1939-D Mercury Dime (FUNKY 9) *UPDATE-FOUND ANOTHER ONE!!!* What do you think is GOING ON HERE?

keyman64

Okay, this belongs to another forum member. He had cause to send me a package so he included this item for me to take a look at. If he wants to identify himself, that is fine but I will not. I did my best at photographing it. Coin photography is hard enough for me...the close up macro stuff is darn near impossible with what I am doing but I did the best I could.

Beautiful all white 1939-D Mercury Dime. RAW. Luster is AMAZING, MS67 Quality...but with the hits, I would call this coin MS66......but this post isn't about that. There is METAL that is pushed to a ridge of sorts to the right of the second "9" in the date. It almost looks like another 9, or outline of one anyway that is a tiny distance away. It is not the normal machine/mechanical/shelf doubling. It is not toning. The variation does not seem to be anywhere else on the coin.

What say you? What is this called, caused by...blah blah blah.

Example owned by DIMEMAN. I would call it MS66 with great luster.


**UPDATE - FOUND ANOTHER ONE**
Example I just found a couple weeks ago on eBay...for dirt cheap. I would call this MS65FB. It does not have the nice luster that DIMEMAN's example has.

renomedphys

Are you fairly certain that it's not shelf doubling?

keyman64

<< <i>Are you fairly certain that it's not shelf doubling? >>

I have had held many shelf doubled coins and I like them...but this is different somehow. Normally a shelf doubled coin will show more than just one digit or area of a coin doubled in my experience.

I would not rule it out I guess but IT IS DIFFERENT, that's for sure! The "OUTLINE" of the 9 is not attached to the main 9 so there is no step down...or "SHELF". The two are not attached in any way whereas there is attachment with a shelf-doubled coin.

JRocco

Looks like abrasion doubling.
Think 1955 poor mans doubled die.

keyman64

I will not rule out the possibility that there is attachment I guess but maybe just ever so slight that it cannot be seen/noticed.

With a 20x loupe just now, I noticed to the top right corner of the 9 there is an area of die polish...it is the darker area you see in the photo....so maybe it is caused by the work they were doing on the die?

AUandAG

It's a doubled date. The 1 has a split serif and the first nine is also south of the strong nine.

I don't know what happened on the second nine but it must have to do with the doubling or
perhaps an repunched date.

bob

Your pics are more than adequate!

keyman64

<< <i>Looks like abrasion doubling.
Think 1955 poor mans doubled die. >>

I'm not familiar with this. Can you provide the 1 or 2 sentence POOR MAN definition for me?

keyman64

<< <i>It's a doubled date. The 1 has a split serif and the first nine is also south of the strong nine.

I don't know what happened on the second nine but it must have to do with the doubling or
perhaps an repunched date.

bob

Your pics are more than adequate! >>

With a 20x loupe I see ZERO split serif on the 1. It might be light/shadow variation but I really see no split there.

JRocco

<< <i>

<< <i>Looks like abrasion doubling.
Think 1955 poor mans doubled die. >>

I'm not familiar with this. Can you provide the 1 or 2 sentence POOR MAN definition for me? >>



This effect is usually seen on the outside of the design element. It is caused by the abrasion and wearing down or the die around the design which is incuse on the working die. The walls of the design start to widen at the base and lead to this effect.
I'll check to see if I can find my pic as an example.

JRocco

Here it is.

DIMEMAN

I have to confess....it's my coin and very interesting.

I don't think int is machine doubling because there is separation between the last nine and the sliver. It's hard to see in the pic. You have to hold and tilt it just right to see it.

keyman64

JRocco, thanks for the definition and the photo example. On that 55 I can see the numbers clearly attached though. That does not seem to be the case with this 1939. I'm glad I learned something new though! Thanks.

fcloud

I think it is most likely die abrasion or die wear.

DIMEMAN

I don't think it is like the 55 cent at all. Notice how the second 5 is connected like a step.

The 9 and second leg of the dime is not connected.

keyman64

<< <i>I think it is most likely die abrasion or die wear. >>

Makes sense I guess but it is certainly different from the 55 example JRocco provided....maybe just less wear?

keyman64

Updated the OP since I found another example. DIMEMAN has the MS66-ish one and I have the MS65FB-ish example. Fun stuff.

ricko

Interesting... maybe Fred Weinberg can contribute here.... Cheers, RickO

keyman64

<< <i>Interesting... maybe Fred Weinberg can contribute here.... Cheers, RickO >>

Thanks, that would be cool if Fred chimed in here. I think it is die abrasion or die wear like a couple of others have mentioned. There are clearly more of them out there. It's pretty neat.

frnklnlvr

I think probably die wear. Are these two pieces from the same die?