1960 LINCOLN CENT BUSINESS STRIKE SMALL DATE OVER LARGE DATE - THIS CAN'T BE ?

CoinNewBee

I bought a metal box of 70 rolls of Lincoln cents dates 1957 through 1964 including rolls of D & S for the dates.
One roll contains 1960-D but all are D/D's, most are D/D varieties I can't find.
There was also this 1960 small date over large date cent in that roll.
I can't find any record of a 1960 over-date on a business strike.
Can any of the many Lincoln cent experts out there provide me with any information about this coin? I'd really appreciate it!

CoinNewBee

CoinNewBee

Overdate

To me, the large date appears to dominate, so if it is an overhub the coin would be a large date over small date. Compare it with my avatar, left, which is a small over large date. Also compare it to the 1960 proof overdates on this website. I can't tell conclusively from the picture whether it is a large/small date or some other kind of doubling.

CoinNewBee

Here's another photo.

tahoe98

...in the latest issue of coin world there is an interesting article on the 60 small date lincoln cent by scott schechter. check it out when you get a chance.

WaterSport

Post it on the Lincoln Cent Resource....

WS

LanceNewmanOCC

.
there is a popular 1960 d/d small date over large business strike. i've owned and graded half a dozen at pcgs.

this is a P though. i'll look for more for this forum.
.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
coinfacts

you may need to be logged in to view the links

coinfacts page

MAX images for this coin

Type2

Here is a pic of a MS 1960-D/D Sm over LG date DDO. But there is no Small over Large in 1960-P and the coin you have in the pic is a large date.

oldsubguru

When looking at the combinations that occurred with the small dates and large dates being hubbed onto a single 1960 Lincoln cent working die, there are four. As noted in this thread, there is one from the Denver Mint (actually made at Philadelphia) and then there are three Proof working dies (without any mintmarks) that have a large date over a small date, a small date over a large date and then a triple hubbed example that has a large date over a large date over a small date.

Having looked at thousands of small date and large date 1960 Lincoln cents (while doing research on the tilted die clashes found on the 1960 P&D with small date), I have not run across any other variations of small date / large date in this series.

CaptHenway

<< <i> >>



I think it has the potential to be a dual hub error, and is worthy of further study.

TD

TwoSides2aCoin

These search and find type threads are what keep me coming here. Want me to quit posting ? Quit searching and finding.

kevinj

From the photos, this looks more like a damaged date punch that a doubled die

The lines in the 9 and 6 are irregularly shaped.

I do not see any secondary serifs

Kevin

CaptHenway

<< <i>From the photos, this looks more like a damaged date punch that a doubled die

The lines in the 9 and 6 are irregularly shaped.

I do not see any secondary serifs

Kevin >>



Fortunately they were not using date punches in 1960!

Don't know what it is, but it is worth looking into!

TD

LanceNewmanOCC

.
i can tell you one coin this reminds me of

that 77/6 CC dime or quarter or whatever.

i know the methods of getting the numbers into the coins are rather different for the periods, but still the effect looks about the same

now that i think, there are some morgans as well that only have partial numbers visible inside the other numbers(s)

not that i am saying this is in fact a large/small - small/large
.

kevinj

<< <i>Fortunately they were not using date punches in 1960!
Don't know what it is, but it is worth looking into!
TD >>



Tom,

As I am sure you know, on a doubled die, if an design element has an serif, such as the 196,
and if a Class III, whereas you have two different designs, and if the serifs are in different locations,
then you will have two different serifs.

Please look at the 1960D Large/Small Date, you can clearly see the secondary serifs on the 9 & 6.

In 1960, they were punching the date into the master die also.

Kevin

CoinNewBee

Great input from you all.
Had to work so I wasn't able to follow the replies in real time.
This not a 1960-D. I'll look into all of the leads you suggested.
One piece of info I forgot to include is the the E in LIBERTY is slightly, but definitely doubled to the east. No sign of doubling in B or T. I'll post the photo of the doubled E. The coin is just shinny enough that I can't get a good shot of the E but you can see it. It's stronger in-hand.

CoinNewBee

Here's the Doubling in the E of LIBERTY

kevinj

<< <i>Great input from you all.
Had to work so I wasn't able to follow the replies in real time.
This not a 1960-D. I'll look into all of the leads you suggested.
One piece of info I forgot to include is the the E in LIBERTY is slightly, but definitely doubled to the east. No sign of doubling in B or T. I'll post the photo of the doubled E. The coin is just shinny enough that I can't get a good shot of the E but you can see it. It's stronger in-hand. >>



Sorry if my reply to Tom was misleading, I was trying to tell Tom to look at the 1960D as an example of doubled serifs

Something to look at on the 1 and also on the E, first verify it is not strike doubling, that there is not metal flow from the primary
to secondary images which is a quick indicator of strike doubling.

Kevin

CaptHenway

<< <i>.
i can tell you one coin this reminds me of

that 77/6 CC dime or quarter or whatever.

i know the methods of getting the numbers into the coins are rather different for the periods, but still the effect looks about the same

now that i think, there are some morgans as well that only have partial numbers visible inside the other numbers(s)

not that i am saying this is in fact a large/small - small/large
. >>



I believe you are thinking of the 1877/6 half, which has the remnants of the 6 atop the 7 (i.e., deeper in the die than the 7) rather than showing in the field around the 7.

This phenomenon of a deep overdate was first discovered by me on the 1880, 8/7 VAM-23 Morgan back in 1975.

I still don't know what this 1960 cent is, but it needs further study.

TD

oldsubguru

I think that we are looking at an engraving mishap on the date. The E in LIBERTY appears to have a small tail that maybe a die crack, but it is not from a doubled die.

We must remember that for some un-apparent reason all the obverse lettering on the small date 1960 Lincoln cent was re-engraved. The 1959 master hub was intentionally left with only the bust of Lincoln when it was prepared for making the new 1960 master die (small date). After the failure of the 1960 small date Lincoln cent (which I have my own theory of why this happened), the obverse master hub was again abraded down to nothing, but Lincoln's bust and then the motto, LIBERTY and the date were engraved into the new master die (1960 large date).

If you look at most if not all the small date 1960 Lincoln cents, you will see a similar anomaly in the N of the word IN. The diagonal bar seems to sit on top of another diagonal bar, but this is just a case of the engraver going just a bit to deep into the die on that element.

BJ Neff

CaptHenway

@CoinNewBee ... your photography is excellent. May I suggest that you take this coin, a normal 1960 SD, and a normal 1960 LD and shoot all three at the exact same enlargement and post the pictures one above the other for comparison.
If you want to do the LIBERTY on all three as well, mazel tov!

JRocco

Great to see BJ Neff adding to this thread.
He along with a few others bump this thread a lot higher on the totem pole.

CoinNewBee

Here is a photo I did of a 1960-D small date layered over a 1960 large date photo.
I put the small date over the large date and lined them up so that they're overlap is the same as in "CherryPickers Guide" of the small over large proof.
Looks a lot like what I've got.
With all of the mixing and matching that the Mint has done that entertains us so much, why wouldn't there have been some small over large of the business strike done?

The doubling in the E isn't a shelf, it's well up the edge and it's rounded. I do understand it can be tuff to tell the difference from strike doubling.

How's this?

CoinNewBee

How do I go about investigating this coin?
I logged onto "The Lincoln Cent Resource" forum and posted these pictures. They're a rather unfriendly group. The members posting got into an disagreement about the possibility this is a small over large business strike and they froze the thread and locked me out. So, they's no help there.

How do I get any further with this coin.

My photos are good but I can't show the three dimension of the date surface. It does look like flat cracks in the photos here but in fact those lines delineate areas that are raised.

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>How do I go about investigating this coin?
I logged onto "The Lincoln Cent Resource" forum and posted these pictures. They're a rather unfriendly group. The members posting got into an disagreement about the possibility this is a small over large business strike and they froze the thread and locked me out. So, they's no help there.

How do I get any further with this coin.

My photos are good but I can't show the three dimension of the date surface. It does look like flat cracks in the photos here but in fact those lines delineate areas that are raised. >>



i'd start here. i've sent dozens to him and have many more dozens to go.

link
.

CoinNewBee

Great.
Thanks, I'll do it and let you know the results.

CaptHenway

Pleae try again with just three normal shots, not overlapped, and all shot at precisely the same abount of enlargement. Then stack them one above the other so that we can compare them.

GrumpyEd

I saw some lines or maybe die chipping in dates of 1960-D cents. (I know yours is a P) Maybe it's something similar.

I would think that the 0s center would need to be small like the SD
Like CaptHenway said try 3 pics for comparing if you can.

Here's some pics that show what I meant about die chipping or something going on on the dates:

CoinNewBee

I've been trying to do the overlays. The problem is that the coins I have available to photograph have different amounts of ware making the width of the numerals very different. Another photo issue is that one of the coins is very shiny leaving a hazy edge. Once I overlay them it's just an amorphous blob.

The die chip photos are interesting. I do see the die chip across the surface of the O. This coin doesn't seem to have die chips. But the rest of the surface elements on the date numbers seem to be exactly the same as the coin I've shown. Can you tell me more about that coins attributes? Is it a large over small 1960-D?

CaptHenway

<< <i>I've been trying to do the overlays. The problem is that the coins I have available to photograph have different amounts of ware making the width of the numerals very different. Another photo issue is that one of the coins is very shiny leaving a hazy edge. Once I overlay them it's just an amorphous blob.

The die chip photos are interesting. I do see the die chip across the surface of the O. This coin doesn't seem to have die chips. But the rest of the surface elements on the date numbers seem to be exactly the same as the coin I've shown. Can you tell me more about that coins attributes? Is it a large over small 1960-D? >>



Please do not do overlays. Just one set of three different coins shot at the same focal length so that they are the same size relative to each other.

oldsubguru

My pictures will not attach. Got it figured out!

GrumpyEd

<< <i>The die chip photos are interesting. I do see the die chip across the surface of the O. This coin doesn't seem to have die chips. But the rest of the surface elements on the date numbers seem to be exactly the same as the coin I've shown. Can you tell me more about that coins attributes? Is it a large over small 1960-D? >>



Those are LD with die chips on the surfaces of the digits, it shows best on the 9 of these ones. They had chips/cracks that followed the surface elements of the dates. They were coins that caught my eye while searching rolls but many had similar chips to some degree. Not sure why but on many years the chips will fill the centers of the digits but on the 60s (at least ones I see) the chips tended to be different.

JRocco

Not to confuse this thread any further, but here is one that had me for a while. Couldn't get my head wrapped around it, but I think it is just a weird case of machine doubling.

CoinNewBee

Finally here's the overlays of; 1) my 1960 sm/lrg. (?) 2. 1960 leg. date 3. 1960 small date (D)
All pictures were shot using a camera stand at the same distance and lighting and overlaid in PhotoShop layer program.

Anybody see anything worth a comment?

"Not to confuse this thread any further, but here is one that had me for a while. Couldn't get my head wrapped around it, but I think it is just a weird case of machine doubling."
Does that really look like strike doubling? Looks like more than that to me.

Text

CoinNewBee

And for Capt Henway all three as separate photos.

Overdate

Is it possible that the die received a very shallow impression from a small date hub, followed by a deep impression from a large date hub? There are traces of what might be a small date under the large date, and the raised lines within the large date digits somewhat follow the path that the outline of a small date might create.

oldsubguru

While this thread seems to be concentrating on the date and the differences between the large and small, there are other differences that can be seen in the motto and LIBERTY as well.

As for having a weak hubbed small date and then a strong hubbed large date, the stronger of the two hubbings would obliterate all evidence of the weak hubbing if the hubs used were similar. I cannot see any indication of a small date under a large date in any of the pictures posted, with the exception of the one known doubled die from the Denver mint.

BJ Neff

CoinNewBee

To aline the three coins for the overlay I match up the lapel of lincoln's jacket on the left and the rim on the right. I was surprised by how different the coins are.
It also seems to me that it shows the reasons for the separations of the raised areas on the coin in questions.

BJ Neff; Why wouldn't the die interaction that created the 1960-D small over large be the same for a 1960 small over large (no D)?
I do note that my coin doesn't have the same look as the 1960-D s/L.

tahoe98

...just wondering if you had a chance to check out the latest issue of coin world. there is an interesting article on the 60 small date lincoln cent by scott schechter. maybe check it out when you get a chance.

CoinNewBee

I have the Feb. issue but I don't see the article in there. Is in the Feb? What page?

oldsubguru

You put in the condition that it was a weak hubbing for the small date. In that scenario the stronger hubbing would just about obliterate any evidence of a weaker hub. The situation that occurred for the proof 1960 small date / large date had equally impressed hubbings. That is the difference.

We can relate back to the 1936(P) Lincoln cent dies concerning multiple different working hubs. The three major DDOs were hubbed with a broken R hub (in LIBERTY) and then with a normal hub. There were also working dies in that year that were hubbed with two normal working hubs (no break in the R of LIBERTY and also hubbed with the broken working hub.

Wrapping your mind around the variations of different working hubs that made working dies can be tedious. However, once you get the hang of it, problems seem to be less changeling.

BJ Neff

Overdate

<< <i>I do note that my coin doesn't have the same look as the 1960-D s/L. >>


It more closely resembles the 1960 large over small date proof. The large date is clearly dominant on your coin. Proofs come in both flavors, the difference being the order in which the hubs were impressed into the dies.

jcuve

Having studied all the four known class III doubled dies (i.e. overdates) from 1960 I, like several others noting earlier, see no evidence of a small date hubbing. The areas of supposed doubling are arbitrary and resemble the die chipping on Ed's large date example. Kevin mentioned something about extra serifs, for which the coin shown has none. Below are two of the proof 1960 DDOs, 001 & 002. Note not just the evidence of two different styled numbers (light green arrows), but the areas showing notched corners from the misalignment of the serifs.



Below is one of a few overlay diagrams I have generated for the 1960 DDOs. In each case I attempted to match the hubbings. What usually stands out is the areas of doubling from where the two hubbings do not align. As BJ noted, lighter hubbings (the hubbing not pressed as deeply) often see those details erased by the deeper hubbing, except where the two hubs specifically did not overlap.

I see nothing on this coin like anything seen on any of these four examples below. I will also note the E in LIBERTY is either a lamination error, or some die cracking - it has no characteristic of hub doubling I have ever seen.

tahoe98

<< <i>I have the Feb. issue but I don't see the article in there. Is in the Feb? What page? >>



...issue february 11th 2003 page 50 or 51. (digital online says page 50).

CoinNewBee

Jason
The coin I'm showing does have notched corners.
Take a look at these new photos I've taken. They show the secondary 9 in the date notching at the end of the upper curl of the nine.
That photo is embedded into an edge shot of the second 9 wrapping down into the planchet. I don't think this coin would need to have all of the attributes of the 1960-D DDO or the 1960 proof DDO. It's not from dies of either of those since this is a philly business die coin.

Overdate

Here's what I'm seeing, an apparent overlay on the top half of the 9 but nothing significant at the bottom.

CoinNewBee

But it does show at the top, right?
The 1 in the other DDO doesn't show the doubling at top and bottom in all of those.

jcuve

<< <i>Jason
The coin I'm showing does have notched corners.
Take a look at these new photos I've taken. They show the secondary 9 in the date notching at the end of the upper curl of the nine.
That photo is embedded into an edge shot of the second 9 wrapping down into the planchet. I don't think this coin would need to have all of the attributes of the 1960-D DDO or the 1960 proof DDO. It's not from dies of either of those since this is a philly business die coin. >>



Nothing personal, but you don't seem to understand the hubbing process or know the proper hub doubling diagnostics. What shown does not appear to be a notch to me, rather, some type of bi-level die damage/die wear. Whether is from minor chipping, or shallow cracking, the characteristics are just not there. The examples I posted are just a guide, one cannot take them as a one to one for or against the coin shown. It's the characteristics of the hub doubling that are important.

If this is going to Wiles, just promise to share his findings with us. All too often I see someone post a coin and defend it as a particular variety/error to the end. The coin is sent to any number of trusted sources for a in hand attribution/examination. And then the OP never returns. After investigating, I will find the coin was rejected as the said error or variety. My final statement is this: I like Lincoln cents a lot, and I enjoy studying hub doubling. Class III (design hub doubling), the type of the so called small over large DDOs, is very rare. I count only 8 known occurrences in the entire series where two different styled hubs were used together to make one die. I would be thrilled to see a 9th example, even though I don't think this is it, good luck.

CoinNewBee

Hey, I really do appreciate all the feed back I'm getting and I do respect all of the knowledge you have. You're absolutely right that I don't fully understand the hubbing process. All of the interactions and resulting effects that are caused are a bit like nuclear physics.
I'm not entirely new to coins. This was a just hobby until I retired, now I get to jump in with both feet. I've looked at several hundred to a thousand 1960's over the years. I have seen the chips and the die cracks and the strike doubling. This one just looks different. Odds are very low that a new one and it does need to be looked at in-hand.
I am sending this to Dr. Wiles and I will post the result, what ever they are.

Thanks!