Longacre Doubling: Some considerations

Thanks, Viper.

As you can see from this picture, the 'doubling' to the letters is a clear outline to the letters.

Also, note that the outline is flat (as often stated: shelf like). This is important. The outline to the letters is much lower than the 'original' lettering. The net result is not a duplicate, as shown on the 1955 DDO above.

The 1955 DDO (doubled die obverse) clearly shows that both sets of numbers are the same height. This is a true classic example of a doubled die.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Alrighty those pics did it for me! That helps me out a TON!
THANKS GUYS

 

Great information! Thanks for the info

 

Good read Treashunt.

So good in fact that I actually read it all!

clembo

 

Clembo:
Thank you for the kind words.

 

Nice informative piece frank thx for sharing... btw nice close-ups of the doubling... can i request you to post a pic of the entire coin
sorry for the late repy, just got back from 48hr shift :|

 

Nice informative read Frank. Thanks

 

Thank you for all of your kind words.

 

This thread needs a bump since it answers the question I had on my 1866 multiple error Indian. I thought I was going for the Quad and have to settle for Thin Planchet, Clash and Recut Date. I suppose I could call it 3 and a half errors with the Longacre Doubling.

 

Longacre doubling carries no premium at this point in time only because the coin collecting community has taken that position. Consensus opinion is the doubling is attributable to the die making process originating more than likely with the master die or working hub. Being that this anomaly originates in the die making process and transferred through that process to the working die - it can be argued that Longacre doubling is a variety. It certainly isn't anything similar to mechanical/machine doubling which produces an anomaly attributable to the coin striking process.

 

I would personally desire that coins with non value added errors not be included with the group without errors such as Post Mint damage. Value added is about pricing. Errors are about deviation from expected product outside of acceptable tolerances.

Too many seem to think that only value added errors are worthy of discussion or even acknowledgment. It's a sad day for the numismatist when value becomes the foremost consideration to the science and love of the process and product.

 

Bumped to go with the Expert Assistance Request Thread.

 

great write-up, good read! certainly explains a lot.

 

Yea, verily, yea.