2015 W Native American Enhanced $1 Double Edge Lettering?
beem2000
Posts: 36 ✭✭
I would like to share a long-term observation regarding the 2015-W Native American Enhanced Dollar from the Mohawk Ironworkers set.
I first reported this coin here back in 2017, when I noticed unusual doubled stars on the edge lettering. At that time, the coin was not attributed by PCGS, and opinions varied on whether this was a true variety or a production anomaly.
In 2019, I had the opportunity to show the coin at the Long Beach Expo to a senior PCGS grader. Following that, one specimen was submitted and later attributed by PCGS as SP69 Doubled Edge Lettering (DEL).
Over time, I identified at least one more example with the same characteristics. This second coin was submitted for crossover, but was returned as DNC, with the explanation that PCGS no longer recognizes this type of edge variety.
The situation became more interesting when this DEL variety appeared as a required slot in the PCGS Set Registry set “Sacagawea Dollars Complete Set with Edge Errors (2000-present).” Since only one known PCGS-attributed example exists, this effectively made the set impossible to complete.
After contacting PCGS, I was informed that this slot has now been removed from the set.
So currently we have the following situation:
- One PCGS-certified DEL example exists
- At least one additional similar specimen exists (confirmed by ANACS)
- PCGS no longer attributes this variety
- The Registry slot has been removed
- The base 2015-W Enhanced coin remains in the set
I am not questioning the decision, but I find this situation interesting from a numismatic perspective.
How should collectors view a variety that was once attributed, still exists in a PCGS holder, but is no longer recognized and has been removed from the Registry?
I would be interested to hear thoughts from others who have encountered similar cases.
Thank you.
Comments
years and years ago, a forum member here showed it was possible to fake doubled edge lettering. i can imagine a bad job would be easy to tell, but how does one separate out the convincing ones.
i would ask the decision making process that led to them stopping
if it were due to a large number of QA lettering, i'd be wary of all doubled lettering
If I recall correctly, this coin only had approximately 1 or 2 stars doubled (or shifted on top of each other) on the edge, not the entire edge lettering doubled all the way around. Full edge doubling like the John Adams dollars should be the standard for notating this variety on the holder, and subsequently adding to a registry set.
I think a small amount of doubling of a star or two is more of a mint error and not a variety.
shifted lettering is another issue. if the spacing is wrong, but there are no extra features, then i think dramatic exampes can get an error designation
__> @MsMorrisine said:
That’s a fair point, and I remember those discussions as well.
In this case, what makes it interesting to me is consistency. I have personally seen more than one example with very similar doubled stars, and one of them was previously attributed by PCGS as DEL.
Also, both of my coins were examined and attributed multiple times by ANACS, which suggests the feature is not a one-off or artificially created effect.
I completely agree that edge lettering can be manipulated, especially on circulation strikes with roller-applied lettering. However, the 2015-W Enhanced coin was produced using a segmented edge lettering process, which should make post-mint alteration significantly more difficult.
That’s why I’m less concerned about whether it can be faked in general, and more interested in understanding what specific criteria PCGS used when they decided to stop recognizing this variety.
If the decision was based on new technical findings, it would be very interesting to learn more about that.
Appreciate your input.
That’s a very reasonable point, and I understand the distinction you’re making between a full doubled edge and a more localized effect.
In my case, the doubling is limited to a small number of stars rather than the entire edge, so I can see why it may be interpreted as a mint error rather than a true variety.
What I find interesting, however, is that PCGS previously attributed one example as DEL, which suggests that at least at one point it met their criteria.
Also, if I understand correctly, the John Adams Presidential Dollar is one of the few cases where full edge doubling is recognized. At the same time, there are many other PCGS-attributed edge lettering varieties where only one or a few elements (letters or stars) are doubled.
So the distinction between a full doubled edge and a partial doubling does not always appear to be strictly applied in practice.
For me, the main question is what specifically changed in the attribution standards over time.
If this is now considered a mint error rather than a variety, it would be very helpful for collectors to better understand where that line is currently drawn.
Appreciate your perspective.
running through a machine twice is an error
a mis-feed would also be an error
doubling on the collar would be a variety
That’s a very helpful way to break it down, and I agree with that general framework.
What makes this particular case interesting is that the 2015-W Enhanced coin from the 2015-W Mohawk Ironworkers Enhanced Coin & Currency Set was not produced using the standard rolling edge lettering process used on circulation strikes.
Instead, it uses a segmented edge lettering system, more similar to what is used on proof or special finish coins.
Because of that, a traditional “double pass through the machine” scenario should not really apply here in the same way it does for Presidential dollars.
That’s why I find it interesting — if the doubling is consistent across more than one coin, it raises the question of whether this could be related to the edge lettering setup itself rather than a simple post-strike error.
Not necessarily arguing that it must be a variety, but it does seem different from the typical double-pass examples.
Appreciate you laying out the distinctions.
if it's not on the collar, how do you propose they got there?
I think minor misalignment of one of the segments.
and the collar bounced?
I’m not sure I would describe it as a “bouncing collar,” especially in the traditional sense.
With segmented edge lettering systems, my understanding is that the segments close around the coin rather than act like a single striking collar, so a true “bounce” seems less likely.
If anything, I would think more in terms of slight misalignment between segments or minor movement of the coin within the setup at the moment the edge is being impressed.
That said, I don’t have a definitive mechanical explanation — which is exactly what makes this case interesting to me, especially given that more than one example shows very similar doubling.
So I’m less convinced by a single random event, and more curious whether there is a repeatable setup-related factor involved.
Happy to hear other interpretations if someone has seen similar behavior.
All these posts and not a single picture of the coin.
Coin Photography
Deleted
Deleted
Deleted
drag and drop photos. don't do attachments. people like me don't open attachments
on the collar, the star protrudes. if the coin moved across that there would be metal movement. that looks like a second impression
That’s a very good observation, and I agree that the appearance looks more like a second impression than simple metal movement.
What makes this case particularly interesting to me is the sequence of how it has been handled.
One example was previously submitted to Professional Coin Grading Service and was attributed as SP69 Doubled Edge Lettering (DEL).
That same coin was also included in the PCGS Set Registry as part of the Sacagawea Dollars set with edge errors.
Later, when a second coin with very similar characteristics was submitted, it was not attributed (DNC), and the explanation given was that this type of edge variety is no longer recognized.
After that, the DEL slot itself was removed from the Registry.
So from my perspective, the sequence is:
I’m not arguing against the current policy, but it does raise an interesting question about how the same physical feature can be interpreted differently over time.
That’s really what I’m trying to better understand.
Appreciate the discussion.
from earlier, it was shown it could be faked
That’s a fair point — I understand that some edge doubling can be faked.
In my case, the second coin was submitted to ANACS twice, and both times the doubled stars were confirmed.
I also submitted the same coin to Professional Coin Grading Service twice (the second time at their suggestion), and both times it came back DNC.
As far as I understand, the coin was not removed from the ANACS holder during the PCGS submissions.
So for me, the question is not whether doubling can be faked in general, but how the same feature can be confirmed multiple times by one service, while not being recognized by another.
That’s what I’m trying to better understand.
cross at what grade?
"I marked 'Any Grade' on the submission form.
ANACS one viewpoint
pcgs - a different viewpoint
from the outside that's all that is apparent
I agree that ANACS and Professional Coin Grading Service can have different viewpoints — that’s understandable.
My question is a bit different.
In 2019, at the Long Beach Expo, this coin was examined in person by a senior PCGS grader and also by the company president. After that, one example was attributed as SP69 Doubled Edge Lettering (DEL) and was later included in the PCGS Set Registry.
About six years later, a second coin with very similar characteristics was submitted, but PCGS declined to attribute it and stated that this type of variety is no longer recognized. The DEL slot was then removed from the Registry, while the regular 2015-W Enhanced coin remains in the same set.
So for me, the question is not about differing opinions between services, but about what changed within PCGS over time in how this feature is interpreted.
If possible, I would really appreciate hearing clarification from someone at PCGS regarding how this type of case is currently evaluated.
That’s what I’m trying to better understand.
Thank you for your input.
I understand that this may not be an easy topic to address publicly, and I appreciate everyone who has shared their thoughts.
At this point, since I have not received any clarification from Professional Coin Grading Service regarding the change in attribution standards for this coin, I may consider documenting the full history of this case for a numismatic publication in the future.
I believe the sequence of events — initial attribution, Registry inclusion, later refusal to recognize similar examples, and eventual removal from the Registry — makes for an interesting numismatic case study regardless of where one stands on the variety itself.
Thank you again to everyone who contributed to the discussion.