When a PCGS 1972 "Doubled Die" really isn't... (photos)

braddick

I recently picked this Lincoln up and thought I had something special. When it arrived I quickly was disapointed as there is very little, if any, doubling in the date (the most important aspect of a Doubled Die to me), although there is moderate doubling in the Motto and the Legend.

Now... Lincoln experts, (or- anyone!) what did I do wrong? I honestly thought PCGS did not holder the lesser knowns like ANACS does. I am slightly amused though how PCGS labels this one a 'mint error'.

Also... how far off am I on getting ripped? (Value please!) I'm a bit embarrassed to admit how much I (over)paid.

melikecoins

Check the number before you buy

Coneca

Glen

WaterSport

Well, you got Die #7...And according to the Cherry Pickers guide which is very old, it was worth $6 in AU in 2000.

coinbuf

Ouch, sorry to see this Pat. If there is a return policy send it back.

Chris

braddick

<< <i>Well, you got Die #7...And according to the Cherry Pickers guide which is very old, it was worth $6 in AU in 2000. >>

Ouch! I paid a bit more than that.

Chris, I won't be returning it as I don't believe in returns unless there is some type of fraud. I went into buying this one (off of eBay) aware that I could have taken the time to research it. I was lazy and didn't do so. That's my fault, not the Sellers.

airplanenut

Did the auction give the attribution, or just say DD?

braddick

<< <i>Did the auction give the attribution, or just say DD? >>

Here's the auction

XpipedreamR

Ouch...



All doubled dies are cool, though

oreville

Only Die #001 is the biggie. Remember the biggie is NOT a mint error. It IS a die variety!

But this is what the biggie is supposed to look likeon the PCGS insert:

coinbuf

Well that's taking it like a man; but his statement that this coin is worth much more than the 95 DDO is a bit misleading.

Chris

XpipedreamR

Did you think that you were getting THE '72 DD, by the way?

oreville

Braddick: Send it back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is worth $10-$15 at best!!

In AU condition less than $10-$15.

Send it back!!!!

darktone

When ever I sell a 72 double I make it very clear it is the variety listed in the Red book. I would ask for a return as well but I would not push it if he refuses. mike

Wolf359

but his statement that this coin is worth much more than the 95 DDO is a bit misleading.

I would agree.

19Lyds

Pardon my ignorance but how did you determine that this was die #7?

Also, too bad about the misleading auction, that coin would only be worth more the the '95 DDO if it were in much better condition.
On the plus side though, it does have a low pop report (3)!

Personally, I would try to return it.

dbldie55

PCGS always holders coins like this in a "Mint Error" holder. All of my Liberty Nickel doubled dies are holdered the same way (mint error holder, FS number denoted)

coppercoins

NONE of the doubled dies are "mint errors." PCGS should learn this and update the way they do things.

Sunnywood

You should all do yourselves a favor and investigate the doubled dies of 1872 instead. One hundred years older, and much more dramatic !!! The shield nickels of 1872 come with a variety of wildly displaced doubled dies. Even the proofs can easily be found (about 30% of them) with the FS-007 DDO. However, it is the business strikes such as FS-007.1 thru FS-007.5 that are most cool. Check it out in your CPG's, and try spending money on something other than Lincoln cents !!!

Best,
Sunnywood

relayer

Bummer. As said, there are different varieties of this.

Trooper

This date was also my first bad purchase on Ebay. I did the same thing with the wrong Die variety. Bid about the same and thought I had the deal of the century. Least yours is in a PCGS slab. I believe mine was a PCI........So for me, been there-done that....

Tom

thebeav

<< <i>Chris, I won't be returning it as I don't believe in returns unless there is some type of fraud. I went into buying this one (off of eBay) aware that I could have taken the time to research it. I was lazy and didn't do so. That's my fault, not the Sellers. >>




It's been obvious on this board that you are indeed a gentleman. Especially as evidenced by these comments. Education costs money and we've all done what you have here.......
However, after looking at this auction and the blurry photo, in all probability to hide the spots on this rather unattractive coin, I feel the seller was less than honest here. The photo and some of the comments in the description are shady, at best. You are well within your rights to return this coin.

Paul

shylock

If PCGS doesn't "recognize" a variety they label it a Mint Error, very confusing but I guess they have no other group to throw them into. You can tell if they recognize it by looking at the pops report to see if it's listed separately. Once they recognize a variety all examples they grade from that point on get a variety attribution label, like Oreville's 1972.

Steve

<< <i>NONE of the doubled dies are "mint errors." PCGS should learn this and update the way they do things. >>



Chuck,
It is interesting how different collectors have different interpretations as to what is a mint error and what is a mint variety. I have my own. I believe a mint variety is a coin in which the mint INTENDED to release and a mint error is a coin the mint DID NOT INTEND to release, or at least it could be assumed that the mint would not release it if they had seen the error before it was released. Within the Lincoln series, coins like the 1922 plain, 1955 doubled die and 1990 no S proof fall into MY error category. Coins like the 1960 small date, 1979 & 1981 type 2 proofs fall within what I call variety category. Most of the doubled dies would probably fall in the error category for me because the mint obviously did not intend the coin to exhibit the features it shows. JMHO. Steve

pharmer

Steve, I agree, and your differentiation makes sense. So I guess the attributors like Dr. Wiles of CONECA would then ask where you put what they consider to be errors, like off-center strikes, brockages, clips, etc. But I agree with you. It would, however, leave the variety area small, and the error area vastly huge.

Bill

skier07

Return it. The seller misrepresented his coin and he deliberately used a lousy image. I would
send that coin back so fast.

That's why I don't issue seller feedback for a good while. If there is a problem I can use the
feedback as a recourses and invariably the seller will relent.

Bruce

WaterSport

Looks like we got another one! This is Die # 3 for those who care to know, and its NOT worth $300..maybe $25-$35.

1972 DDO, only it is a Die #3, Not #1

coppercoins

<< <i>

<< <i>NONE of the doubled dies are "mint errors." PCGS should learn this and update the way they do things. >>



Chuck,
It is interesting how different collectors have different interpretations as to what is a mint error and what is a mint variety. I have my own. I believe a mint variety is a coin in which the mint INTENDED to release and a mint error is a coin the mint DID NOT INTEND to release, or at least it could be assumed that the mint would not release it if they had seen the error before it was released. Within the Lincoln series, coins like the 1922 plain, 1955 doubled die and 1990 no S proof fall into MY error category. Coins like the 1960 small date, 1979 & 1981 type 2 proofs fall within what I call variety category. Most of the doubled dies would probably fall in the error category for me because the mint obviously did not intend the coin to exhibit the features it shows. JMHO. Steve >>



That's because there are THREE definitions...You are correct as to what's a variety, and mostly correct as to what's an error...but I can tell you from specializing in DIE VARIETIES that they are neither of the above. I have no interest in errors, I don't collect errors, and I know a host of other people who are in the same shoes I'm in. They are lumped with error collectors, have to flip to error sections of books, web sites, even eBay just to see what they collect, but if the general public would learn the difference and use it properly, it would be a HELL of a lot easier for me and the others to find what they are after, and leave the brockages, indents, die caps, off centers, and other errors to those who truly are interested in seeing them.

1. Variety: intended design changes that are usually changed mid-year on a series - also includes intended design changes that occur in years that they were not intended to occur in - such as the Ike reverses, Jefferson reverses, and Lincoln reverses that are "muled" to the wrong year's obverse. Varieties also include large letters, small letters, large dates, small dates, the "L" 1864 indian, the different tail feather types of Morgans, etc.

2. Error: A mistake in the coining process that shows on the coins struck by that process. Includes planchet errors (wrong planchet, broken planchet, split planchet, laminations, etc.), die errors (die break, die abrasion, CUDs, etc), and striking errors (double struck, off center struck, brockage, indents, broadstruck, etc).

3. Die variety: Happens in the die making process, which comes before the coining process starts. Involves doubling of one sort or another in the design on the die because of human error either in the hubbing press or in the die shop where mintmarks and/or dates were added by hand. Includes doubled dies, mintmark varieties (RPMs, OMMs), overdates, and repunched dates.

This terminology and their definitions far pre-date my collecting experience, so it's not something I made up. Everyone I know who truly understands the minting process and WHY these definitions are separate agrees with them. Whether they fight to educate people about them is a different story - many of the "experts" gave up long ago because people REFUSE to understand the differences and insist on calling anything flawed by the mint an "error."

The sheer and simple difference between errors and die varieties is this: Errors do not exist from the time the die is hung on the press, so any coin struck by a given die pair could be an error, could be a normal coin too. Die errors are the only sub-group that are different, because die errors develop on the die as it is being used, so all coins struck subsequent to the error's occurrence show the error.

Die varieties are on the die when the die is made - so ALL coins struck by a die pair with a die variety show the die variety - no matter what.

Varieties, like die varieties, show on all coins made by a die pair, but the difference between varieties and die varieties is that varieties don't show doubling as a rule, and the change that makes them collectible was an intended change. Die varieties are not intended, but are sometimes known before the die goes into use.

coppercoins

So....PCGS should learn to just call doubled dies just that on their slabs whether they want to recognize the particular die or not. Calling them "errors" as a professional grading service shows a lack of education. It wouldn't hurt them to just type "doubled die" or "die variety" on their label instead of wrongfully calling them "mint errors" which they are definitely NOT.

It doesn't really bug me to hear collectors (and even dealers) call them by the wrong name - but when you have books (Red Book) and major grading services (PCGS, PCI) that can't get it right, it stirs a lot of emotion in a lot of people who TRY to educate people in the proper use of the terms. All they do is give false credibility to improper use of terminology because far too many people put far too much clout in them.

Coinhusker1

<< <i>Well that's taking it like a man; but his statement that this coin is worth much more than the 95 DDO is a bit misleading.

Chris >>



I agree. It appears the seller represented it was THE '72 DDO, so you should return it. Even if the seller honestly thought it was something it is not, it still does not give him/her the right to stick you with the coin.

Steve

Chuck,
An excellent explanation, and yes, I did learn something new. My assumption of two differences should be three differences, and in reality, I need to think of what I called "errors" as "die varieties".
The true errors, as you explained, I do not collect either. I must say also that within the die varieties group, I do distinguish between what I consider major and what I consider minor die varieties within the Lincoln cent series. I collect only what I consider major. Anyway, thanks for the information.
Steve

braddick

I've learned a ton within this thread about Doubled Dies and even more via some PM's. That alone makes buying this Lincoln worth it.

I won't be returning it. Again it's on me to educate myself before bidding, not afterward.

oreville

Coppercoin's post with the definitions is right on target.

I think that PCGS and the other grading services should do the following:

slab the die #001 as:

Doubled Die Obverse
------(MAJOR)-------

The others should be slabbed as:

Doubled Die Obverse
-------(MINOR)------

Of course the other DDO's and DDR's should likewise be done in the same manner.

Additionally, the die # or whatever attribution PCGS uses should also be added.

coppercoins

<< <i>I do distinguish between what I consider major and what I consider minor die varieties within the Lincoln cent series. >>



I also distinguish the difference between them, but am forced by what I do to at least acknowledge ALL of them because I publish on the subject. Unlike some others, I do recognize that if it's there, it is what it is...and I call it such. I never have and never will say that everyone who is interested in the subject should collect the most minor ones - that's just for the people who like the challenge. I have also never said that there is necessarily value in all of them. I do think that with more information published about them, the more minor ones will gain more recognition, and possibly more value as well - but if a person is into it for the value of the coins, definitely just collect the more major and impressive ones. When a person or group decides to be an authoritative figure in the hobby they have to list everything and let the collector pick and choose what they collect...it's not the job of an attributor to deny listing them just because it's too minor for THEM to collect.

I distinguish between the minor and major die varieties on coppercoins.com by using a star rating system to separate them. Every die variety gets between one and five stars with regard to how visible the die variety is. Unfortunately this doesn't also play into rarity or value, because some of the more obvious ones are common and have less value than some of the lesser obvious ones that are rare and command a very high premium. An immediate example that comes to mind is a comparison between five-star 1960D-1MM-001, a major RPM, and two-star 1960D-1MM-004, a very minor RPM. #1 will bring $10-$15 in BU while #4 brings in excess of $60-$80 in BU. Although much less obvious, #4 is quite rare and very difficult to obtain.

The point is, regardless of whether they are minor split serif 1960D RPMs or whether they are naked-eye rare doubled dies, they are ALL die varieties, not errors, and should be recognized as such by the professionals so at least the lesser knowledged collectors won't be confused by conflicting terms in those they respect as educated professionals in the field. Whether they like it or not, every professional numismatist has a duty to get their story straight and teach the people to whom they sell their products and services. All of this "well he says it's a die variety, they say it's an error" crap has to go. The definitions are clear, precise, and any flawed coin fits into one of them. Stubborn groups like PCGS just hurt the community as a whole forcing incorrect terminology with what they do. It's about time they change for the better and start benefitting the coin collecting community with a product that is properly fitting their reputation. Their "error" holder fiasco and refusal to recognize all but the most major die varieties is exactly why I send people to ANACS for die variety slabbing...they are the ONLY reputable slabbing company that does it right.

pharmer

Great info, Chuck. I'm wondering what you think of Numisexpert's price guide, which dingodog has a thread about the last few days. Incredibly, to me, the have most 1c rpm's listed with prices they say they have found from actual sales. Take all the catergories they have and it is a remarkable effort. I disagree with some values, take 1943d 1c rpm-1 for example, which gets over four figures in ms65 or higher, but of course those are certified examples, and I assume Numisexperts figures are for raw coins. Just wondered what you thought of their effort.

Bill

Steve

<< <i>

<< <i>I do distinguish between what I consider major and what I consider minor die varieties within the Lincoln cent series. >>




I distinguish between the minor and major die varieties on coppercoins.com by using a star rating system to separate them. Every die variety gets between one and five stars with regard to how visible the die variety is. Unfortunately this doesn't also play into rarity or value, because some of the more obvious ones are common and have less value than some of the lesser obvious ones that are rare and command a very high premium. An immediate example that comes to mind is a comparison between five-star 1960D-1MM-001, a major RPM, and two-star 1960D-1MM-004, a very minor RPM. #1 will bring $10-$15 in BU while #4 brings in excess of $60-$80 in BU. Although much less obvious, #4 is quite rare and very difficult to obtain.
>>



Chuck,
On your example, I would consider both of these MINOR in MY eyes because I only collect those die varieties that are well known and published in the pricing guides. I don't have a 1909 s over horizontal s but that one might qualify in my mind. The 1944 d over s I do have in type 1. These things like 1960d die varieties MIGHT show great doubling, etc. but they really don't mean anything much to me. Why? Because I have an example of over 325 different Lincoln cents in uncirculated and proof condition representing all dates and mintmarks. I collected the 1955 doubled die and 1922 plain for obvious reasons. They are accepted within the general hobby as part of the series. See, I guess this just proves each collector is different and that is OK too. By the way, I enjoyed reading your book. I'm sure you have a great future. Good luck. Steve

RBinTex

THIS kind of krap goes on all too often.