<< <i>I agree with a lot of what Ambro is saying, but I think that in addition to public awareness, there needs to be an embrace by the collector community as well- collectors have to want to add new varieties to their collections, and dealers have to be able to make a good profit selling them. Without these things, I don't see a variety or variety rising above the level of 'eBay novelty', IMHO.
it just doesn't have the 'wow' factor that old-school variety collectors like myself want to see. The impact of this on the hobby concers me, as inexperienced collectors may buy the variety from the eBay listing with 'RARE L@@K!' in the title, or the Coin World ad with the big bold font, only to find in a few months that the variety never caught on and isn't worth what they paid. That's the kind of bad taste that turns people away from coin collecting, and we desperately need new blood in the hobby.
Just my opinions- flame away... >>
Well said, and let's be honest the group wants them to become main stream to add value. PCGS does not need to put a var on their label to make you want to collect it, but a lot of collectors think (and are not completely wrong) that if it gets added to the registry set and PCGS acknowledges them that they will become must haves. But one must remember that it is like the little boy who cried wolf, for every special holder that a collector picks up that says DDO, DDR or what not and the buyer says "I don't see it" or "who cares" the less Doubled die and var holders mean to the market. 9 out of 10(if not more) collectors think those coins are not that special and if you have to have it on the holder give ANACS a call. If you truly like them so much you should be happy they remain cheap and sleepers as it makes it easier to obtain them for the people that care. Somehow I think that’s not really what the extra finger people want IMO.
That garage full of 114 versions of Lincoln DDRs making you lose sleep or is your dinoscope on the blink?? >>
I think your statement above is a little insulting to those of use out there who are taking these varieties seriously. In this thread and others, I keep hearing them called "dinoscope" or microscope errors and to me at least, its a tongue in cheek term to belittle the errors. I am speaking to a broad audience here, but have you personally seen these errors in hand? The major varieties of the FY DDRS can easily be seen. All you need is a loupe, and specifically the Skeleton Finger CDDR-009, you can see with your naked eye. Additionally, lumping these classified DDRs in the same camp as cuds, die cracks, and die errosion, is completely errorneous. I think even a numismatist at a beginner level, with some education and reading of die varieties can tell that these "extra fingers" are not cuds.
I keep hearing 114 versions etc etc etc, YES, there are 100+. Wexler, Crawford, Copper Coins, CONECA, and others spent countless hours attributing and studying examples that were SUBMITTED to them by collectors, or through their own roll searching. If nobody cared, and submitted these coins, or if the professionals did not wish to spend countless hours, there would be fewer. This is what these professionals do, they catalogue. As each DDR is from a unique die, there there were clearly issues with this design, possible quality of the dies, and workmanship at the Mint that contributed to these varieties. The majority of the 100+ varieties are truly insignificant, they are a blip, a dot, a dash in the central portion of the coin, BUT these guys get the ball rolling with their CDDR-xxx, and WDDR-xxx numbering system and they finish it out. That is what they do.
Yet there are a small handful that are significant and these are what collectors like myself and others find interesting. I personally do not see the issue with there being this many varieties. We as collectors are always weeding out the best, and for those that care, we are doing just that. We are a selective group, and obviously in a broad sense, very selective because we all can choose what we want to collect. There will always be a camp that is not interested in these coins and I say more power to you.
I believe that the major varieties of the 2009 FY will be listed in the CPG, possibly the Red Book Pro edition, attributed eventually by PCGS (and then NGC). You may ask why I care so much? I have been collecting these varieties from day one and enjoyed every second of it. They have broadened my interest and knowledge of other die varieties, especially Lincoln cents, and I find the extra fingers and skeleton fingers unique. They are unique you know, sure 100+ varieties, but never to made again and they gave us quite a bit to collect.
On another chat board, this collector of "extra fingers" claimed to have 700 of them in different varieties...seven hundred...and was asking, "What do you think I should do with all these?"
When the 55 DDO was discovered, my Dad and I couldn't find a single one, when the 72 DDO was discovered, I couldn't find a stinking one....yet in 2009 one single collector has plucked out 700 varieties of this wanna-be DD. What's wrong with this picture people?
New terminology is imperative or the term Doubled Die will be so watered down it will be synonymous with just another marketing gimmick.
Last time I touch on this subject, ya'll fight it out, I'm going to go and stand in the corner over there and look through my change, maybe I gots me one of them DD's too!
My take on the matter has nothing to do with the actual die variety or its production technique as much as it has to do with the sheer number of these "varieties" that have been produced.
The 1955 Philly Lincoln had a mintage of 33,058,000 whereas the 2009 coins had a Philly mintage of 1,106,000,000! It's also pretty much common knowledge that, today, each Lincoln die can produce upto 1 million coins. Thats a heckuva lot of individual coins available. If the maximum mintage of 1 million were achieved for each of the Lincoln varieties, that represents 100 million available which is a little less than 10% of the total production.
Compare that with the number of 55/55 coins available (both raw and graded). Even at a massive 100,000 coins, it represents less than 1/3 of 1% of total production (.003%). Quite a scarcity difference IMO.
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.
Lee, the 2009 FY Philadelphia had a mintage of 376,000,000. There have been no real noteworthy DDRs in the other 3 series for this year, nor the Denver mint for regular production coins.
As I have repeated before, I do not believe there are "millions" of these errors around. Definately not for the signficant and major varieties. I understand I am repeating myself, but the CDDR-006 Skeleton Finger was found in two places. LP2 mint roll boxes, and bank boxes. The only LP2 Mint box date is a small hour period on 4/23. None have been found in the 4/22, nor 4/24, nor other LP2 mint roll boxes. 300,000 boxes were produced over 30+ production dates, that is 10,000 boxes a day if it was spread equally (an assumption).
A very small handful have been reported in bank roll boxes. One collector I spoke with found 17 in searching 20,000 coins. They have the major die break on the reverse. This die failed quickly, it had early on a die break on the obverse, which spread and became a major crack, and then the reverse had a major crack too. In general, these DDRs and non-variety type FY from Philadelphia have numerous die cracks, there was either a problem with the design, or the quality of the die, but the Mint had some issues apparently. Point being, is if you really dive into these, they are not as "common" as one may believe.
<< <i>Lee, the 2009 FY Philadelphia had a mintage of 376,000,000. There have been no real noteworthy DDRs in the other 3 series for this year, nor the Denver mint for regular production coins.
As I have repeated before, I do not believe there are "millions" of these errors around. Definately not for the signficant and major varieties. I understand I am repeating myself, but the CDDR-006 Skeleton Finger was found in two places. LP2 mint roll boxes, and bank boxes. The only LP2 Mint box date is a small hour period on 4/23. None have been found in the 4/22, nor 4/24, nor other LP2 mint roll boxes. 300,000 boxes were produced over 30+ production dates, that is 10,000 boxes a day if it was spread equally (an assumption).
A very small handful have been reported in bank roll boxes. One collector I spoke with found 17 in searching 20,000 coins. They have the major die break on the reverse. This die failed quickly, it had early on a die break on the obverse, which spread and became a major crack, and then the reverse had a major crack too. In general, these DDRs and non-variety type FY from Philadelphia have numerous die cracks, there was either a problem with the design, or the quality of the die, but the Mint had some issues apparently. Point being, is if you really dive into these, they are not as "common" as one may believe. >>
Yer right, I totally space that out!
Let me adjust my figures!
"The 1955 Philly Lincoln had a mintage of 33,058,000 whereas the 2009 (FY)coins had a Philly mintage of 376,000,000! It's also pretty much common knowledge that, today, each Lincoln die can produce upto 1 million coins. Thats a heckuva lot of individual coins available. If the maximum mintage of 1 million were achieved for each of the Lincoln varieties, that represents 100 million available which is a little less than 27% of the total production."
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.
This is just my figuring, but I think it has some credibility for the CDDR-009 Skeleton Finger found in the LP2 box. There should be a small amount added for those that appeared in the bank roll boxes with the progressing die cracks (ready to fail):
For 4/23 LP2, they were not in the early morning and late afternoon boxes. When found in a box it is usually 4-8 coins. If 10,000 boxes were produced that is 40,000 - 80,000. BUT many of those 4/23 boxes have zero if early morning or later in the afternoon. So what could that be? Half the 4/23 boxes? So 20,000 - 40,000? What if only 5,000 or 20,000 boxes were made? Hard to tell and these are just my figuring. But all I can say with certainty is they were found only in 4/23 boxes (not counting a small bank roll amount too) and there are plenty of 4/23 boxes with no skeleton fingers in them. So I honestly have a very good feeling that the numbers are on the low estimates.
Let's step back and look at this in the big picture. Easy math, say 100 varieties, and 300 million coins produced. If each die truly made 1 million coins, then that would be 1 in 3 coins are a DDR of some sort. Just not true, no way, no how. I can prove it in an instant by scooping into my pile of FY coins. Ask anybody that has searched rolls.
I personally have searched hundreds of rolls and only came up with errors in 4/17, 4/23,/4/27,4/29, and 4/30. The other dates produced nothing and there were lots of rolls for all the dates. The dates that gave me the most errors were 4/17,4/29, and 4/30. The 4/23 date gave me what WDDR 006 I have and I looked at about 40 rolls and got 75 of them. Believe me when I say there are not as many of these things as some people are saying. There are plenty of people out there that want to make this coin a failure, they did it for 3 years with the extra leaf quarters. Pay no attention to them and collect what you want.
Seems to me the best idea to profit from these things is to do what a lot of eBay sellers are trying. List them with a 99 cent buy it now and then add on $1.25 for shipping. When you find a buyer drop it in an envelope and slap on a 44 cent stamp.
I am a variety guy, but I can not get into these modern varieties. It began with the extra tree limbs, then extra tree leaves, then extra parts of leaves etc etc. Same with the fingers. I know these are real doubled dies and understand the processes where they are formed, but I just can't get into them. I grabbed a few boxes of 2006 Lincolns looking for split serifs and just gave up after seeing so many minor varieties. I just threw them all into the penny jar and there they sit. The single squeeze just took away a lot of the fun.
Now give me a jar of wheaties and a glass and I am in heaven
That garage full of 114 versions of Lincoln DDRs making you lose sleep or is your dinoscope on the blink?? >>
I think your statement above is a little insulting to those of use out there who are taking these varieties seriously. In this thread and others, I keep hearing them called "dinoscope" or microscope errors and to me at least, its a tongue in cheek term to belittle the errors. I am speaking to a broad audience here, but have you personally seen these errors in hand? The major varieties of the FY DDRS can easily be seen. All you need is a loupe, and specifically the Skeleton Finger CDDR-009, you can see with your naked eye. Additionally, lumping these classified DDRs in the same camp as cuds, die cracks, and die errosion, is completely errorneous. I think even a numismatist at a beginner level, with some education and reading of die varieties can tell that these "extra fingers" are not cuds.
I keep hearing 114 versions etc etc etc, YES, there are 100+. Wexler, Crawford, Copper Coins, CONECA, and others spent countless hours attributing and studying examples that were SUBMITTED to them by collectors, or through their own roll searching. If nobody cared, and submitted these coins, or if the professionals did not wish to spend countless hours, there would be fewer. This is what these professionals do, they catalogue. As each DDR is from a unique die, there there were clearly issues with this design, possible quality of the dies, and workmanship at the Mint that contributed to these varieties. The majority of the 100+ varieties are truly insignificant, they are a blip, a dot, a dash in the central portion of the coin, BUT these guys get the ball rolling with their CDDR-xxx, and WDDR-xxx numbering system and they finish it out. That is what they do.
Yet there are a small handful that are significant and these are what collectors like myself and others find interesting. I personally do not see the issue with there being this many varieties. We as collectors are always weeding out the best, and for those that care, we are doing just that. We are a selective group, and obviously in a broad sense, very selective because we all can choose what we want to collect. There will always be a camp that is not interested in these coins and I say more power to you.
I believe that the major varieties of the 2009 FY will be listed in the CPG, possibly the Red Book Pro edition, attributed eventually by PCGS (and then NGC). You may ask why I care so much? I have been collecting these varieties from day one and enjoyed every second of it. They have broadened my interest and knowledge of other die varieties, especially Lincoln cents, and I find the extra fingers and skeleton fingers unique. They are unique you know, sure 100+ varieties, but never to made again and they gave us quite a bit to collect. >>
I believe the Ellington is the one new variety that will hold value over time. It has the 'wow' factor that will make people want it- it's a wide spread, it affects multiple letters, and is easily seen without powerful magnification. They're also hard to come by, from what I've read, which means demand will remain higher than supply...
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <i>I believe the Ellington is the one new variety that will hold value over time. It has the 'wow' factor that will make people want it- it's a wide spread, it affects multiple letters, and is easily seen without powerful magnification. They're also hard to come by, from what I've read, which means demand will remain higher than supply... >>
So this really isn't a discussion on doubled dies. It's about how much money one can make. Yes?
<< <i>I believe the Ellington is the one new variety that will hold value over time. It has the 'wow' factor that will make people want it- it's a wide spread, it affects multiple letters, and is easily seen without powerful magnification. They're also hard to come by, from what I've read, which means demand will remain higher than supply... >>
So this really isn't a discussion on doubled dies. It's about how much money one can make. Yes?
Is the Ellington Quarter a Doubled Die? >>
There has been talk in this discussion about values, and I made this comment based on what I stated earlier about 'wow' factor.
In my opinion, it is a doubled die. I also believe the extra fingers, trees, and ears are doubled dies. I don't think we need a new term, we need a new class defined by CONECA, if that hasn't happened already.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
I agree, but if the single squeeze process is a factor, perhaps it should be noted, just to keep everyone happy.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <i>Looks like strike doubling of some sort........machine doubling.. i've heard it called several things >>
I didn't get back to this thread yesterday.
I'm shocked that no one chose to educate, MRDQ, the AUTHOR of this thread.
No wonder this thread exists. He thinks this is "strike", or "machine" doubling.
Well, I hate to break the news to you, but this is a doubled die
John Wexler wrote: “The 2009-D Washington, D.C., quarter with a doubled-die reverse is an extremely exciting variety."
JT Stanton wrote: "I would have to say the D-mint coin is certainly a significant variety, it certainly deserves a place in the Cherrypickers’ Guide.”
Bill Fivaz wrote: “After viewing the doubled-die reverse D-mint D.C. quarter, I certainly feel it is worthy of a listing in the Red Book."
Billy Crawford wrote: "I certainly feel this D-mint District of Columbia doubled-die reverse is warranted major classification.”
Tilted Hub Doubling restricted to such a small area of design within the center region of the die is possible due to the result of either of two related scenarios.
1.) The hub is backed off after the initial kiss of the hub into a tilted die blank and is then reset properly and hubbed again.
2.) The hub and die blank are tilted in relation to each other and are then forced to seat into proper position by hubbing pressure within a split second after the initial kiss of the hub into the tip of the die blank. The face of a die blank (referred to as a “die block” in Mint jargon) is machined with a slightly conical configuration to aid in the flow of metal during hubbing. This would indicate that the initial kiss of a hub into a die blank would be restricted to this centralized area before continuing on to fill out the rest of the design. During this process the tip of a tilted die blank would be positioned slightly off location away from the center of the hub into a different area of design than intended and thus the misplaced area of doubling on the affected die.
This is exactly the same way the 2009 extra finger cents occurred.
<< <i>So if I looked at the die that stuck the coin it would have a doubled image on it? I don't think so. >>
Because the coins are from doubled dies, and not machine doubling, you would see doubling on the die itself, that shows on every die struck by it. The extra thumbs, although resulting from an issue with the single-squeeze process, will show the doubled image. The fact that there are many, identical copies of the variety proves this. If it were machine doubling, it would not be visible on the die.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <i>So, I am trying to understand all this as it is very confusing to me how it happened.
You are saying that the die was doubled from the start of the run.
If that was the case, would there not be a lot more of these than there are?.
It seems to me that it would have to have happened during the run somehow.
If the die was doubled from some act during the production run it would explain why there are not that many of them.
Does the mint keep all these used dies? >>
Well my understanding that is for a DDR to be classified by say Wexler, each DDR is from a unique die. This is identified by the unique markings or identifiers for each die. If there are 100+ varieties, then there were 100+ separate dies used to create these errors as my understanding is that it is a doubling of the die from the start of the production run, vs. the production method itself creating random extra fingers, thumbs etc. However, I have mentioned before that there are not say a million coins produced by each die, thus one million of each DDR. There is just no way that is the case as (rounding for easy math) with 300 million coins and 100 DDR varieties, there are not 100 million DDRs out there. That would be 1 in 3 coins! There is absolutely no way that is the case, scoop up a handful or go through a roll and there are countless non error minted coins. Many many rolls of 50 have had no DDR regardless of the variety. I think the Mint went through quite a few different dies to produce the FY cent as evident by the numerous die cracks found in these coins. We know the Skeleton Finger has been found in three stages with a progressing die crack on the obverse and a fatal major crack on the reverse. Regardless, something either with the die metal itself, tricky design, or poor workmanship at the Mint, contributed to many dies used.
Comments
<< <i>I agree with a lot of what Ambro is saying, but I think that in addition to public awareness, there needs to be an embrace by the collector community as well- collectors have to want to add new varieties to their collections, and dealers have to be able to make a good profit selling them. Without these things, I don't see a variety or variety rising above the level of 'eBay novelty', IMHO.
it just doesn't have the 'wow' factor that old-school variety collectors like myself want to see. The impact of this on the hobby concers me, as inexperienced collectors may buy the variety from the eBay listing with 'RARE L@@K!' in the title, or the Coin World ad with the big bold font, only to find in a few months that the variety never caught on and isn't worth what they paid. That's the kind of bad taste that turns people away from coin collecting, and we desperately need new blood in the hobby.
Just my opinions- flame away... >>
Well said, and let's be honest the group wants them to become main stream to add value. PCGS does not need to put a var on their label to make you want to collect it, but a lot of collectors think (and are not completely wrong) that if it gets added to the registry set and PCGS acknowledges them that they will become must haves. But one must remember that it is like the little boy who cried wolf, for every special holder that a collector picks up that says DDO, DDR or what not and the buyer says "I don't see it" or "who cares" the less Doubled die and var holders mean to the market. 9 out of 10(if not more) collectors think those coins are not that special and if you have to have it on the holder give ANACS a call. If you truly like them so much you should be happy they remain cheap and sleepers as it makes it easier to obtain them for the people that care. Somehow I think that’s not really what the extra finger people want IMO.
<< <i>A little sensitive aren't we??
That garage full of 114 versions of Lincoln DDRs making you lose sleep or is your dinoscope on the blink?? >>
I think your statement above is a little insulting to those of use out there who are taking these varieties seriously. In this thread and others, I keep hearing them called "dinoscope" or microscope errors and to me at least, its a tongue in cheek term to belittle the errors. I am speaking to a broad audience here, but have you personally seen these errors in hand? The major varieties of the FY DDRS can easily be seen. All you need is a loupe, and specifically the Skeleton Finger CDDR-009, you can see with your naked eye. Additionally, lumping these classified DDRs in the same camp as cuds, die cracks, and die errosion, is completely errorneous. I think even a numismatist at a beginner level, with some education and reading of die varieties can tell that these "extra fingers" are not cuds.
I keep hearing 114 versions etc etc etc, YES, there are 100+. Wexler, Crawford, Copper Coins, CONECA, and others spent countless hours attributing and studying examples that were SUBMITTED to them by collectors, or through their own roll searching. If nobody cared, and submitted these coins, or if the professionals did not wish to spend countless hours, there would be fewer. This is what these professionals do, they catalogue. As each DDR is from a unique die, there there were clearly issues with this design, possible quality of the dies, and workmanship at the Mint that contributed to these varieties. The majority of the 100+ varieties are truly insignificant, they are a blip, a dot, a dash in the central portion of the coin, BUT these guys get the ball rolling with their CDDR-xxx, and WDDR-xxx numbering system and they finish it out. That is what they do.
Yet there are a small handful that are significant and these are what collectors like myself and others find interesting. I personally do not see the issue with there being this many varieties. We as collectors are always weeding out the best, and for those that care, we are doing just that. We are a selective group, and obviously in a broad sense, very selective because we all can choose what we want to collect. There will always be a camp that is not interested in these coins and I say more power to you.
I believe that the major varieties of the 2009 FY will be listed in the CPG, possibly the Red Book Pro edition, attributed eventually by PCGS (and then NGC). You may ask why I care so much? I have been collecting these varieties from day one and enjoyed every second of it. They have broadened my interest and knowledge of other die varieties, especially Lincoln cents, and I find the extra fingers and skeleton fingers unique. They are unique you know, sure 100+ varieties, but never to made again and they gave us quite a bit to collect.
Good morning Michael,
Very well put and I agree with you.
When the 55 DDO was discovered, my Dad and I couldn't find a single one, when the 72 DDO was discovered, I couldn't find a stinking one....yet in 2009 one single collector has plucked out 700 varieties of this wanna-be DD. What's wrong with this picture people?
New terminology is imperative or the term Doubled Die will be so watered down it will be synonymous with just another marketing gimmick.
Last time I touch on this subject, ya'll fight it out, I'm going to go and stand in the corner over there and look through my change, maybe I gots me one of them DD's too!
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
The 1955 Philly Lincoln had a mintage of 33,058,000 whereas the 2009 coins had a Philly mintage of 1,106,000,000! It's also pretty much common knowledge that, today, each Lincoln die can produce upto 1 million coins. Thats a heckuva lot of individual coins available. If the maximum mintage of 1 million were achieved for each of the Lincoln varieties, that represents 100 million available which is a little less than 10% of the total production.
Compare that with the number of 55/55 coins available (both raw and graded). Even at a massive 100,000 coins, it represents less than 1/3 of 1% of total production (.003%). Quite a scarcity difference IMO.
The name is LEE!
As I have repeated before, I do not believe there are "millions" of these errors around. Definately not for the signficant and major varieties. I understand I am repeating myself, but the CDDR-006 Skeleton Finger was found in two places. LP2 mint roll boxes, and bank boxes. The only LP2 Mint box date is a small hour period on 4/23. None have been found in the 4/22, nor 4/24, nor other LP2 mint roll boxes. 300,000 boxes were produced over 30+ production dates, that is 10,000 boxes a day if it was spread equally (an assumption).
A very small handful have been reported in bank roll boxes. One collector I spoke with found 17 in searching 20,000 coins. They have the major die break on the reverse. This die failed quickly, it had early on a die break on the obverse, which spread and became a major crack, and then the reverse had a major crack too. In general, these DDRs and non-variety type FY from Philadelphia have numerous die cracks, there was either a problem with the design, or the quality of the die, but the Mint had some issues apparently. Point being, is if you really dive into these, they are not as "common" as one may believe.
<< <i>Lee, the 2009 FY Philadelphia had a mintage of 376,000,000. There have been no real noteworthy DDRs in the other 3 series for this year, nor the Denver mint for regular production coins.
As I have repeated before, I do not believe there are "millions" of these errors around. Definately not for the signficant and major varieties. I understand I am repeating myself, but the CDDR-006 Skeleton Finger was found in two places. LP2 mint roll boxes, and bank boxes. The only LP2 Mint box date is a small hour period on 4/23. None have been found in the 4/22, nor 4/24, nor other LP2 mint roll boxes. 300,000 boxes were produced over 30+ production dates, that is 10,000 boxes a day if it was spread equally (an assumption).
A very small handful have been reported in bank roll boxes. One collector I spoke with found 17 in searching 20,000 coins. They have the major die break on the reverse. This die failed quickly, it had early on a die break on the obverse, which spread and became a major crack, and then the reverse had a major crack too. In general, these DDRs and non-variety type FY from Philadelphia have numerous die cracks, there was either a problem with the design, or the quality of the die, but the Mint had some issues apparently. Point being, is if you really dive into these, they are not as "common" as one may believe. >>
Yer right, I totally space that out!
Let me adjust my figures!
"The 1955 Philly Lincoln had a mintage of 33,058,000 whereas the 2009 (FY)coins had a Philly mintage of 376,000,000! It's also pretty much common knowledge that, today, each Lincoln die can produce upto 1 million coins. Thats a heckuva lot of individual coins available. If the maximum mintage of 1 million were achieved for each of the Lincoln varieties, that represents 100 million available which is a little less than 27% of the total production."
The name is LEE!
This is just my figuring, but I think it has some credibility for the CDDR-009 Skeleton Finger found in the LP2 box. There should be a small amount added for those that appeared in the bank roll boxes with the progressing die cracks (ready to fail):
For 4/23 LP2, they were not in the early morning and late afternoon boxes. When found in a box it is usually 4-8 coins. If 10,000 boxes were produced that is 40,000 - 80,000. BUT many of those 4/23 boxes have zero if early morning or later in the afternoon. So what could that be? Half the 4/23 boxes? So 20,000 - 40,000? What if only 5,000 or 20,000 boxes were made? Hard to tell and these are just my figuring. But all I can say with certainty is they were found only in 4/23 boxes (not counting a small bank roll amount too) and there are plenty of 4/23 boxes with no skeleton fingers in them. So I honestly have a very good feeling that the numbers are on the low estimates.
Let's step back and look at this in the big picture. Easy math, say 100 varieties, and 300 million coins produced. If each die truly made 1 million coins, then that would be 1 in 3 coins are a DDR of some sort. Just not true, no way, no how. I can prove it in an instant by scooping into my pile of FY coins. Ask anybody that has searched rolls.
I personally have searched hundreds of rolls and only came up with errors in 4/17, 4/23,/4/27,4/29, and 4/30. The other dates produced nothing and there were lots of rolls for all the dates. The dates that gave me the most errors were 4/17,4/29, and 4/30. The 4/23 date gave me what WDDR 006 I have and I looked at about 40 rolls and got 75 of them. Believe me when I say there are not as many of these things as some people are saying. There are plenty of people out there that want to make this coin a failure, they did it for 3 years with the extra leaf quarters. Pay no attention to them and collect what you want.
<< <i>...do they still make dueling pistols?
LP2 Denver coins in a slingshot at 10 Paces!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>...do they still make dueling pistols?
LP2 Denver coins in a slingshot at 10 Paces! >>
Just do not bring your Ikes with you, that is an unfair advantage!
It began with the extra tree limbs, then extra tree leaves, then extra parts of leaves etc etc.
Same with the fingers.
I know these are real doubled dies and understand the processes where they are formed, but
I just can't get into them. I grabbed a few boxes of 2006 Lincolns looking for split serifs and just gave
up after seeing so many minor varieties. I just threw them all into the penny jar and there they sit.
The single squeeze just took away a lot of the fun.
Now give me a jar of wheaties and a glass and I am in heaven
<< <i>
<< <i>A little sensitive aren't we??
That garage full of 114 versions of Lincoln DDRs making you lose sleep or is your dinoscope on the blink?? >>
I think your statement above is a little insulting to those of use out there who are taking these varieties seriously. In this thread and others, I keep hearing them called "dinoscope" or microscope errors and to me at least, its a tongue in cheek term to belittle the errors. I am speaking to a broad audience here, but have you personally seen these errors in hand? The major varieties of the FY DDRS can easily be seen. All you need is a loupe, and specifically the Skeleton Finger CDDR-009, you can see with your naked eye. Additionally, lumping these classified DDRs in the same camp as cuds, die cracks, and die errosion, is completely errorneous. I think even a numismatist at a beginner level, with some education and reading of die varieties can tell that these "extra fingers" are not cuds.
I keep hearing 114 versions etc etc etc, YES, there are 100+. Wexler, Crawford, Copper Coins, CONECA, and others spent countless hours attributing and studying examples that were SUBMITTED to them by collectors, or through their own roll searching. If nobody cared, and submitted these coins, or if the professionals did not wish to spend countless hours, there would be fewer. This is what these professionals do, they catalogue. As each DDR is from a unique die, there there were clearly issues with this design, possible quality of the dies, and workmanship at the Mint that contributed to these varieties. The majority of the 100+ varieties are truly insignificant, they are a blip, a dot, a dash in the central portion of the coin, BUT these guys get the ball rolling with their CDDR-xxx, and WDDR-xxx numbering system and they finish it out. That is what they do.
Yet there are a small handful that are significant and these are what collectors like myself and others find interesting. I personally do not see the issue with there being this many varieties. We as collectors are always weeding out the best, and for those that care, we are doing just that. We are a selective group, and obviously in a broad sense, very selective because we all can choose what we want to collect. There will always be a camp that is not interested in these coins and I say more power to you.
I believe that the major varieties of the 2009 FY will be listed in the CPG, possibly the Red Book Pro edition, attributed eventually by PCGS (and then NGC). You may ask why I care so much? I have been collecting these varieties from day one and enjoyed every second of it. They have broadened my interest and knowledge of other die varieties, especially Lincoln cents, and I find the extra fingers and skeleton fingers unique. They are unique you know, sure 100+ varieties, but never to made again and they gave us quite a bit to collect. >>
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
THAT is what I think also.
--------T O M---------
-------------------------
WTB...
PM function is operational.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
As is my 1992 doubled eye...
<< <i>New terminology is imperative or the term Doubled Die will be so watered down it will be synonymous with just another marketing gimmick.
THAT is what I think also. >>
MRDQ, I don't think I saw you address this. You don't see double letters? This is not a doubled die?
I believe I could see the Ellington with my reading glasses but I doubt I'd spot the eye.
And there in lies the problem......both are doubled but one is far more dramatic than the other.
I don't follow either..........how do market prices compare??
<< <i>
More like this
or
<< <i>I believe the Ellington is the one new variety that will hold value over time. It has the 'wow' factor that will make people want it- it's a wide spread, it affects multiple letters, and is easily seen without powerful magnification. They're also hard to come by, from what I've read, which means demand will remain higher than supply... >>
So this really isn't a discussion on doubled dies. It's about how much money one can make. Yes?
Is the Ellington Quarter a Doubled Die?
Did the die used to press that coin have a doubled image on it or did the doubling on the coin happen from the press, squeeze, strike, whatever.
Doubled Die meant that the DIE had a double image did it not? Now it's turned into.. well.. i've said it a few times on this thread.
--------T O M---------
-------------------------
<< <i>Papi,
Did the die used to press that coin have a doubled image on it or did the doubling on the coin happen from the press, squeeze, strike, whatever.
Doubled Die meant that the DIE had a double image did it not? Now it's turned into.. well.. i've said it a few times on this thread. >>
Please; just answer the question.
What is this?
--------T O M---------
-------------------------
--------T O M---------
-------------------------
Thank you for answering.
Looks like numismatic classes are in order.
I wish I didn't have to go to work right now.
I'll have to catch up with this thread later.
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe the Ellington is the one new variety that will hold value over time. It has the 'wow' factor that will make people want it- it's a wide spread, it affects multiple letters, and is easily seen without powerful magnification. They're also hard to come by, from what I've read, which means demand will remain higher than supply... >>
So this really isn't a discussion on doubled dies. It's about how much money one can make. Yes?
Is the Ellington Quarter a Doubled Die? >>
There has been talk in this discussion about values, and I made this comment based on what I stated earlier about 'wow' factor.
In my opinion, it is a doubled die. I also believe the extra fingers, trees, and ears are doubled dies. I don't think we need a new term, we need a new class defined by CONECA, if that hasn't happened already.
<< <i>Looks like strike doubling of some sort........machine doubling.. i've heard it called several things >>
I didn't get back to this thread yesterday.
I'm shocked that no one chose to educate, MRDQ, the AUTHOR of this thread.
No wonder this thread exists. He thinks this is "strike", or "machine" doubling.
Well, I hate to break the news to you, but this is a doubled die
John Wexler wrote: “The 2009-D Washington, D.C., quarter with a doubled-die reverse is an extremely exciting variety."
JT Stanton wrote: "I would have to say the D-mint coin is certainly a significant variety, it certainly deserves a place in the Cherrypickers’ Guide.”
Bill Fivaz wrote: “After viewing the doubled-die reverse D-mint D.C. quarter, I certainly feel it is worthy of a listing in the Red Book."
Billy Crawford wrote: "I certainly feel this D-mint District of Columbia doubled-die reverse is warranted major classification.”
Tilted Hub Doubling restricted to such a small area of design within the center region of the die is possible due to the result of either of two related scenarios.
1.) The hub is backed off after the initial kiss of the hub into a tilted die blank and is then reset properly and hubbed again.
2.) The hub and die blank are tilted in relation to each other and are then forced to seat into proper position by hubbing pressure within a split second after the initial kiss of the hub into the tip of the die blank.
The face of a die blank (referred to as a “die block” in Mint jargon) is machined with a slightly conical configuration to aid in the flow of metal during hubbing. This would indicate that the initial kiss of a hub into a die blank would be restricted to this centralized area before continuing on to fill out the rest of the design. During this process the tip of a tilted die blank would be positioned slightly off location away from the center of the hub into a different area of design than intended and thus the misplaced area of doubling on the affected die.
This is exactly the same way the 2009 extra finger cents occurred.
Are they doubled dies? YES
--------T O M---------
-------------------------
<< <i>So if I looked at the die that stuck the coin it would have a doubled image on it? I don't think so. >>
Because the coins are from doubled dies, and not machine doubling, you would see doubling on the die itself, that shows on every die struck by it. The extra thumbs, although resulting from an issue with the single-squeeze process, will show the doubled image. The fact that there are many, identical copies of the variety proves this. If it were machine doubling, it would not be visible on the die.
<< <i>So if I looked at the die that stuck the coin it would have a doubled image on it? I don't think so. >>
Yes
You would
These are true doubled dies.
So, I am trying to understand all this as it is very confusing to me how it happened.
You are saying that the die was doubled from the start of the run.
If that was the case, would there not be a lot more of these than there are?.
It seems to me that it would have to have happened during the run somehow.
If the die was doubled from some act during the production run it would explain why there are not that many of them.
Does the mint keep all these used dies?
<< <i>So, I am trying to understand all this as it is very confusing to me how it happened.
You are saying that the die was doubled from the start of the run.
If that was the case, would there not be a lot more of these than there are?.
It seems to me that it would have to have happened during the run somehow.
If the die was doubled from some act during the production run it would explain why there are not that many of them.
Does the mint keep all these used dies? >>
Well my understanding that is for a DDR to be classified by say Wexler, each DDR is from a unique die. This is identified by the unique markings or identifiers for each die. If there are 100+ varieties, then there were 100+ separate dies used to create these errors as my understanding is that it is a doubling of the die from the start of the production run, vs. the production method itself creating random extra fingers, thumbs etc. However, I have mentioned before that there are not say a million coins produced by each die, thus one million of each DDR. There is just no way that is the case as (rounding for easy math) with 300 million coins and 100 DDR varieties, there are not 100 million DDRs out there. That would be 1 in 3 coins! There is absolutely no way that is the case, scoop up a handful or go through a roll and there are countless non error minted coins. Many many rolls of 50 have had no DDR regardless of the variety. I think the Mint went through quite a few different dies to produce the FY cent as evident by the numerous die cracks found in these coins. We know the Skeleton Finger has been found in three stages with a progressing die crack on the obverse and a fatal major crack on the reverse. Regardless, something either with the die metal itself, tricky design, or poor workmanship at the Mint, contributed to many dies used.
Thank You Michael.
The mystery deepens.
The dies must have come apart quickly in the case of most of these errors.
The skeleton die had to have broken almost immediately along with the WDDR 001 die.
The WDDR 002 had to have stayed together a little while longer.
I wish the mint would be a little more helpful in this but I know they will not.
Obviously these dies just had too much detail on them for the size of the coin.
<< <i>So if I looked at the die that stuck the coin it would have a doubled image on it? I don't think so. >>
MRDQ, What is it that you refuse to believe?
All the quotes I listed were from professionals in an article published by Numismatic News.
These are, Class VIII, doubled dies. This is not strike or machine doubling.