ATTN Franklin Fan's...Double Die??

grover1

Hi,

I'm just curious if the provided pictures will convince anyone else like I am that my buying 61 proof sets finally paid off w/ minimal investment. I have several other sets that I compared this one to and they all look different...the letters on the others look just fine...the eagle looks fine on the others as well but on this particular coin.....most of United States Of America, E Pluribus Unum, Half Dollar, and the Eagle all show area's of doubling and to me its quite strong.....this is why I bring the pics to you guys to see if I really have what I think I do. Thanks for looking and any help is appreciated.

These are rather large pics of the reverse so you can see all the detail very well. Also the coin is still in the orginal mint cello packaging with the rest of the set so that is why it looks a little rough....the cello is faded and yellowish some.

Franklin Front
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4

Thanks again

Matt

TWODOGS

Looks like strike doubling to me.

grover1

does this make it more desireable than a same year coin that shows no doubling?

thanks

Matt

richbeat

"does this make it more desireable than a same year coin that shows no doubling?"


No, not if it's machine (strike) doubling. It's very hard sometimes to tell from a scan, but comparing your scans to the photo in the red book, they don't look the same. I would have to go with machine doubling based on what I can see.

grover1

ok,

now can somebody explain the difference. I have the price guide to mint error's as a guide, the official redbook pic's and so forth...I've been reading and trying to figure out the difference but for a newbie the price guide to mint error's gets a little complex because they have so many different varities of stuff to pick from. The redbook just shows the one pic and doesn't really explain to much.

Thanks

matt

richbeat

First of all, the chances of a doubled die occurring now are pretty much slim and none, due to recent improvements in making dies. Dies are what is referred to as "single squeezed" now, meaning that only one impression is needed to create the die. Back in 1961 that was not the case. In 1961 dies had to be "squeezed" more than once in order to bring up the design enough to strike coins. If there was the slightest rotation or pivot between the first "squeeze" and subsequent "squeezings," the die would exhibit a double impression (doubled die) and all coins struck from that die would show that double impression, which has a raised and rounded look and split serifs, etc.

Strike doubling is also called machine doubling, ejection doubling, mechanical doubling and shift doubling. Strike doubling occurs when the coin is struck and is not on the die itself. It occurs when the die becomes loose in the coining press from wear and pressure of continually striking coins under tons of pressure. The die will actually shift slightly when the coin is struck, causing a doubled image that appears flat and shelflike, like stairsteps, with no splitting of the serifs or separation at the corners of the lettering.

There is no premium for strike doubling. True doubled dies do carry a premium, depending on the amount of doubling, popularity, demand, etc.

TWODOGS

Very well stated.

grover1

right on....thanks for the info....very helpful and helps make more sense of what I've been reading in the book.

thanks again

Matt

Cam40

Try not to get too discouraged Grover1 if what you found isnt the rarer form of doubling you thought it was.

Just keep that enthusiasim about the hobby and you,ll do just fine.

You know, most coins dont show any doubling at all so, I think one with the doubling is cooler
even if it might be the common form.

I dig ALL types of doubling myself. I save em all, premium or no premium. They,re cool man.

foodude

grover1, please turn on your PM for more help.

edited to add: PM sent

richbeat

Editor's note: The above post by richbeat contains the phrases "coins struck" and "coin is struck." The phrases should read "planchets struck" and "planchet is struck." The Editor notes that richbeat sometimes gets sloppy with his terminology, and will be appropriately reprimanded for it. The Editor regrets the errors.