Gotta see this 1959 cent, DDO????

Ok, if this isn't one, I give up. This isn't a piece of copper that was torn. You can see thickness too. I don't think I have to point out the area in question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not expert at all here, but I see it. I also look forward to my first DDO find. How did you acquire it?

 

Oh God, my heart is racing!!! My wife picked up $50 of pennies today at the bank. It was in the first roll I opened!!!

 

I love searching rolls. I need to get ahold of some penny boxes to do in my spare time. Great find!

 

I don't think it is a DDO, but don't lose faith. It looks like it might be an RPD. The underlying "5" looks like the wrong size.

Chris

 

Even even if was the latter, I see no listing on coppercoins for a RPD. Is this a first for that year, maybe the only? My heart is still racing!!

 

Don't think it's a DDO. Maybe a die chip?

 

Maybe Mike Diamond will chime in.

Chris

 

I believe as frog says above. A doubled die would have the same size object, but as said above the underlying 5 is not the same size. I would expect that if it were a DD, that extreme offset of the '5' would also affect the other numerals in the date visually.

 

Here's a different angle. You can clearly see that it's not a die chip. You can also see "doubling" at the top of the curve and there's a little extension at the top left corner of the 5.

 

Ok, but do you believe that there is a difference in size from south to north of the 2 '5's? If it is a doubled die, it is struck twice by the die and the same size numeral as they didn't make a second die with that small of a '5'. the extension would expect to be as separated as the tails of the 5, as least that is my theory

 

Agree with desertgem.

 

Not to be rude, how long have you been collecting and what creditials do you hold? I ask that because, the very first thing you learn about doubled dies is that doubled dies aren't made from the coin being struck twice. That's on the opening page for Wexlers Doibled Dies. The doubling comes from the die itself.

 

I'm asking this because the 2009 Formative years would not be considered a DD. There are many varieties for that coin and hardly any resemble what is being doubled.

 

I think what he was referring to was during the die making process the working die is made from repeatedly being pressed in to the hub die. If the alignment is off from one pressing to another then the hub strikes the working die in multiple locations. He is correct, however that the size of the number would not change from one pressing to the next. If one digit was pressed that far off then the doubling would show on the entire surface. A good example of this is my avatar.

 

not a DDO...

 

The 2009 coins are created by a different method than the 1959's were. they switched to what is known as a single press hubbing. the double dies on recent cents is more due to an incomplete hubbing at which point it was misaligned so they backed off and realigned before the complete pressure was applied.

 

sorry , yes I was talking about the working die ( which strikes the coin)
is struck twice by a hub die, but not in one operation as the working die has to be softened from a work hardened condition of the first hubbing. If in the second hubbing,if the working die is not aligned properly or as in a few instances, a different hub is used ( such as small date/large date DD), then you have a DD
Here is the 55/55 date, for comparison of separation with the '5's . I apologize if I confused .

 

It's a die chip.

 

Just throwing this out there...for argument's sake.

1963 D Lincoln Cent DDO (link is to Lincoln Cent Resource website)


Photo from NGC website (I don't have my own 1963 D photographed yet, and I'm not home.)

This would be an example of one digit of the date being doubled without the rest of the date being doubled. Also, the 1956 D DDO (?) listed under the "Controversial Cents" section of LCR (which I also just found a few, but don't have photographed yet.) Good quote at the end:

"Many experts now believe this to be a damaged die." - James Wiles

I personally would like to see some clearer photos of the OP's coin before I'm convinced it isn't similar to the above two varieties mentioned. I've also found a few cents with the lower leg of the 9 reversed...according to James Wiles this 1961 D was a die gouge.



Thoughts?