I would disagree, as a collector. I'm glad others enjoy it. More power to them. Regardless of HOW they are done now, compared to years ago, I was hoping for a real doubling that could be easily seen. THEN, I would be excited. As is, my funds and interest will remain elsewhere.
Heck...it isn't even as cool as the 1995 DDO and that was borderline for my enjoyment.
Obviously it is not as good as a 1955 or even a 1972, but by modern single-hubbing standards it is fairly major. I like the notch on the 1.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Wow! Looks like more than a DDO but rather some multi-die obverse (at least 4). Those who aren't seeing it, the date numerals and lettering is extra thick. Notice how the ring of the 0 is not the same thickness all the way around. There is no obverse serif splitting (This makes it a little less noticeable at first glance), but I do see some seperation at both ends of the 1.
Lurking and learning since 2010. Full-time professional numismatist.
<< <i>Obviously it is not as good as a 1955 or even a 1972, but by modern single-hubbing standards it is fairly major. I like the notch on the 1.
TD >>
I guess folks just do not understand the current single squeeze hubbing process since I personally think this is a good example of major doubling by moderns standards.
Thanks for sticking your neck to the PCGS crowd out Papi. They are a tough lot to please.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Is this reminding anyone of " The Emperor's New Clothes "? Sorry but my Coin Nerdness seems to have gone on vacation. I find nothing at all interesting in the photographs.
<< <i>Obviously it is not as good as a 1955 or even a 1972, but by modern single-hubbing standards it is fairly major. I like the notch on the 1.
TD >>
I guess folks just do not understand the current single squeeze hubbing process since I personally think this is a good example of major doubling by moderns standards. >>
From the article: "this particular example has possibly the largest spread in the bow tie of any modern Lincoln Cent doubled die."
Saying it is "major" because of the new hubbing process is kind of whack, imho. Doubling is doubling. If it is major, then it should be very visible, imho.
Changing the standards, just because of a change in the process, but using the same terms as previously used, does not really do anyone, nor the hobby, much good; again, imho.
Like I said above...for those who like it and want it, great. It is what it is. I don't think it should be called "major" though, as that should be reserved for the biggies (as mentioned, the '55, '72, and maybe even the '95).
However, I do stand in the "whatever blossoms your bloomers" crowd. Just don't try to get me excited about it and don't try to pump it up as something it isn't.
<< <i>Saying it is "major" because of the new hubbing process is kind of whack, imho. Doubling is doubling. If it is major, then it should be very visible, imho.
Changing the standards, just because of a change in the process, but using the same terms as previously used, does not really do anyone, nor the hobby, much good; again, imho.
Like I said above...for those who like it and want it, great. It is what it is. I don't think it should be called "major" though, as that should be reserved for the biggies (as mentioned, the '55, '72, and maybe even the '95).
However, I do stand in the "whatever blossoms your bloomers" crowd. Just don't try to get me excited about it and don't try to pump it up as something it isn't. >>
Gheez I'm glad I didn't write the article.
It's clearly distorted and that fact alone gives it a coolness factor
<< <i>Wouldn't MAJOR be something you can see without magnification? >>
Do you really think the discoverer has a microscope attached to his face?
He found it with the naked eye.
You really can't see the difference? Or you just don't wanna?
>>
Don't get all riled up - but NO, I cannot see the difference if those were true size and not 20X images. Or whatever they are magnified.
Do you really think the discoverer didn't use a magnifying glass? After all, here is a slightly magnified Lincoln Cent - please point out the MAJOR doubling
I can see the difference in the images you provided but it seems to me, the difference should be obvious enough that you can recognize that it's different without needing to compare it to another coin in order to be considered "major" to a general audience. But then, that's just me.
They need to come up with a better term. When I think of doubled die, this is not what I am picturing. The coolness factor of a true doubled die, such as the 1955, 1969-S or 1972-S, is non existent with this example.
P.S. I love discovering oddities and varieties and errors on coins, so please Joe Public, take my posts with a grain of salt. I am not scoffing or mocking the discovery. I personally am grateful for numismatics, along with the searchers and candle holders, and that's that. It's also awesome to have the majors here with us as "normal" coin guys, too. It's my personal opinion that the candle should be held the same way across the board with all coins. And even myself with a 14/3 Nickel that many specialists disagree on, it doesn't bother me that I have nearly $3K into a coin. Strange as that seems, it happens.
They're coins. And nobody likes coins more than coin people. So with that said, …. Enjoy the discussions and debates friends and foes alike.
I am a variety weenie. There I said it. But this does not do it for me. While I give the guys searching all the credit, I personally can't get enthusiastic about these modern varieties.
Take a normal 2014 and after it's normal run it will show some serious die deterioration. I would like to see an example of one of the very late die state (VLDS) 2014's in circulated condition compared to one of these DDO's in circulated condition. I have a tough time with modern varieties and will reserve my efforts to the pre-single squeeze coinage. Heck, coppercoins lists 133 different DDO's and DDR's for just the 2009 year alone. One hundred and thirty three !
<< <i>I recall someone once saying that practically EVERY morgan was some type of VAM I laughed then too, but I think there is a lot of truth to it. >>
In that case, I'm going to start cornering the market on non-VAM Morgans while everyone else is out chasing varieties!
Papi
Posts: 1,189 ✭✭
Comments
Free Trial
<< <i>If this is a major discovery I can only wonder what a minor discovery would be. >>
<< <i>I don't see anything, even if I squint. >>
<< <i>
Given how major of a DDO discovery this is, I wonder if there's going to be a piece slabbed with "Discovery Specimen" on the insert.
Check out the responses on Lincoln Cent Resource.
These are measured by "Clear notching and obvious heavy distortion"
Like it or not, you have to admit they look a lot different
I would disagree, as a collector.
I'm glad others enjoy it. More power to them. Regardless of HOW they are done now, compared to years ago, I was hoping for a real doubling that could be easily seen. THEN, I would be excited.
As is, my funds and interest will remain elsewhere.
Heck...it isn't even as cool as the 1995 DDO and that was borderline for my enjoyment.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
It's a nice discovery and something a few people might want to own.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
TD
<< <i>Obviously it is not as good as a 1955 or even a 1972, but by modern single-hubbing standards it is fairly major. I like the notch on the 1.
TD >>
I guess folks just do not understand the current single squeeze hubbing process since I personally think this is a good example of major doubling by moderns standards.
Thanks for sticking your neck to the PCGS crowd out Papi. They are a tough lot to please.
The name is LEE!
I find nothing at all interesting in the photographs.
<< <i>
<< <i>Obviously it is not as good as a 1955 or even a 1972, but by modern single-hubbing standards it is fairly major. I like the notch on the 1.
TD >>
I guess folks just do not understand the current single squeeze hubbing process since I personally think this is a good example of major doubling by moderns standards. >>
From the article: "this particular example has possibly the largest spread in the bow tie of any modern Lincoln Cent doubled die."
Doubling is doubling. If it is major, then it should be very visible, imho.
Changing the standards, just because of a change in the process, but using the same terms as previously used, does not really do anyone, nor the hobby, much good; again, imho.
Like I said above...for those who like it and want it, great. It is what it is. I don't think it should be called "major" though, as that should be reserved for the biggies (as mentioned, the '55, '72, and maybe even the '95).
However, I do stand in the "whatever blossoms your bloomers" crowd. Just don't try to get me excited about it and don't try to pump it up as something it isn't.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Saying it is "major" because of the new hubbing process is kind of whack, imho.
Doubling is doubling. If it is major, then it should be very visible, imho.
Changing the standards, just because of a change in the process, but using the same terms as previously used, does not really do anyone, nor the hobby, much good; again, imho.
Like I said above...for those who like it and want it, great. It is what it is. I don't think it should be called "major" though, as that should be reserved for the biggies (as mentioned, the '55, '72, and maybe even the '95).
However, I do stand in the "whatever blossoms your bloomers" crowd. Just don't try to get me excited about it and don't try to pump it up as something it isn't. >>
Gheez I'm glad I didn't write the article.
It's clearly distorted and that fact alone gives it a coolness factor
I enjoy collecting Coins but this so called discovery is nerdy to the max.
<< <i>For those saying this is nerdy, how is this different than variety collecting in general, say VAMs? >>
Or "Small & Large Dates"?
<< <i>a bad rap with the outside world >>
<< <i>For those saying this is nerdy, how is this different than variety collecting in general, say VAMs? >>
There are a large number of VAM's that very few people care about. Actually there are probably thousands very few care about.
<< <i>For those saying this is nerdy, how is this different than variety collecting in general, say VAMs? >>
It's not.
<< <i>Wouldn't "major" be considered anything Red Book worthy? >>
Wouldn't MAJOR be something you can see without magnification?
<< <i>
<< <i>For those saying this is nerdy, how is this different than variety collecting in general, say VAMs? >>
There are a large number of VAM's that very few people care about. Actually there are probably thousands very few care about. >>
Bingo!
A few are cool....but most are so minor that it isn't even funny.
I recall someone once saying that practically EVERY morgan was some type of VAM
I laughed then too, but I think there is a lot of truth to it.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>For those saying this is nerdy, how is this different than variety collecting in general, say VAMs? >>
It's not much different. Most VAMs add no additional value. Just interesting.
bob
<< <i>Wouldn't MAJOR be something you can see without magnification? >>
Do you really think the discoverer has a microscope attached to his face?
He found it with the naked eye.
You really can't see the difference? Or you just don't wanna?
<< <i>
<< <i>Wouldn't MAJOR be something you can see without magnification? >>
Do you really think the discoverer has a microscope attached to his face?
He found it with the naked eye.
You really can't see the difference? Or you just don't wanna?
Don't get all riled up - but NO, I cannot see the difference if those were true size and not 20X images. Or whatever they are magnified.
Do you really think the discoverer didn't use a magnifying glass? After all, here is a slightly magnified Lincoln Cent - please point out the MAJOR doubling
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Wouldn't MAJOR be something you can see without magnification? >>
Do you really think the discoverer has a microscope attached to his face?
I"m sorry to laugh at this point.
<< <i>I like the notch on the 1. >>
The 4 looks like it was hit in the back with a baseball bat
<< <i>Don't get all riled up - but NO, I cannot see the difference if those were true size and not 20X images. Or whatever they are magnified.
Do you really think the discoverer didn't use a magnifying glass? >>
I'm not riled up.
Yes I believe he found it with the naked eye. What reason would anyone have to scrutinize something that looks to be normal?
They're coins. And nobody likes coins more than coin people. So with that said, …. Enjoy the discussions and debates friends and foes alike.
There I said it. But this does not do it for me. While I give the guys searching all the credit, I personally can't get enthusiastic about these modern varieties.
Take a normal 2014 and after it's normal run it will show some serious die deterioration.
I would like to see an example of one of the very late die state (VLDS) 2014's in circulated condition compared to one of these DDO's in circulated condition.
I have a tough time with modern varieties and will reserve my efforts to the pre-single squeeze coinage.
Heck, coppercoins lists 133 different DDO's and DDR's for just the 2009 year alone.
One hundred and thirty three !
<< <i>They need to come up with a better term. When I think of doubled die, this is not what I am picturing. >>
I agree with that.
There is a place for these in numismatics.
Instead of doubled die, what would be a good professional term?
Distorted Die?
<< <i>
<< <i>Wouldn't "major" be considered anything Red Book worthy? >>
Wouldn't MAJOR be something you can see without magnification? >>
Not necessarily.
Are coins graded "without magnification?"
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
Instead of doubled die, what would be a good professional term?
Distorted Die? >>
Bloated Die
<< <i>
<< <i>They need to come up with a better term. When I think of doubled die, this is not what I am picturing. >>
I agree with that.
There is a place for these in numismatics.
Instead of doubled die, what would be a good professional term?
Distorted Die? >>
…a numismatic quagmire with the "single squeeze" process.
<< <i>
Do you really think the discoverer has a microscope attached to his face?
>>
<< <i>I guess it's me. Just not very exciting, compared to historical DDO's >>
It's not just you. Yawm. ZZZZ.......
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-LINCOLN-WDDO-002-THE-BIG-ONE-NEWLY-DISCOVERED-DOUBLED-DIE-ERROR-VARIETY-/371062747816?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item56651032a8
<< <i>I recall someone once saying that practically EVERY morgan was some type of VAM
I laughed then too, but I think there is a lot of truth to it. >>
In that case, I'm going to start cornering the market on non-VAM Morgans while everyone else is out chasing varieties!
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
