This could be MS, as these weren't struck all that well, particularly in the shield. The reverse has weakness, too, and I don't know exactly what that is. Even if it's wear, I don't see how this one stays out of AU, as, overall, it's a strong one. It's not the RPD in the Red Book, that's all I know on that.
I am not strong on grading from pictures. I believe the weak areas on the coin are strike and not wear. The date doubling is strike doubling, not an RPD. There are interesting circular die polish lines between the cross and annulet. Nice photos - they are what I need to see.
Yeah, I'm thinking the same. The coin is so strong overall that weak area on the reverse couldn't have taken on that much wear. I'm seeing that date as strike doubling, too.
What you are looking at as a smaller 6 is a smeared image left of the primary 6 at exactly the same size. This is strike doubling, no question. There are multiple dead giveaways: 1) All four digits show exactly the same doubling. 2) There are no splits. 3) The doubling is low to the field. 4) The doubling is flat and shelflike. For anyone struggling with die doubling v.s. strike doubling, I recommend JT Stanton's article, available here: http://www.shieldnickels.net/articles/Stanton_DieDoubling.pdf
The shield with rays was not a bad looking coin, too bad they never worked out the striking kinks and dumped the rays in 1867. It is a coin I have never owned, but would like to - just cannot seem to find the right one.
That's a big indicator a lot of people don't even consider. In a doubled die, both impressions are going to come off the coin at the same height. On that weak reverse area, there's probably grease interference going on there, too.
Thanks Howard. I figured it was strike doubling. Never notices the die polish lines. Almost looks like it's part of the design. My image killed all the luster. It's in an old 10 digit PCI slab as MS-63. I bought it from Bowers as an AU many years ago.
Interesting, as that's right where I was equivocating on it. You bought it at AU and it PCI-slabbed at MS63. This is even money to slab at the majors at MS, if so inclined, I'm pretty confident at that.
I bought a lot of AU stuff from Mr. Bowers back when it was called B&M. A lot of them have came back from PCGS as 63. I don't think this one is worth cracking. It's happy the way it is. Bowers did a great job at grading raw coins for auction in those days.
There are some very nice coins, even undergraded in old PCI 10 digit slabs. OTOH, there are horribly overgraded coins in newer PCI slabs. Be careful out there.
Not quite sure what you mean. On a doubled die, the original impression will be somewhat obliterated by the second impression, leaving the original impression usually slightly lower to the field on a struck coin. But the appearance of a DDO and that of strike doubling is much different.
The original impression will be covered by the second impression except for the part we can see. Only when the second is deeper into the die will the original sit lower off the coin than the second. Does that make sense? The remaining original is just that part of it that isn't swallowed up by the second. That part, undisturbed, is going to sit aside the second, at the same or very close to the same height off the coin.
I don't know the metallurgical explanation for why on a doubled die the original hubbing appears at (slightly) lower relief than the second hubbing. Perhaps the mint polished the dies between hubbings. Or perhaps the violent pressures used in hubbing affect the original hubbing. But I can tell you from looking at thousands of shield nickel DDOs that the apparent heights of the hubbing differ slightly.
