Options
Fill my eyes with that double vision - results being listed in OP 3-11-12
LanceNewmanOCC
Posts: 19,999 ✭✭✭✭✭
.
what do you think? am i batting 1.000 or should I be benched?
1. 1950 5c Proof - DDR-005, PR-5-R-II-C+V-CCW, stage B, MDS attributed by JW - updated 3-11-12
2. 1942 5c Proof - DDR-001, PR-1-R-II-C+VI, stage A, EDS attributed by JW - updated 3-11-12
3. 1858 LL DDO - S8 or S11 - updated 3-11-12
4. 1938 DDO 5c - DDO-012, 12-O-II-C, stage A, EMDS - Attributed by JW - updated 3-11-12
5. 1878 VAM 38 - QUOTE "Doubled LIBERTY with shift to left; "LARGEST" shift of this kind known" En Route to VSS. 99.9% certain it is this one.
6. 1884 O/O 64 NGC DPL VAM 6 - En route to VSS for vamseal. 99.9% certain it is this one. I've purchased several of these and is easy to attribute.
7. 1921 VAM 3. Appears to have been clashed numerous times from my image. Attributed by VSS vamseal.
what do you think? am i batting 1.000 or should I be benched?
1. 1950 5c Proof - DDR-005, PR-5-R-II-C+V-CCW, stage B, MDS attributed by JW - updated 3-11-12
2. 1942 5c Proof - DDR-001, PR-1-R-II-C+VI, stage A, EDS attributed by JW - updated 3-11-12
3. 1858 LL DDO - S8 or S11 - updated 3-11-12
4. 1938 DDO 5c - DDO-012, 12-O-II-C, stage A, EMDS - Attributed by JW - updated 3-11-12
5. 1878 VAM 38 - QUOTE "Doubled LIBERTY with shift to left; "LARGEST" shift of this kind known" En Route to VSS. 99.9% certain it is this one.
6. 1884 O/O 64 NGC DPL VAM 6 - En route to VSS for vamseal. 99.9% certain it is this one. I've purchased several of these and is easy to attribute.
7. 1921 VAM 3. Appears to have been clashed numerous times from my image. Attributed by VSS vamseal.
<--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -
0
Comments
2)no
3)yes
4)no
5)no
6)RMM?
7)no
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
2. No
3. Yes
4. No
5. HELL, NO.
6. Yes, nice rpm.
7. Clashed die?
Some of the "no's" could change with clearer pics.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
the rest no
2. Absolutely yes, doubled die reverse (to those who said no, look at the serifs on the bottom of the letters in OF AMERICA, a very common PUP for Jefferson DDRs)
3. Absolutely yes on the doubled die obverse, not sure what you're seeing near the date
4. I don't think so, but even if it is I don't think that one will generate any premium
5. No idea, I'm clueless when it comes to Morgans. To me it looks like strike doubling but I think on incuse letters die doubling looks a lot differnt than what I'm used to.
6. Absolutely an RPM
7. Looks like maybe a double clash but I'd like more context to confirm that
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>what do you think? >>
I think you have good taste in classic Rock, that's what I think.
<< <i>1. Absolutely yes, doubled die reverse
2. Absolutely yes, doubled die reverse (to those who said no, look at the serifs on the bottom of the letters in OF AMERICA, a very common PUP for Jefferson DDRs)
3. Absolutely yes on the doubled die obverse, not sure what you're seeing near the date
4. I don't think so, but even if it is I don't think that one will generate any premium
5. No idea, I'm clueless when it comes to Morgans. To me it looks like strike doubling but I think on incuse letters die doubling looks a lot differnt than what I'm used to.
6. Absolutely an RPM
7. Looks like maybe a double clash but I'd like more context to confirm that
Sean Reynolds >>
Hey Sean,
I see what you are saying on #2, but I thought there had to be some corresponding doubling on the upper serifs for confirmation on these Jeffs. I have been under the wrong assumption for a long time if this isn't so.
#6 is an RPM, but I thought the OP was asking about hub doubling only.
<< <i>
<< <i>1. Absolutely yes, doubled die reverse
2. Absolutely yes, doubled die reverse (to those who said no, look at the serifs on the bottom of the letters in OF AMERICA, a very common PUP for Jefferson DDRs)
3. Absolutely yes on the doubled die obverse, not sure what you're seeing near the date
4. I don't think so, but even if it is I don't think that one will generate any premium
5. No idea, I'm clueless when it comes to Morgans. To me it looks like strike doubling but I think on incuse letters die doubling looks a lot differnt than what I'm used to.
6. Absolutely an RPM
7. Looks like maybe a double clash but I'd like more context to confirm that
Sean Reynolds >>
#6 is an RPM, but I thought the OP was asking about hub doubling only. >>
Not much to go off of in the way of determining hub doubling on #6
Seems that the photo is focusing on the MM
<< <i>Sorry, but that Lincoln is nothing more than some random die cracks and gouges!
Random marks around the date also
<< <i>Well placed aren't they!
Don't make me laugh, I'm still pi$$ed at you !
<< <i>On a scale of 1 to 10.....how pi$$ed are you???
Can I use decimals with pluses and minuses ?
<< <i>Please do...and CAC stickers if need be!
Well truth be told, I am over it.
I have 3 daughters so I have learned not hold onto things too tight.
And sorry to the OP for hijacking this thread but I had to show some Merc guys what a real variety looks like.
ha, pretty fun thread to read
i would post some more info but i am frustrated when someone posts a thread like this and the answers/confirmations are revealed prior to me getting a chance to guess
.
ty teddy
.
i really didn't post for any specific type of error/doubling etc, just wanted some diverse numismatic fun and thought i should share with the boards for a change and let some speculation fly
.
<< <i>.
ha, pretty fun thread to read
i would post some more info but i am frustrated when someone posts a thread like this and the answers/confirmations are revealed prior to me getting a chance to guess
. >>
He's not looking for answers, he's looking for opinions. I wouldn't consider anyone's post to this thread (even mine - especially mine) to be the final stone-carved verdict.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>.
ha, pretty fun thread to read
i would post some more info but i am frustrated when someone posts a thread like this and the answers/confirmations are revealed prior to me getting a chance to guess
.
>>
Wait, but you're the OP...I am confused (and will add a little emoticon to express it)
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
<< <i>5. No idea, I'm clueless when it comes to Morgans. To me it looks like strike doubling but I think on incuse letters die doubling looks a lot differnt than what I'm used to. >>
Die doubling. Looks like 1878 VAM 38 obverse. Remember that the split serif vs. smushed design rule to tell the difference between die doubling and strike doubling is reversed for incuse design elements.
<< <i>7. Looks like maybe a double clash but I'd like more context to confirm that >>
Yes. Doubled clash.
The only one I don't think has die doubling on it is the 1938 nickel.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
i will be adding the information to the OP as I confirm attributions starting now
.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
just bumping for those that haven't seen the results.
.
bump
updated for
1.
2.
3.
4.
.