Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;stldanceartist, post: 2002147, member: 13307&quot;]Just throwing this out there...for argument&#039;s sake.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://www.lincolncentresource.com/doubledies/1963Dddo1.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.lincolncentresource.com/doubledies/1963Dddo1.html" rel="nofollow">1963 D Lincoln Cent DDO</a> (link is to Lincoln Cent Resource website)</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]358882[/ATTACH]</p><p>Photo from NGC website (I don&#039;t have my own 1963 D photographed yet, and I&#039;m not home.)</p><p><br /></p><p>This would be an example of one digit of the date being doubled without the rest of the date being doubled.&nbsp; Also, the 1956 D DDO (?) listed under the &quot;<a href="http://www.lincolncentresource.com/Controversial/Cents.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.lincolncentresource.com/Controversial/Cents.html" rel="nofollow">Controversial Cents</a>&quot; section of LCR (which I also just found a few, but don&#039;t have photographed yet.)&nbsp; Good quote at the end:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;Many experts now believe this to be a damaged die.&quot; - James Wiles</p><p><br /></p><p>I personally would like to see some clearer photos of the OP&#039;s coin before I&#039;m convinced it isn&#039;t similar to the above two varieties mentioned.&nbsp; I&#039;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.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]358883[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Thoughts?[/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