I noticed this with the naked eye because of the thickness of the letters. It looks more obvious than pics reveal. So, I included one pic where I panned out. Maybe it's not real? I know all about post-1982 issues. But i dont care to know "its not" ONLY. Anyone can be negative. It's easier to tear down than to build. If you cannot express your thoughts why bother? That goes for any post. John Locke said, "New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not common." That is very true of doubled dies. Most will reject them because they arent already known. You're almost certain of being correct...but why does that matter to you? Thanks in advance!
I'm sorry but you don't have a doubled die. This is why. If you recall from your research on the die making process (on doubleddie.com and other sites), dies required multiple pressings from the working hub (the mint used a single squeeze process today, but that's an unrelated topic). If the working hub moves slightly during this process, you have a doubled die. If the letters are doubled, you will always see one that is the normal size and shape. Now look at your "discovery" coin. The highest part of the "doubling" is thinner. Especially in TRUST. Thin letters are a key characteristic that shows the coin is not a doubled die. You can also see that in the 9. This is a very useful diagnostic that newer collectors can use to weed out the numerous DDD and MD from real doubling. Hope this helps
I will bet the OP will disagree with you. He will probably say something like "thanks for your opinion" he never sees eye to eye with anyone!
I'm in a good mood today. I know the history of the OP, but thought that providing some details into why it's not a DDO might help him to think through the process and understand we aren't out to get him. I'll give him the benefit of believing that he will take the info and see that it makes sense. However, I've got the popcorn ready should this thread blow up like his other ones
