true" doubled die, rather than what I believe they are - mischief with the stylus and the hubbing software. But thass jus' m'own fetish.
Tommy - What a lot of collectors don't realize is that when it comes to stuff like you are talking there are differing opinions - even among the "experts". One will say it is, another will say it isn't. And when I say "experts" I am talking about the people who are readily acknowledged as being real experts. And yet they directly contradict each other. So, if they are experts, how can that be the case ? Well, that is the question, and the answer, at the same time. And it's not just in numismatics that that this condition, this issue, exist. It exist in virtually all fields, it is so common it is the norm. But since were talking about numismatics let me give you an example. Are you aware that there is a debate, among experts, that has been going on for decades. Can you imagine what it's about ? They cannot even agree on what is an error, and what is a variety. Yes, they argue among each other about whether this given coin or that given coin is an error or a variety. One group says it's an error, the other says it's a variety. And yet both groups are comprised of experts. Same kinda thing applies here. One expert says it is a DD, another it is not.
The die abrasion "error" , since it is a raised area ( finger webbing) ,different from the original design would be a depressed area on the working die ( a chip , from its manufacture as a single squeeze). Some of the "experts" seem to feel this is exactly the same as if a worker doubled hubbed off center to make a true doubled die, when it is just a flawed process in other experts mind. Follow the Money. Jim
Thank you Doug & Jim. I guess this is going to be like stuck in limbo for the most part. I have noticed the issue about variety vs. error here many times also. I have always been under the assumption that a variety was an intentional change in the design, like the Kennedy accented hair, a change in the lettering font and similar. And always thought that an error was an unintentional by product of a faulty die or other mishap. I'll have to be careful in the future when I post to stay more on the sidelines than act like I know for sure. Some conversations can really go awry at times with both these subjects.
