Die variety of the day: 6/4/2013

Hi folks.
Here's a coin I acquired recently. It is one of the strongest modern doubled dies, listed as 2011P-1DO-004 on coppercoins.com. This coin has a class IV+IIX doubled die, showing strongest in the date as notching at the bottom of the digits as well as northeast distortion. Doubling can also be seen as distortion in LIBERTY as well as IGWT. Enjoy!

Simon

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

nice. how bout shots of the entire coin, Obv. and Rev. Did you find it roll searching?

 

I sold a bu one I found roll searching, missed the variety because it is a nice one, and decided to buy a circulated example. I'll upload full obv/rev shots in the morning.

 

I can understand 'northeast distortion' in the 11, but how does that cause the notch in the 2? that notch would come from NW or SE, right?

 

Full pics.

 

If you get a moment ...

 

Perhaps I didn't word the question properly for you? Lets assume that this is not a triple, then wouldn't the relative positions and apparent movement strike lines be the same for all? perhaps you pointed to the wrong corner of the 2?

 

I did mark the arrow on the wrong side, comparing to the coppercoins.com example, the notch is stronger on the bottom right side. Maybe the fact that it is circulated made this notch more pronounced.

 

not to mention it is nonsense on the other side?

 

Are you making the assumptions that single squeeze doubled die production follows the same accepted range of movements as the former 2 squeeze/anneal process?

 

Do me a favor and link me up so I can read up on the single squeeze. Thank you.

 

http://www.doubleddie.com/58201.html
http://www.doubleddie.com/58222.html

 

Thanks non, can you point out the specific parts that are relevant here?

 

It is all relevant. Read the whole page.

 

I agree. At my age, I have to read stuff a few times to get everything to sink in.
Thanks for the link.

 

Back to my jar of cents I just went through~~~~~~

 

Well I have read it, now again and a few weeks back when I started this stuff. It seems to say that doubled dies from single squeeze is because of goofing up the process and actually restarting, essentially eliminating the 'single ' part of the process, so in a true single squeeze you can't have double. But I am not sure that is what gem was on about. What part of the links you offered do thing addresses gems question? How do you answer his question?

 

Desertgem wasn't asking me the question, he was asking you.

 

Sorta like how I asked HIM for a link for me to use considering his question, yet YOU gave links. I am happy to learn.

 

It isn't important who answers a question, if it helps the gain of knowledge.

My comment was made because many diagnostics that were applicable to pre-single squeeze era may not be valid in the post 1997 era.

http://www.error-ref.com/doubled-dies.html
near bottom of page

If you read the various causes of the classes of Doubled dies, the classic types were caused by "straight in" pressing". True the working die could be slightly off-set, rotated, tilted,wrong design hub, etc. but it was straight in, where as the single squeeze is using what I call a "fit or pop/slide hubbing. The pressure orients the pressing, and if it starts slightly off center , the pressure causes it to pop into alignment. It is the pop that bothers me and probably led Wexler to think of them as "God only knows" doubled die. If the increasing pressure caused a pop and movement in one direction, why couldn't the increasing pressure causes a succeeding pop and movement in the other direction as it final reaches completion. I am aware of the operator stopped process, but I understand there are safeguards that trigger close investigation before the process continues, thus eliminating DD due to this.

I wasn't disagreeing with either proponent, I was expressing my opinion that the Modern DD can have differences from the classic. It is moot to me as I do not collect any DD, past 1995, and I would consider this coin, even though non-cents is probably correct in the significance of its size, as too insignificant for me to add to a classic DD. ...yeah I am one of those old-timers.

Jim