MAJOR 2014 DDO discovered!

This is how I feel too. I understand the difference in how dies are manufactured today limits the amount of distortion we see...but this just doesn't do it for me. I see the significance of the find, and it is clearly distorted...but it just doesn't peak my interest.

That said, it is still a great discovery.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My guess is the hub shifted slightly. Since it is all made during a single squeeze...a slight shift would explain why the details appear stretched instead of truly doubled.

 

My understanding is that with single squeeze doubled dies, the hub and the die are not perfectly aligned, and then the machine will "snap" them into place, creating a small shift in the hubbings. This one is obviously a larger "snap".

 

Its so deep, I think it was actually pressed twice.

 

I'm sure it from all the coins it struck, the mint is to cheap to do that with business strike coins

 

Based on my understanding of how the dies are made...this is impossible.

 

Mistakes happen. Just cause they went to a single squeeze method, doesnt mean it can only be squeezed once. My thought it during hubbing, there was a misaligment going on the caused stress on the machine that was noticed by the worker. He stopped the process, fixed the issue, and then continued. I cant see how that would be impossible. I doubt the mint would say "ok, we had an issue in the middle of the hubbing process, lets through out that die and try again"

 

And Im not guessing on what happen to this particular die set, Im sayin I could see the mint double pressing a die set. Maybe they hit the button by mistake, causing the squeeze process to happen again.

 

It will never be in the Red Book. It may be exciting to error collectors (and that seems to be a given, based on the comments), but it's a yawner for the rest of us. Too hard to see - I don't even know what those photos are trying to show! And that's generally true for most of the DD's - too subtle, and too easy to confuse with MD.

I'm not knocking your excitement. It's obviously fascinating and a lot of fun to really dig into this stuff, but if I can't see it with my bare eyes, I can't get excited.

 

Wexler has added this coin to his files as WDDO-002.

 

I don't like being a 'downer', but I'm in the 'Mehhh' crowd. I understand with the single squeeze rigarmarole, but this still, to me, is not a 'major' DD. Though, I will offer a 'congrats' to the 'discoverer', where it's now listed with Wexler. But, it's one I won't be scouring rolls for.

 

Heck, Don (Ken) I lost my glasses............

 

No, it's not a major DD, but it sure stands out in a crowd of other 2014's.

 

Compared to doubled dies within the past 10 years, this would be considered quite major...

Compared to the multiple hubbing era with the 1955 and 1972 doubled dies, in comparison it would not be major, but hey, us variety searchers gotta take what we get.

 

When I was saying " not a major DD", it was referring to the spectrum of existing DD's. But for a single squeeze method, it's quite impressive considering all the other DD's since the hubbing change.

 

This type error or anomaly needs to have its own term associated with it.

When I see the term doubled die or coins described by that term, I don't picture this coin at all.

The date has the same look that dough does when rising from yeast. It's fatter, but I don't see two dates. Certainly nothing major as in the case of the 1955, '69 or '72.

Maybe something like a DS, Doubled Squeeze.

 

"Doubled Squeeze" will not work. We know these dies were created by the single squeeze method, so why would we call it "doubled squeeze". We already have a perfectly good term associated with it. It's called a Class 9 Doubled Die. Class 6 doubled dies do not have 2 separate images. The distended hub doubled coins show extra thickness similar to these.

 

The reason it is called a Double Die, is because the die itself has been doubled.
All dies are squeezed multiple times, just occasionally they are off center the next, or it moves during the squeezing process (that is what we see with this cent) Both of these create a "double" die.

 

Doubled squeeze was tongue in cheek.

Your perfectly associated term, Class 9 DD's, is anything but perfect if there aren't 2 separate images. Major is highly overstated.

 

Nope, this is the era of single-squeeze hubbings. Your explanation would be correct for coins from the mid 90s and earlier, but not for this one. Check out my explanation in post 43.