Strike doubling vs Class IV doubling - new pics/answer

Lakesammman

Bought this the other day. What do you think - strike doubling vs DDR?? It shows only on the left side of the wreath, adjacent denticles, the ribbon ends and on E (in one) and C (cents). Any tips on how to tell the difference??

Edited to add second picture - is this second picture classic strike doubling too?? What other tips do you have to differentiate strike doubling from a true DDR (besides knowing the odds)?? I'm having trouble - any help would be appreciated.

richbeat

Here's my two cents (had to say that.) On some scans it's easy to tell, on others it's difficult. Based on what I can see it appears to be strike (machine) doubling. On doubled dies the doubling will be raised and rounded, on strike doubling it will be flat and shelflike (somewhat like stair steps.) If you get the chance, pick up the latest Cherrypickers' Guide. It doesn't list all the varieties, but it's worth the price of the book just for the chapters on how dies are made and the different classes of doubled dies.

coppercoins

Chiming in with my opinion...and reasoning behind it.

I see doubling on the outer edge of the wreath and on the left edge of the "C". I am reasonably certain this is machine doubling, mainly because of the doubling on the "C".

Reason...two different classes of hub doubling can be considered for this coin, none of the other 6 would apply. The two for consideration would be class 2 (distorted hub doubling) and class 4 (offset hub doubling). Class 2 would show distortion (usually toward the rim, as is the case in the wreath) with separation lines (also present), but would become increasingly narrower in spread toward the center of the design. In this case, the doubling is the same on the "C" as it is in the wreath, foregoing the possibility of class 2 hub doubling. This leaves us to consider class 4 hub doubling. In this class of hub doubling, the design would be shifted all in one direction (in this case east) between hubbings. The mere fact that it is between hubbings gives us a clue...since dies start as conically tipped bars of steel, the first hubbing would impress only a small area of the center of the design. The second hubbing would move slightly outward, and so fort until the last hubbing would finish off the design. With this being the case, I have never seen an example of true class 4 hub doubling that shows on the outer periphre of the design as does your coin. Most, in fact, only affect the inner third of the design. Given that this also is likely not class 4 hub doubling, I am left with the conclusion that it is machine doubling (also called strike doubling by many).

I had to take this approach because I cannot see enough of the design in your image to ascertain the presence of notching on the devices (or lack there of) which would seal my opinion. I also do not know the design quite well enough to determine whether the outline of the devices plus doubling are of equal thickness to that of similar coins. In machine doubling these would be the same, while in true hub doubling the width of the outline would be increased by the thickness of the doubling.

Conder101

<< <i>. With this being the case, I have never seen an example of true class 4 hub doubling that shows on the outer periphre of the design as does your coin >>



What about the 1983 DDR Lincoln cent? That's class 4 isn't it?

dorkkarl

appears to be strike doubling, as shown by the classic "stair-step" look to it.

K S

Lakesammman

Thanks for the opinions - plan on sending it to Snow for verification one way or the other.

In my reading, there are 2 other considerations.

1. Portions of the die may be softer than others, accounting for only one side (or a portion) of the die to be doubled.

2. Tilted hubbing (class 8??) whereby the hub or die is tilted, allowing only a partial doubling.

Coppercoins - I find your measurement theory interesting - will take a few measurements when I get home. It is my impression that both true doubling and machine doubling will increase the apparent width of the devices....

Anyway, will post-Snows opinion in a day or two.

Pushkin

From the photographs, I'd say strike doubling. I've even seen examples with two and three tiers (like a terraced garden, or steps on stairs).

Let us know what Rick says.

coppercoins

<< <i>What about the 1983 DDR Lincoln cent? That's class 4 isn't it? >>



Well, that one sure skipped me. Yes, it is class 4 and does show all over the design, but not as this one does - this one is shelf doubling - machine doubling.

The 1983 DDR is listed by CONECA as 1983P 1-R-IV.

lathmach

From the picture it looks like strike doubling.

Ray

Gilbert

Does have that "sheared off" shelf-like look of machine doubling, especially the first and third outside (rim-side) "leaf" (notch) up from the bottom.

Thanks Conder101 for your example of the class 4 doubling. I hadn't the energy to dispute Coppercoins on the "no true class four ..."

Lakesammman

Added a second picture to the original post - HELP!!!

shylock

Your new pic answered a question I was ready to post concerning a better look at the C of CENTs. The 1865 DDR (S2), for example, shows a clear separation in the serif of the C. In your new image of the right side of the wreath the T of CENT shows almost identical separation, so I'm assuming the C does as well. How about an image of the complete denomination?

dorkkarl

again, the look of classic strike-doubling. no premium.

K S

Lakesammman

Well, here are the side-by-side comparisons. The first is apparently strike doubling. Under 30X the squared off edges resulting from the strike doubling is apparent. In person, the edges are actually a bit raised - think of it as a bulldozer pushing dirt while raising the blade - the portion of the dirt closest to the blade is the highest part of the dirt pile. On the other hand, the Class IV DDR 1865 Fancy 5 is pictured on the right. It shows the typical rounded edges to the 2 devices (hubbed twice).

I guess the way to look at it is, the devices were moved over suddenly by the strike doubling (loose die in the press) leaving the squared off/raised edges. I guess strike doubling is a bit of a misnomer as it doesn't really mean the coin was struck twice.

If you have any further insight or if the above is wrong, please don't let me continue to be ignorant!

Pushkin

<< <i>If you have any further insight or if the above is wrong, please don't let me continue to be ignorant >>



I thought ignorance was bliss - don't you want to be blissful?