@Insider2 said:
THANK YOU! Since you didn't ask...
What bothers me here is that the doubling goes around the points of the W. That screams MD to me, as with the direction of the doubling, I'm expecting notching.
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've been machine doubling all the time! As soon as I saw the OP. I got some coins out to refute the post. This is all a big nothing burger to me.
Nevertheless, I hope I'm wrong and the guys get rich. I posted the coin with the Die Break because if these turn out to be DDO coins, it may limit the # struck - especially if only one die was involved.
4 of the first 5 had the doubling....zero of the next 15 had it. The first group MAY have come from that order of 5 but I have them in the same box so that's not definite but is credible.
As suggested by many posters to consult an expert, I asked Dr. James Wiles to review this thread and offer an expert opinion on the “find”. He was kind enough to respond. I quote “I think they are machine damage doubling and not doubled dies”.
Thus ends my 15 minutes. Oh, the shame to waste it on being WRONG!
Poster Manorcourtman nailed it. He also knew that Mr. Wiles would evaluate it through the images on this Forum. Thanks for your input. I would also like to thank all who posted and our host.
Sorry, it did not turn out to be DDO but the process was fun and enlightening.
In the words of the immortal Roseanne Roseannadanna”:
“NEVER MIND!”
Does this tell us something new about the mechanism of MD?
It's clear that the portion of the letter - the lower relief 'shadow' - had contact with the enhanced surface of the field because it has the patterning. It also had contact with the incuse (in the die) edge of the letter because it has a partial outline. We know that contact was not full depth because the enhanced surface remains. Can we be certain the 2nd strike was the shadow because the enhanced field did not flatten it?
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Well I just obtained one of these sets on a Proxibid auction for $16.00 + 15% BP = $18.40, w/ OMP & COA! What a bargain! And of course the first thing I did was scrutinize the obverse devices of the dollar coin, but I didn’t see anything obvious w/ 10x loupe, however...... when I turned it over to give the reverse a quick look.......BAM!!! I’m pretty sure it’s something, I’m just not sure what that “something” would be classified as. Lemme know what you guys think.
Sorry about the poor quality images. I’ve misplaced my ProScope Micro Mobile and had to capture them through my loupe:((
Is it just me, or does anyone else find numismatist easier to spell than SAY??!!!
@MsMorrisine said:
Those look like incuse lettering machine doubling.
Except it’s not incuse lettering. As for the dies being cut or hubbed, I’m not sure but with a limited mintage of 225,000 coins, I would think that a sole set of master dies that produced a working hub set and a few subsequent working die pairs and that should’ve been more than sufficient for the limited run. So that doesn’t leave much room for error without the majority of the coins exhibiting similar characteristics. So that’s what has me puzzled, because to me, this coin shows characteristics of hub doubling as well as machine doubling.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find numismatist easier to spell than SAY??!!!
BodieB,
Thought you might like some corroboration. I examined the reverse of my 225th Anniversary Set Sacagawea Dollar. This is what I found:
Sure looks like notching to me.
Check out the "E"
It seems that there are now two pieces with identical “Doubling”. It is a good find, nice pick-up! I think the jury is still out on the significant die variances in the 225th Sac coin. Look closely at these sets; they just might turn out to be “diamonds-in-the-rough”.
I also include the picture of the obverse motto of this same specimen. You might notice that it possess the same unusual doubling and misaligned etching as the piece that was the impetus for this thread.
After studying the coin and being confused by the split Serifs, I asked Dr. Wiles for an explanation of the doubled image.
Below is his response:
The band around the Sac and the ATB quarters has incuse lettering. It is well known that machine damage doubling on incuse lettering will have split serifs. Think about it. Incuse lettering is caused by raised design on the die. Doubled dies are caused by raised design on the hub. Raised designs when doubled show split serifs. MDD is a bounce or twist against the die, so the raised elements on the die will show splits on the coin. Class II style hub doubling, such as shows on your SAC is impossible since 1996 and the switch over to the single squeeze hubbing method.
Looks like you may have something there. You will need to send it in to I for got his name.. Some one will remember I'll need to go look for it. He list all the verities.
These types of collector coins are typically struck twice (like most other proofs).
This can result it significant amounts of "strike doubling", especially if the planchet is somewhat loose-fitting in the collar prior to the first strike.
These dies are frosted via a laser process (stippling). The laser path has to be aligned with each die installed in the laser machine. This is done optically. A slight mis-registration error between the laser path and the actual die will result in the frost shadow effects pictured.
This post is in reference to the DDO portion of this thread.
dcarr, Thank you for your input. You cleared up my last doubt on this topic.
With the expert input from all the posters, Dr. Wiles, Mr. Wexler, and Mr. Carr the sequence of minting events that created the anomaly of Coin #2 have been explained. Pivoting of the die during the etching process, combined with a loose collar during the two strikes for a proof created the shadowed void and the partial etching effect on the letters. Thus, as MsMorrisine and others astutely posted, the MDD holds true for Coin #2.
However, during the progression of posts on this topic, Insider2 provided an image of Coin #1. The doubling of this coin is different from Coin #2. The letters show no etching misalignment yet the stippling appears to be present on the doubled portion of the letters. If the sequences of events (sans pivoted die etching) for Coin #1 are identical for Coin #2 then how can the entire doubled area of the letters be stippled?
Now that I review the posts, BStrauss3 actually provided the answer only, at the time, in all honesty, I did not understand the nuances of the explanation.
@BStrauss3 said:
Does this tell us something new about the mechanism of MD?
It's clear that the portion of the letter - the lower relief 'shadow' - had contact with the enhanced surface of the field because it has the patterning. It also had contact with the incuse (in the die) edge of the letter because it has a partial outline. We know that contact was not full depth because the enhanced surface remains. Can we be certain the 2nd strike was the shadow because the enhanced field did not flatten it?
If I understand correctly, the etching on the letters of Coin #1 was caused by the second strike overlaying the letters of the first strike. The “original” first strike letters had no etched surface but the second strike to the west also shifted the etching to the west and overlayed the doubled portion of the letters. Thus, the MDD holds true for Coin #1 also.
Thank you all for helping me to learn a valuable lesson on distinguishing Machine Damage Doubling from a true Doubled Die Hub.
I'm glad James Wiles cleared up the Machine Doubling debate. That's exactly what it is. However, I think there may be something of a new type of variety if indeed there is misaligned laser etching on the die. In Dcarr's explanation in what the mint does is accurate, then this is a process that is possible to fail and produce a variety. I think that is the important thing to look at.
Thank you for your astute observation and input. I agree with you and think that “Etching Misalignment” should be a new class of error. Working Die etching is a relatively new minting technique and needs to be classified and studied. Similar to rotated reverses, I guess the specialist will have to decide what degree of misalignment constitutes an error.
After having repeatedly examined my specimen of the pictured coin, I have modified my original conclusion and now believe that this anomaly is consistent with my personal definition of true “Strike Doubling”. No disrespect is intended to other posters or the experts who were kind enough to give their views. I have earnestly considered all the posts and additional research in making my determination.
To me, the pictured coins present the conundrum of “Machine Doubling” vs. “Strike Doubling”. Since MD occurs during the ejection process, it is a post-strike anomaly. It is reasonable, under current thinking, that MD is not a true error but an artifact of the mechanical process of coin production. However, I personally consider true “Strike Doubling” to be an error and collect this anomaly. True multiple “Strike Doubling”, as exhibited on the pictured coins, can only occur on coins that are intended to be struck multiple times during the normal minting process. Proofs would be the most common example. In this case, “Strike Doubling” is not an artifact; it is consistent with an error in the intended result. This hypothesis is supported by the overlapping etching caused by the shifting/rotation between the two strikes of the coin and is not a result of the ejection process. This anomaly is a direct consequence of the inherent multiple strike minting process. If the SD is caused by a loose collar rotation or pivot between strikes, the error occurs during the production of a coin and thus is an unintended effect through failure of the minting process integrity. That would fit the general definition of a mint error. We have seen many “intended single strike” error coins with accidental multiple strikes that are caused when the coin fails to eject completely. These are highly desirable errors and command a premium. Yet, this type of error is truly a “mechanical error” and is a result of a post-strike process. As more research is focused on modern minting techniques, I believe it is inevitable that what constitutes an “error coin” will likewise evolve.
As for the reverse doubling WITH split serifs on my coin, I too must disagree with the consensus. Because upon removing the coin from the display case and lightly running a soft plastic toothpick over the lettering in question, it is definitely raised and NOT incuse. However, it does appear to be in a recessed ring of the field around the rim.
Can others please examine their coins more closely and tell me that I’m not crazy???
Comments
What bothers me here is that the doubling goes around the points of the W. That screams MD to me, as with the direction of the doubling, I'm expecting notching.
I've been machine doubling all the time! As soon as I saw the OP. I got some coins out to refute the post. This is all a big nothing burger to me.
Nevertheless, I hope I'm wrong and the guys get rich. I posted the coin with the Die Break because if these turn out to be DDO coins, it may limit the # struck - especially if only one die was involved.
Good Luck Guys!
Checked my 20 sets (two orders 15 + 5)
4 of the first 5 had the doubling....zero of the next 15 had it. The first group MAY have come from that order of 5 but I have them in the same box so that's not definite but is credible.
As suggested by many posters to consult an expert, I asked Dr. James Wiles to review this thread and offer an expert opinion on the “find”. He was kind enough to respond. I quote “I think they are machine damage doubling and not doubled dies”.
Thus ends my 15 minutes. Oh, the shame to waste it on being WRONG!
Poster Manorcourtman nailed it. He also knew that Mr. Wiles would evaluate it through the images on this Forum. Thanks for your input. I would also like to thank all who posted and our host.
Sorry, it did not turn out to be DDO but the process was fun and enlightening.
In the words of the immortal Roseanne Roseannadanna”:
“NEVER MIND!”
https://youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0
I'm glad you came here to hash it out. Had it been a real DOD, we would have been in on the ground floor.
Does this tell us something new about the mechanism of MD?
It's clear that the portion of the letter - the lower relief 'shadow' - had contact with the enhanced surface of the field because it has the patterning. It also had contact with the incuse (in the die) edge of the letter because it has a partial outline. We know that contact was not full depth because the enhanced surface remains. Can we be certain the 2nd strike was the shadow because the enhanced field did not flatten it?
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Well I just obtained one of these sets on a Proxibid auction for $16.00 + 15% BP = $18.40, w/ OMP & COA! What a bargain! And of course the first thing I did was scrutinize the obverse devices of the dollar coin, but I didn’t see anything obvious w/ 10x loupe, however...... when I turned it over to give the reverse a quick look.......BAM!!! I’m pretty sure it’s something, I’m just not sure what that “something” would be classified as. Lemme know what you guys think.
Sorry about the poor quality images. I’ve misplaced my ProScope Micro Mobile and had to capture them through my loupe:((
If that's machine doubling it is quite deceptive. Looks like a Class II d die.
It's new MISS matist.
Are the dies for the Sacabuck individually cut or hubbed?
Those look like incuse lettering machine doubling.
Except it’s not incuse lettering. As for the dies being cut or hubbed, I’m not sure but with a limited mintage of 225,000 coins, I would think that a sole set of master dies that produced a working hub set and a few subsequent working die pairs and that should’ve been more than sufficient for the limited run. So that doesn’t leave much room for error without the majority of the coins exhibiting similar characteristics. So that’s what has me puzzled, because to me, this coin shows characteristics of hub doubling as well as machine doubling.
I bought two sets about 1 month apart. 1 appears to have the same similar doubling while the other appears clear and sharp.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
BodieB,
Thought you might like some corroboration. I examined the reverse of my 225th Anniversary Set Sacagawea Dollar. This is what I found:
Sure looks like notching to me.
Check out the "E"
It seems that there are now two pieces with identical “Doubling”. It is a good find, nice pick-up! I think the jury is still out on the significant die variances in the 225th Sac coin. Look closely at these sets; they just might turn out to be “diamonds-in-the-rough”.
I also include the picture of the obverse motto of this same specimen. You might notice that it possess the same unusual doubling and misaligned etching as the piece that was the impetus for this thread.
Good luck!
After studying the coin and being confused by the split Serifs, I asked Dr. Wiles for an explanation of the doubled image.
Below is his response:
The band around the Sac and the ATB quarters has incuse lettering. It is well known that machine damage doubling on incuse lettering will have split serifs. Think about it. Incuse lettering is caused by raised design on the die. Doubled dies are caused by raised design on the hub. Raised designs when doubled show split serifs. MDD is a bounce or twist against the die, so the raised elements on the die will show splits on the coin. Class II style hub doubling, such as shows on your SAC is impossible since 1996 and the switch over to the single squeeze hubbing method.
Looks like you may have something there. You will need to send it in to I for got his name.. Some one will remember I'll need to go look for it. He list all the verities.
Hoard the keys.
Looks as if Dr. Wiles has settled this new question.... darn, was hoping we had something special... Oh well, keep looking guys... Cheers, RickO
These types of collector coins are typically struck twice (like most other proofs).
This can result it significant amounts of "strike doubling", especially if the planchet is somewhat loose-fitting in the collar prior to the first strike.
These dies are frosted via a laser process (stippling). The laser path has to be aligned with each die installed in the laser machine. This is done optically. A slight mis-registration error between the laser path and the actual die will result in the frost shadow effects pictured.
This post is in reference to the DDO portion of this thread.
dcarr, Thank you for your input. You cleared up my last doubt on this topic.
With the expert input from all the posters, Dr. Wiles, Mr. Wexler, and Mr. Carr the sequence of minting events that created the anomaly of Coin #2 have been explained. Pivoting of the die during the etching process, combined with a loose collar during the two strikes for a proof created the shadowed void and the partial etching effect on the letters. Thus, as MsMorrisine and others astutely posted, the MDD holds true for Coin #2.
However, during the progression of posts on this topic, Insider2 provided an image of Coin #1. The doubling of this coin is different from Coin #2. The letters show no etching misalignment yet the stippling appears to be present on the doubled portion of the letters. If the sequences of events (sans pivoted die etching) for Coin #1 are identical for Coin #2 then how can the entire doubled area of the letters be stippled?
Now that I review the posts, BStrauss3 actually provided the answer only, at the time, in all honesty, I did not understand the nuances of the explanation.
If I understand correctly, the etching on the letters of Coin #1 was caused by the second strike overlaying the letters of the first strike. The “original” first strike letters had no etched surface but the second strike to the west also shifted the etching to the west and overlayed the doubled portion of the letters. Thus, the MDD holds true for Coin #1 also.
Thank you all for helping me to learn a valuable lesson on distinguishing Machine Damage Doubling from a true Doubled Die Hub.
The 225th set needs some special error type ...maybe the next one
Why is there no Year on this coin?
Don't quote me on that.
You know that “3rd” side of the coin ? It is incuse on the edge.
HA....I never looked there. Thanks!
Don't quote me on that.
I'm glad James Wiles cleared up the Machine Doubling debate. That's exactly what it is. However, I think there may be something of a new type of variety if indeed there is misaligned laser etching on the die. In Dcarr's explanation in what the mint does is accurate, then this is a process that is possible to fail and produce a variety. I think that is the important thing to look at.
Thank you for your astute observation and input. I agree with you and think that “Etching Misalignment” should be a new class of error. Working Die etching is a relatively new minting technique and needs to be classified and studied. Similar to rotated reverses, I guess the specialist will have to decide what degree of misalignment constitutes an error.
After having repeatedly examined my specimen of the pictured coin, I have modified my original conclusion and now believe that this anomaly is consistent with my personal definition of true “Strike Doubling”. No disrespect is intended to other posters or the experts who were kind enough to give their views. I have earnestly considered all the posts and additional research in making my determination.
To me, the pictured coins present the conundrum of “Machine Doubling” vs. “Strike Doubling”. Since MD occurs during the ejection process, it is a post-strike anomaly. It is reasonable, under current thinking, that MD is not a true error but an artifact of the mechanical process of coin production. However, I personally consider true “Strike Doubling” to be an error and collect this anomaly. True multiple “Strike Doubling”, as exhibited on the pictured coins, can only occur on coins that are intended to be struck multiple times during the normal minting process. Proofs would be the most common example. In this case, “Strike Doubling” is not an artifact; it is consistent with an error in the intended result. This hypothesis is supported by the overlapping etching caused by the shifting/rotation between the two strikes of the coin and is not a result of the ejection process. This anomaly is a direct consequence of the inherent multiple strike minting process. If the SD is caused by a loose collar rotation or pivot between strikes, the error occurs during the production of a coin and thus is an unintended effect through failure of the minting process integrity. That would fit the general definition of a mint error. We have seen many “intended single strike” error coins with accidental multiple strikes that are caused when the coin fails to eject completely. These are highly desirable errors and command a premium. Yet, this type of error is truly a “mechanical error” and is a result of a post-strike process. As more research is focused on modern minting techniques, I believe it is inevitable that what constitutes an “error coin” will likewise evolve.
Just my thoughts……..
As for the reverse doubling WITH split serifs on my coin, I too must disagree with the consensus. Because upon removing the coin from the display case and lightly running a soft plastic toothpick over the lettering in question, it is definitely raised and NOT incuse. However, it does appear to be in a recessed ring of the field around the rim.
Can others please examine their coins more closely and tell me that I’m not crazy???