1969-S new ddo variety? i really dont think its machine doubling
ttumaii
Posts: 3 ✭
1969-S new ddo variety? i really dont think its machine doubling
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.
resized.jpg)
2
Comments
Not the FS-101.
Bigger question, why have there been like 5 different new registered users all claiming they falsely have a 1969-s ddo? Even trying to sell it for 5k or taking offers for their worthless penny?
They all like smiley faces too:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1031894/1969s-lincoln-cent
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12521659#Comment_12521659
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12490749#Comment_12490749
More out there...
Looks like damage on the date.
Welcome to machine doubling.
its not damge nor do i think its machine doubling... i think its a less intense ddo that we are all so use to seeing
Then just send it to PCGS to be authenticated. Case closed
Ok to spend
These aren't the best pics, but it definitely looks like there the 196 took a hit. There could possibly be some die deterioration doubling, but once again, not enough detail in the pics
Does the mm show the doubling too? (It looks like it might) You have the coin in hand, so take a look and be objective. If it does, it's either mechanical doubling or DDD.I
Finally, if you don't agree, don't get argumentative. I'm sure there is some probability that all of the experienced numismatists that responded are wrong. Send it to be authenticated, and then post an "I told you so"
This is a normal cent. Please do not waste your money on a submission.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Your photos are better than average, but not good enough to be conclusive either way.
At least you are working with an AU or MS coin and not something scraped off the parking lot.
Technical term:
Spare change
BHNC #203
just a thought:
How did 4 people vote yes?
BHNC #203
You would be quite wrong.
It's not 4 people. It's 4%. 1 person voted yes - the OP.
The comment about the mintmark being doubled is well placed. In 1969 the mintmark was applied by hand AFTER the die was produced, and as such, it should not show any doubling.
We are not trying to demean you, but attempting to educate you concerning a complicated and tough to pick up part of the Hobby.
Pete
Might be the pics...
But all that I see is moved metal. The numbers of the date were smashed post minting.
More moved metal around the perimeter the L, O, D...and on other letters.... possible roller/crimper damage.
@ttumaii ....Welcome aboard.... I agree with the others, not a DDO....Cheers, RickO
From photo provided it does not look like a doubled die. I can see the '96' has been somewhat flattened from damage.
If the mintmark has any doubling similar to what the date may have... then almost surely not a doubled die.
no ddo. welcome to the club also
Here's the real WINNER.
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.Looks like die deteriation.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Let me explain something about die manufacturing in 1969. The design, including the date, was put into the die by a steel hub that was not properly aligned between impressions. This caused the doubling to the date and the lettering.
After a die was hubbed, if it was then selected to go to one of the branch mints, a mint mark was applied to the die with a hand-held letter punch and a mallet. Doubling from the hubbing process would not cause doubling on the mint mark. Doubling on both the date AND the mint mark proves that it is machine doubling.
i really appreciate everybodys input and opinion... the last comment was very helpful and ill try to takw better pictures but maybe machine doubling... thanks everybody!
oops!
Thanks
BHNC #203