Do you have a better pic of that date as it is showing rotation but I can not tell if separation is occurring, it can be a bit harder to tell MD from real doubled die issues on a circ coin.
To the more numismatically educated, there will likely never be any real premium for such. To more pure collectors, who may not be as educated and are buying what they want and think is cool, yeah, I think there is some premium.
No premium applies to this type of error as it is strictly caused by the machine it self and not through true human error as it were. Yes it does happen because someone was not watching what was going on and machine doubling is a random effect seen on so many different coins and is not something attributable to particular dies. Essentially it is damage that occurs randomly, most likely because something was not adjusted right. True doubled dies are attributable to a specific die pairing and the doubling happened when the dies were being prepared. Because of this the doubling is at some time caught and the dies switched out, this causes a quantifiable amount of coins produced with the doubled die and that is what helps to determine the value. With machine doubling it happens on so many random denominations in the thousands of thousands and can not be attributed to a single die pairing thus no value. I hope this helps.
I have seen some cases of machine doubling far more extreme than you posted, and I wouldn't pay a dime extra for it.
Some examples:
This 1867 shows heavy strike doubling. It also shows a shield nickel date punch over a seated liberty dime date punch (note the flag of the 7 far right).
This 1873 shows heavy strike doubling.
This 1873 shows the heaviest strike doubling I've seen on a shield nickel.
<< <i>No premium applies to this type of error as it is strictly caused by the machine it self and not through true human error as it were. Yes it does happen because someone was not watching what was going on and machine doubling is a random effect seen on so many different coins and is not something attributable to particular dies. Essentially it is damage that occurs randomly, most likely because something was not adjusted right. True doubled dies are attributable to a specific die pairing and the doubling happened when the dies were being prepared. Because of this the doubling is at some time caught and the dies switched out, this causes a quantifiable amount of coins produced with the doubled die and that is what helps to determine the value. With machine doubling it happens on so many random denominations in the thousands of thousands and can not be attributed to a single die pairing thus no value. I hope this helps. >>
If "something was not adjusted right", that is human error
I wouldn't pay a premium for most strike doubling, but I have paid premiums for some of the dramatic double profile middle date large cents, for the coolness factor.
Great responses, thank you for the help! If I can dig it up, I have a Peace dollar with profile doubling that I will try to post. I know I didn't dream it ...I think!?!
If it were not for that link, I would have thought it to be MD.
>>
I don't want this to get lost: what is it that you see that makes this NOT MD?
And, was MD less common in the 1800's than it is now - I've seen "Longacre doubling" which I assume is MD, but did this increase as press speeds increased? Would there have been less before 1833 (steam)?
And could someone explain how MD happens on both sides on one coin? The bottom die bounces because it's loose when the top hits?
And (so many questions, sorry) how do you discern DDD (die deterioration doubling) from MD?
<< <i>Not to me. However, some collectors do pay up for these but I'm not sure why. >>
Because they are ignorant to the difference between them and doubled dies. They don't grasp that one is a quality issue that happens during production and the other is a consistent abnormality in the die its self.
Dealers often hawk them to people as special. The poor mans 55 premium is more because of a well managed promotion that piggy backed off of its famous cousin than a significant coin.
<< <i><< Not to me. However, some collectors do pay up for these but I'm not sure why. >>
Because they are ignorant to the difference between them and doubled dies. They don't grasp that one is a quality issue that happens during production and the other is a consistent abnormality in the die its self. >>
Like I posted earlier: I wouldn't pay a premium for most strike doubling, but I have paid premiums for some of the dramatic double profile middle date large cents, for the coolness factor.
So color me ignorant - though I knew darn well what I was buying, and there was no deception on the part of the dealer - whatever happened to "buy what you like"?
If it were not for that link, I would have thought it to be MD.
>>
I don't want this to get lost: what is it that you see that makes this NOT MD?
And, was MD less common in the 1800's than it is now - I've seen "Longacre doubling" which I assume is MD, but did this increase as press speeds increased? Would there have been less before 1833 (steam)?
And could someone explain how MD happens on both sides on one coin? The bottom die bounces because it's loose when the top hits?
And (so many questions, sorry) how do you discern DDD (die deterioration doubling) from MD? >>
1) It should be more evident in person. I would expect the doubling on the 2 center to not be low and shelflike like MD. Also, I think you can see a notch on the lower right of the second 1.
2) Longacre doubling is not MD. James Barton Longacre, chief engraver of the mint, was occasionally fond of reworking the edges of devices on dies with a little extra handcutting. That is what creates Longacre doubling - it will occur the same on every coin struck from the die after Longacre modified it. MD is extremely common and pronounced on shield nickels (1866-1883). I don't know how that relates to press technologies.
3) MD occurs when the die twists as it's releasing, causing extra metal flow. You can envision the planchet twisting against either the hammer or the anvil die. (Here's a question I don't know - can the anvil die be mounted loosely enough to twist on its own?)
If it were not for that link, I would have thought it to be MD.
>>
I don't want this to get lost: what is it that you see that makes this NOT MD?
And, was MD less common in the 1800's than it is now - I've seen "Longacre doubling" which I assume is MD, but did this increase as press speeds increased? Would there have been less before 1833 (steam)?
And could someone explain how MD happens on both sides on one coin? The bottom die bounces because it's loose when the top hits?
And (so many questions, sorry) how do you discern DDD (die deterioration doubling) from MD? >>
1) It should be more evident in person. I would expect the doubling on the 2 center to not be low and shelflike like MD. Also, I think you can see a notch on the lower right of the second 1.
2) Longacre doubling is not MD. James Barton Longacre, chief engraver of the mint, was occasionally fond of reworking the edges of devices on dies with a little extra handcutting. That is what creates Longacre doubling - it will occur the same on every coin struck from the die after Longacre modified it. MD is extremely common and pronounced on shield nickels (1866-1883). I don't know how that relates to press technologies.
3) MD occurs when the die twists as it's releasing, causing extra metal flow. You can envision the planchet twisting against either the hammer or the anvil die. (Here's a question I don't know - can the anvil die be mounted loosely enough to twist on its own?)
4) I'll let someone else handle DDD vs MD. >>
Thanks. I don't see it on the two cent coin photos, but next time I go to the SDB I will pull it and put it under the microscope again. Looks flat and shelflike to me, but I'll look harder.
Ok, how about "Has MD increased with press speed?" I would guess yes?
The 1871 pictured is true doubled die. The 2nd 1 shows a notch at the lower right and that is a great way to tell. With md the device is not always 100% flat it can bubble up as it were due to metal flow but many times the doubling will go around corners and be around 3/4 of the device. True doubled dies will never do that as they are an imprint of the original device on the working hub that happened during prep and test fitting such a the dies striking each other out of alignment. Machine doubling is actually less pronounced now because of the actual speed as the strike happens so fast it is limiting the contact time that the die has with the planchet.
<< <i>The 1871 pictured is true doubled die. The 2nd 1 shows a notch at the lower right and that is a great way to tell. With md the device is not always 100% flat it can bubble up as it were due to metal flow but many times the doubling will go around corners and be around 3/4 of the device. True doubled dies will never do that as they are an imprint of the original device on the working hub that happened during prep and test fitting such a the dies striking each other out of alignment. Machine doubling is actually less pronounced now because of the actual speed as the strike happens so fast it is limiting the contact time that the die has with the planchet. >>
I get you like to help but typically propagating correct information is the foundation of true helpfulness. The 1871 isn't a doubled die. The die it self isn't doubled, a design element was repunched after the hubbing process where the die was created. There are other inaccuracies in your statement as well.
<< <i>The 1871 pictured is true doubled die. The 2nd 1 shows a notch at the lower right and that is a great way to tell. With md the device is not always 100% flat it can bubble up as it were due to metal flow but many times the doubling will go around corners and be around 3/4 of the device. True doubled dies will never do that as they are an imprint of the original device on the working hub that happened during prep and test fitting such a the dies striking each other out of alignment. Machine doubling is actually less pronounced now because of the actual speed as the strike happens so fast it is limiting the contact time that the die has with the planchet. >>
I get you like to help but typically propagating correct information is the foundation of true helpfulness. The 1871 isn't a doubled die. The die it self isn't doubled, a design element was repunched after the hubbing process where the die was created. There are other inaccuracies in your statement as well. >>
Ok, correct: repunched date. But it still looks line MD to me. Very confusing stuff.
If you go look at the photo of the 1871 2 center at the NGCCoin link posted above, the notch at the lower right of the second 1 is very evident. If this coin were machine doubled, that notch would be filled in.
Yes, it is an RPD, not a DDO. Dates were punched into dies after they were hubbed at this time.
So as I do not make mistakes in wording or information as crytpo has pointed out just go here and you will learn a lot more than has been posted so far and it has nifty pictures also.
<< <i>If you go look at the photo of the 1871 2 center at the NGCCoin link posted above, the notch at the lower right of the second 1 is very evident. If this coin were machine doubled, that notch would be filled in. >>
You may think it is very evident, but I don't see it.
I'm sure that's my defect, not yours, but I have no idea what you are seeing.
Extreme examples of machine doubling far more severe than the examples posted here are worth a decent premium, as much as $100 in the case of Sacagawea dollars and Kennedy halves. We're talking about a significant offset and major portions of the design affected. See this link for some dramatic examples:
OK if this were a doubled die you would get an effect that looks something like that area in the pic that the arrow is pointing at, but not all doubled dies will look this separated. I will up load my 1995 in a little bit and maybe crypto could take the photo and point out the doubled die devices with a better explanation.
<< <i>OK if this were a doubled die you would get an effect that looks something like that area in the pic that the arrow is pointing at, but not all doubled dies will look this separated. I will up load my 1995 in a little bit and maybe crypto could take the photo and point out the doubled die devices with a better explanation. >>
So are you saying that MD would extend all the way to the right hand end of the bottom of the 1?
<< <i><< Not to me. However, some collectors do pay up for these but I'm not sure why. >>
Because they are ignorant to the difference between them and doubled dies. They don't grasp that one is a quality issue that happens during production and the other is a consistent abnormality in the die its self. >>
Like I posted earlier: I wouldn't pay a premium for most strike doubling, but I have paid premiums for some of the dramatic double profile middle date large cents, for the coolness factor.
So color me ignorant - though I knew darn well what I was buying, and there was no deception on the part of the dealer - whatever happened to "buy what you like"? >>
I meant no offence to you or any one else by my comment. I also own some strike doubled coins and I think some are very cool, some spectacular such as some profile doubled Capped Bust half dollars. But I wouldn't pay a premium for em. I save that money for toned Buffs that I'm attracted to and over pay for them. I also buy what "I" like and everyone should do the same. And, I never bust out my color crayons and color anybody anything. I'm sorry if I offended you.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
<< <i>Extreme examples of machine doubling far more severe than the examples posted here are worth a decent premium, as much as $100 in the case of Sacagawea dollars and Kennedy halves. We're talking about a significant offset and major portions of the design affected. See this link for some dramatic examples:
So are you saying that MD would extend all the way to the right hand end of the bottom of the 1?
If so, why would it have to? >>
Yes. Think of machine doubling as a drawer sliding out from the device of the coin. The drawer must be full-width, because the slide is the same along the entire edge of the device. The notch shows us that this is not machine doubling, but (in the case of a 2-center) an RPD.
Referring back to the photos of the original Merc in this discussion, the doubling extends the entire length of the 1 with no notching.
No notching is not a guarantee of machine doubling, but notching is a guarantee of either a DDO or an RPD (depending on the series).
So are you saying that MD would extend all the way to the right hand end of the bottom of the 1?
If so, why would it have to? >>
Yes. Think of machine doubling as a drawer sliding out from the device of the coin. The drawer must be full-width, because the slide is the same along the entire edge of the device. The notch shows us that this is not machine doubling, but (in the case of a 2-center) an RPD.
Referring back to the photos of the original Merc in this discussion, the doubling extends the entire length of the 1 with no notching.
No notching is not a guarantee of machine doubling, but notching is a guarantee of either a DDO or an RPD (depending on the series). >>
Comments
i won't do it but i've seen plenty of others that have.
.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
To more pure collectors, who may not be as educated and are buying what they want and think is cool, yeah, I think there is some premium.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
As to premium, is it the difference between an error and a variety?
They are, of course, wrong.
I have seen some cases of machine doubling far more extreme than you posted, and I wouldn't pay a dime extra for it.
Some examples:
This 1867 shows heavy strike doubling. It also shows a shield nickel date punch over a seated liberty dime date punch (note the flag of the 7 far right).
This 1873 shows heavy strike doubling.
This 1873 shows the heaviest strike doubling I've seen on a shield nickel.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>No premium applies to this type of error as it is strictly caused by the machine it self and not through true human error as it were. Yes it does happen because someone was not watching what was going on and machine doubling is a random effect seen on so many different coins and is not something attributable to particular dies. Essentially it is damage that occurs randomly, most likely because something was not adjusted right. True doubled dies are attributable to a specific die pairing and the doubling happened when the dies were being prepared. Because of this the doubling is at some time caught and the dies switched out, this causes a quantifiable amount of coins produced with the doubled die and that is what helps to determine the value. With machine doubling it happens on so many random denominations in the thousands of thousands and can not be attributed to a single die pairing thus no value. I hope this helps. >>
If "something was not adjusted right", that is human error
<< <i>Many eBay sellers think there is a huge premium.
They are, of course, wrong.
I have seen some cases of machine doubling far more extreme than you posted, and I wouldn't pay a dime extra for it.
...
This 1873 shows the heaviest strike doubling I've seen on a shield nickel.
>>
Question: is MD more common now with high speed presses than it was in the 1860's? Is it more common after 1833 than before?
I have one of these: 1871 2C VP-002
If it were not for that link, I would have thought it to be MD.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
middle date large cents, for the coolness factor.
<< <i>There is a premium often attached to the "poor man's" 1955 doubled die, which is just machine doubling. >>
Not machine doubling. Caused by heavy die wear.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>And something else..
I have one of these: 1871 2C VP-002
If it were not for that link, I would have thought it to be MD.
I don't want this to get lost: what is it that you see that makes this NOT MD?
And, was MD less common in the 1800's than it is now - I've seen "Longacre doubling" which I assume is MD, but did this increase as press speeds increased? Would there have been less before 1833 (steam)?
And could someone explain how MD happens on both sides on one coin? The bottom die bounces because it's loose when the top hits?
And (so many questions, sorry) how do you discern DDD (die deterioration doubling) from MD?
<< <i>Not to me. However, some collectors do pay up for these but I'm not sure why. >>
Because they are ignorant to the difference between them and doubled dies. They don't grasp that one is a quality issue that happens during production and the other is a consistent abnormality in the die its self.
Dealers often hawk them to people as special. The poor mans 55 premium is more because of a well managed promotion that piggy backed off of its famous cousin than a significant coin.
<< <i><< Not to me. However, some collectors do pay up for these but I'm not sure why. >>
Because they are ignorant to the difference between them and doubled dies. They don't grasp that one is a quality issue that happens during production and the other is a consistent abnormality in the die its self. >>
Like I posted earlier:
I wouldn't pay a premium for most strike doubling, but I have paid premiums for some of the dramatic double profile
middle date large cents, for the coolness factor.
So color me ignorant - though I knew darn well what I was buying, and there was no deception on the part of the dealer - whatever happened to "buy what you like"?
<< <i>
<< <i>And something else..
I have one of these: 1871 2C VP-002
If it were not for that link, I would have thought it to be MD.
I don't want this to get lost: what is it that you see that makes this NOT MD?
And, was MD less common in the 1800's than it is now - I've seen "Longacre doubling" which I assume is MD, but did this increase as press speeds increased? Would there have been less before 1833 (steam)?
And could someone explain how MD happens on both sides on one coin? The bottom die bounces because it's loose when the top hits?
And (so many questions, sorry) how do you discern DDD (die deterioration doubling) from MD? >>
1) It should be more evident in person. I would expect the doubling on the 2 center to not be low and shelflike like MD. Also, I think you can see a notch on the lower right of the second 1.
2) Longacre doubling is not MD. James Barton Longacre, chief engraver of the mint, was occasionally fond of reworking the edges of devices on dies with a little extra handcutting. That is what creates Longacre doubling - it will occur the same on every coin struck from the die after Longacre modified it. MD is extremely common and pronounced on shield nickels (1866-1883). I don't know how that relates to press technologies.
3) MD occurs when the die twists as it's releasing, causing extra metal flow. You can envision the planchet twisting against either the hammer or the anvil die. (Here's a question I don't know - can the anvil die be mounted loosely enough to twist on its own?)
4) I'll let someone else handle DDD vs MD.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>And something else..
I have one of these: 1871 2C VP-002
If it were not for that link, I would have thought it to be MD.
I don't want this to get lost: what is it that you see that makes this NOT MD?
And, was MD less common in the 1800's than it is now - I've seen "Longacre doubling" which I assume is MD, but did this increase as press speeds increased? Would there have been less before 1833 (steam)?
And could someone explain how MD happens on both sides on one coin? The bottom die bounces because it's loose when the top hits?
And (so many questions, sorry) how do you discern DDD (die deterioration doubling) from MD? >>
1) It should be more evident in person. I would expect the doubling on the 2 center to not be low and shelflike like MD. Also, I think you can see a notch on the lower right of the second 1.
2) Longacre doubling is not MD. James Barton Longacre, chief engraver of the mint, was occasionally fond of reworking the edges of devices on dies with a little extra handcutting. That is what creates Longacre doubling - it will occur the same on every coin struck from the die after Longacre modified it. MD is extremely common and pronounced on shield nickels (1866-1883). I don't know how that relates to press technologies.
3) MD occurs when the die twists as it's releasing, causing extra metal flow. You can envision the planchet twisting against either the hammer or the anvil die. (Here's a question I don't know - can the anvil die be mounted loosely enough to twist on its own?)
4) I'll let someone else handle DDD vs MD. >>
Thanks. I don't see it on the two cent coin photos, but next time I go to the SDB I will pull it and put it under the microscope again. Looks flat and shelflike to me, but I'll look harder.
Ok, how about "Has MD increased with press speed?" I would guess yes?
<< <i>The 1871 pictured is true doubled die. The 2nd 1 shows a notch at the lower right and that is a great way to tell. With md the device is not always 100% flat it can bubble up as it were due to metal flow but many times the doubling will go around corners and be around 3/4 of the device. True doubled dies will never do that as they are an imprint of the original device on the working hub that happened during prep and test fitting such a the dies striking each other out of alignment. Machine doubling is actually less pronounced now because of the actual speed as the strike happens so fast it is limiting the contact time that the die has with the planchet. >>
I get you like to help but typically propagating correct information is the foundation of true helpfulness. The 1871 isn't a doubled die. The die it self isn't doubled, a design element was repunched after the hubbing process where the die was created. There are other inaccuracies in your statement as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>The 1871 pictured is true doubled die. The 2nd 1 shows a notch at the lower right and that is a great way to tell. With md the device is not always 100% flat it can bubble up as it were due to metal flow but many times the doubling will go around corners and be around 3/4 of the device. True doubled dies will never do that as they are an imprint of the original device on the working hub that happened during prep and test fitting such a the dies striking each other out of alignment. Machine doubling is actually less pronounced now because of the actual speed as the strike happens so fast it is limiting the contact time that the die has with the planchet. >>
I get you like to help but typically propagating correct information is the foundation of true helpfulness. The 1871 isn't a doubled die. The die it self isn't doubled, a design element was repunched after the hubbing process where the die was created. There are other inaccuracies in your statement as well. >>
Ok, correct: repunched date. But it still looks line MD to me. Very confusing stuff.
Yes, it is an RPD, not a DDO. Dates were punched into dies after they were hubbed at this time.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Text
<< <i>If you go look at the photo of the 1871 2 center at the NGCCoin link posted above, the notch at the lower right of the second 1 is very evident. If this coin were machine doubled, that notch would be filled in.
>>
You may think it is very evident, but I don't see it.
I'm sure that's my defect, not yours, but I have no idea what you are seeing.
http://error-ref.com/machine-doubling-.html
<< <i>OK if this were a doubled die you would get an effect that looks something like that area in the pic that the arrow is pointing at, but not all doubled dies will look this separated. I will up load my 1995 in a little bit and maybe crypto could take the photo and point out the doubled die devices with a better explanation. >>
So are you saying that MD would extend all the way to the right hand end of the bottom of the 1?
If so, why would it have to?
<< <i>
<< <i><< Not to me. However, some collectors do pay up for these but I'm not sure why. >>
Because they are ignorant to the difference between them and doubled dies. They don't grasp that one is a quality issue that happens during production and the other is a consistent abnormality in the die its self. >>
Like I posted earlier:
I wouldn't pay a premium for most strike doubling, but I have paid premiums for some of the dramatic double profile
middle date large cents, for the coolness factor.
So color me ignorant - though I knew darn well what I was buying, and there was no deception on the part of the dealer - whatever happened to "buy what you like"? >>
I meant no offence to you or any one else by my comment. I also own some strike doubled coins and I think some are very cool, some spectacular such as some profile doubled Capped Bust half dollars. But I wouldn't pay a premium for em. I save that money for toned Buffs that I'm attracted to and over pay for them. I also buy what "I" like and everyone should do the same. And, I never bust out my color crayons and color anybody anything. I'm sorry if I offended you.
<< <i>Extreme examples of machine doubling far more severe than the examples posted here are worth a decent premium, as much as $100 in the case of Sacagawea dollars and Kennedy halves. We're talking about a significant offset and major portions of the design affected. See this link for some dramatic examples:
http://error-ref.com/machine-doubling-.html >>
Good to know. The photos on that link are cool.
As with anything, it comes down to supply and demand. In general, MD is more common and there's also less demand. which can lead to fun collecting.
<< <i>
So are you saying that MD would extend all the way to the right hand end of the bottom of the 1?
If so, why would it have to? >>
Yes. Think of machine doubling as a drawer sliding out from the device of the coin. The drawer must be full-width, because the slide is the same along the entire edge of the device. The notch shows us that this is not machine doubling, but (in the case of a 2-center) an RPD.
Referring back to the photos of the original Merc in this discussion, the doubling extends the entire length of the 1 with no notching.
No notching is not a guarantee of machine doubling, but notching is a guarantee of either a DDO or an RPD (depending on the series).
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>
<< <i>
So are you saying that MD would extend all the way to the right hand end of the bottom of the 1?
If so, why would it have to? >>
Yes. Think of machine doubling as a drawer sliding out from the device of the coin. The drawer must be full-width, because the slide is the same along the entire edge of the device. The notch shows us that this is not machine doubling, but (in the case of a 2-center) an RPD.
Referring back to the photos of the original Merc in this discussion, the doubling extends the entire length of the 1 with no notching.
No notching is not a guarantee of machine doubling, but notching is a guarantee of either a DDO or an RPD (depending on the series). >>
THAT is extremely helpful, thank you!