Unique 1985 D lincoln cent Error

Well yes I am being very serious jay420 ... But that's what another Collector called it not me so I probably should have been more specific . Infact I have alot of sought after doubled die and error coins but I don't really share those because I already know what they are from Wexler and other search engines . I just mainly try to share the ones when I don't really know what they are for sure for more insight or other opinions if that makes sense . But anyway here's the 72 doubled die incase you think I'm not being serious .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Oh and here's the other one that another cool Collector I know likes to call a triple die . Lol.

 

Like I said . I guess I just have this weird way of always of finding unique coins . Correction ... Odd coins with weird things wrong with them and so I like to some times share them for more insight .... Infact . Someone else told me that the letter A on the Ozark coin I have is kind of like how the 2004 extra leaf is on the Washington Quarter exception the extra attachment just happens to be on the the letter A . Lol

 

Technically the 1972 is a doubled die, but it's the doubled master die. Over half of all 1972s, including P, D, & S mints, exhibit this doubling. It's the very last listing here: http://doubleddie.com/384301.html

The Ozark quarter is nothing more than MD on incuse devices. When the letters are struck into the coin, MD causes them to look wider. See here: http://www.error-ref.com/incused-machine-doubling/

 

Well thanks for the lesson jay420 but I do have a few questions for you . So does the triple strike and same size letters still constitute an incused machine doubling ??? Because what I'm reading and seeing from the two search engines you provided is that with incused doubling the doubling will either be smaller or larger on doubled dies with incused coins ???? And In the photos you used to illustrate your point the letters are smaller then the other letters so I'm a little confused with your photos being different from mines .... Oh and how about the Letter AAAA on the Ozarks Quarter . I'm not totally sure what you are saying that is ????

 

No, in the ONE link I provided the incuse letters are WAY wider than normal. As a matter of fact there is a whole other impression from die bounce. If it was skinny and distorted it would be a doubled die. The other link was concerning the 1972 master die doubling.

The incuse MD is wider because to create incuse letters on a coin, those same letters on the die are raised. So when the loose die moves laterally it smears the letters and makes them look much wider/thicker than a normal strike. Take one of those refrigerator magnet letters (this is the die) and press it into play dough (play dough is the coin). Then move it horizontally. That is incuse MD.

Also, there is no triple strike on that Ozark quarter. Just simple die movement during the strike (Machine Damage/Machine Doubling/MD whatever you want to call it.) Oh, and that gash beside the A is just that, a gash. There is also a gash running through the RK. Just take some time and look closely at it.

 

.

 

Also, there is no triple strike on that Ozark quarter. Just simple die movement during the strike (Machine Damage/Machine Doubling/MD whatever you want to call it.) Oh, and that gash beside the A is just that, a gash. There is also a gash running through the RK. Just take some time and look closely at it.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm . Ok . Well thanks for the advice jay420 . But what gash are you referring to on the Ozark Quarter ? If it appears to be only a gash to you from the photos I posted then something is clearly wrong with the photos themselves . Because the letter A that I was referring to actually has a different shape altogether when compared to all the other letter A's on other Ozark Quarters but not a gash . And it even has an extended branch coming from the tree and the A but certainly not a GASH ... Infact if you compare that letter A to all the others on the Ozark Quarters you will see the difference and see that it is not just a gash ... It is a different shaped letter A all together ... But can you draw an arrow to this gash or cut that you're referring to using my photo ?

 

[/QUOTE] But can you draw an arrow to this gash or cut that you're referring to using my photo ?[/QUOTE]

No but I'll zoom up on it for you. If the mark to the left of the crossbar of the A isn't raised or a stain, it's a gash.



Just like the one through the RK here:



The shape of all those letters look exactly like the shape of the other 100 billion Ozarks quarters struck, except 99,999,999,999 don't have a contact mark in that exact spot.

 

Oh ... Now I see what you're referring to . No man . That is totally RAISED so it's not a stain nor a gash ... And I'm not trying to be funny about it . And that thing inbetween the R and k that's of no concern because I wasn't referring to that Mark at all . So I don't know what that is . Never even paid attention to it .

 

As I said the letter A is raised . And is actually a different A from all the other Ozark Riverways Washington Quarters if you look them up . So you see thats why I said that the other Collector stated that it has a Extended design like the extra leaf on the 2004 Washington Quarter . Its possibly a one of a kind with a new error and new design .... Now how it occurred is not my field of expertise so I won't Pretend that I know anything about it and I will leave it up to the experts that Specialize in those type of Errors because I dont won't to embarrass myself . Lol

 

If it's raised Its a die gouge and would have nothing to do with the incuse A. The A would be raised on the die face while the mark beside the A (if raised on the coin) would be a gouge into the die face. It is NOT a different A from all others. It CAN NOT be a different A. Read how dies are created. Giant "coin" called a galvano is the beginning. They use a reduction lathe to create master hubs, then master dies, then working hubs, then working dies, then strike coins.

READ!!!!

http://doubleddie.com/58201.html

 

I can. This 1987-D, like the 1985 shown above, also suffers from severe die deterioration.

 

Really jay420 ??? The coin that you're using as a reference to mines has nothing in common with mines . But if you somehow feel that it does then please elaborate on "what exactly" it has in common because I'm totally lost . Infact i thought that when youre dealing with coins with certain errors you are supposed to look for coins with SIMILARITIES not form new errors from other ones ? The reason I say this is because the shape of the letter A on my coin has a completely SOLID FORMED LIMB that is actually attached to the A and the one that you're showing has FAINT RAISED BUBBLING that is not attached to any letters at all ...

 

Oh yeah ... And Die gouges and Die deterioration are totally different are they not ? Or are you trying to say that they are one in the same ?

 

I 100% agree that you are totally lost. You have been since the first post and still are.

This is your coin.


Could you show me an A with a limb please? I quoted you asking Paddy to show you an example of another Lincoln cent with different sized letters because you had searched "high and low" for another example. I provide the example, because the title of the thread references this "UNIQUE 1985-D Lincoln cent error".

This is MY coin:


Then you start telling me how wrong I am about my Lincoln cent being similar to that stupid Ozarks quarter. Why would I compare a Lincoln cent with die deterioration to an Ozarks quarter with a gash? I wouldn't.

You clearly possess no attention to detail. Correctly attributing error and variety coins takes an extreme amount of attention to detail, especially when attributing die varieties, as the slightest difference in mint mark location may be the only way to differentiate two very similar doubled dies. You may want to rethink your hobby choice.

 

Let's revisit the (your) first post, shall we?

Now, let's take another look at the photos Jay posted..... does anything in particular ring a bell?

Reading comprehension is very important, as is understanding the concept of context. Jay quoted your earlier response to Paddy, and provided you with an example of the requested; it's really that simple, yet instead of taking the obvious as such, you use the opportunity to inject more nonsense into another thread. I'm genuinely sorry to say it, but, perhaps, you would be wise to follow your own advice...

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Again, here is a link that should be of an immense help to you, at least if you're anywhere near as serious as you claim. Please, if you take the time to read through the different subjects explained in great detail, you, along with the hobby you so enjoy, will be the better for it.

http://doubleddie.com/


That said, I have to agree with you on the "mines" thing: the term perfectly describes what your threads have become, which is CT's version of a minefield.

 

Lol ... Ok before I was being a little funny . But now I'm being very serious because the both of you are clearly lost here booksb4coins and jay420 . You see yes jay420 I did originally post a thread about the 1985D Lincoln cent and then we started whole another topic and conversation about MY OZARK QUARTER if you reread and retrace that thread . Infact the discussion about the 1985D lincoln cent was completely over with and you decided to go back to beat that dead horse again I guess not me . So you see . The both of you are the ones who are completely lost not me . And if you simply back track and reread the very end of my thread you can clearly see it too . That is why I was clearly and carefully explaining the difference between the Letter A in my Ozark Quarter and the faint bubbling on your lincoln cent . Lol .

 

So.... not only do you expect everyone to agree with and/or simply tell you what you want to hear, but now we also must ignore the reality of how forums work and instead read your mind? Oy vey! You really are too much!

Apparently I do need to invest in crayons, but again I'll try to spell this out for you in the most simple of terms....

The very SIMPLE and OBVIOUS fact that Jay QUOTED your earlier post was enough for any, even remotely-intelligent individual to easily understand what he was talking about. Apparently, you're either the exception, or, perhaps, this is just another manifestation of your ridiculous sense of self-importance? If you misunderstood; so what? A simple "oops" would have been much more flattering to your reputation than this utter nonsense.

And the mere thought of you "clearly and carefully explaining" anything was enough to drive me to tears (and for this I thank you). Now, please... if you would only pay attention and think before you post, this all would be so much easier for everyone involved, and your threads wouldn't end up heading down the path of asininity.

 

Smh ... Whatever you say booksb4coins . If you and jay420 want to continue to beat a dead horse then go right ahead . Because I'm absolutely sure that everyone can see that this nothing new with you . Lol