Highly unusual doubled die find...

coppercoins · December 17, 2003 4:17PM

Reporting a find of a very unusual and frankly unexplainable doubled die sent to me by fellow numismatist Billy Crawford, the discoverer of the die. How this doubled die occurred in the current age of the 'single-squeeze' die making technique is beyond me, but the obvious shift to the southwest in LIBERTY brings me to no other conclusion than to list it as a doubled die, as has John Wexler and Billy Crawford himself.

Click on the die listing number below to see the photographs and synopsis of the die as I examined it.

2001P-1DO-001

Things just keep getting better every day! Thanks for sending the coin Billy!

JohnZ · December 17, 2003 5:01PM

The southwest spread of "BERTY" appears to be obvious, but I have to ask some stupid non-error-collector questions.

The "die dot" above the date is evidently in relief, and yet, so is the "die chip" next to the eleventh column on the reverse. Are they dots or chips? Then, the small "die dots" beneath "AM" of "AMERICA" appear to be incuse. Well, at least one of them appears to be incuse. Do I need new glasses?

BTW, what's a "die dot"????

coppercoins · December 17, 2003 5:36PM

The terms used are rather loose in meaning, as I am sure you have gathered. All of the tiny anomalies (die markers) that transfer from die to coin are described in an attribution guide so a person can make a positive identification of a coin to a given die by matching these anomalies to their coin, along with the more obvious attributes that make the die unusual in the first place (the doubling). The reason we do this is because in many different dates there are a multiple of dies that have nearly identical attributes (doubling) but very different markers, thus noting them as different dies.

Specifically, the mark above the 2 in the date would more technically be termed as a die dent, since it has rather undefined edges and is raised in relief. This was likely caused by a tool hitting the die at some point, placing a dent in the die, thus a raised hump on the resulting coins.

The piece inside the bay of the memorial is a raised, hard-edged bit of "extra metal" denoting a hole in the die. This is a chip taken out of the die (damage) that would likely have started a crack at some point later in the die's life, and further possibly causing the eventual demise of the die through a crack or break.

The tiny holes and bumps mentioned under the AM of AMERICA are indeed incuse AND raised. These are the result of tiny bits of impure content in the die shifting toward the outside of the die in the flow of the steel over a number of strikes. Believe it or not, these cause a fingerprint on the die, and over an extended number of strikes they can appear similar enough from one coin to another minted with the same die to be the cause of positive pairing between the coins. I mention them (especially with proofs) because they could well be the final card played in identifying a coin positively to this die.

I mention all of the small anomalies found on nearly mark-free dies because they could grow over time and cause something bigger, or they could also be the only marker left over the die's life that can positively identify two different coins as having come from the same die. It is always helpful to have more than enough information and that's what I try to provide. Ample opportunity to make absolute positive identification easier.

Identifying coins to a particular die is a science, it's not just a matter of matching up attributes and calling the shot - many mistakes can be made without taking the markers on the die into account...and yes, for every coin struck there are die markers on the coin showing the relative age of the die at the time the coin was struck, any cleaning or polishing the die has undergone, and any damage the die has incurred while minting coins. Often given two coins minted with the same die it is possible to tell which of the two was struck first. It is also possible through studying the tiny imperfections in coins to tell approximately how many coins a given die strikes. Knowing about how many coins a die strikes in a normal lifetime, and knowing approximately how late a sample coin is can tell you approximately how many coins would have been struck by that die - sort of gives you an idea of how many might be out there waiting to be found.

Given that, I would say the coin photographed was somewhere after strike 10,000 and somewhere before strike 100,000...so I know for sure there are at least 9,000 some-odd others made. How many remain depends on the survivability rate of 2001 cents from then to now.

A lot can be learned looking at a coin through a decent pair of 20X eyes. This is what I do on a daily basis, so it comes rather easy to me at this point...but I can remember a time where reading a manifesto like the one I just typed would have sent me in a tail spin off into the twilight zone. Sorry to be so detailed and blunt, but you asked.

darktone · December 17, 2003 9:02PM

Neat find but to tell the truth I can't even see it in the enlarged pictures. mike

nwcs · December 17, 2003 9:11PM

I'm having some trouble seeing it, too. Is it possible to see a normal LIBERTY and this one side by side to see the difference (at the same scale)?

Gilbert · December 18, 2003 12:13AM

Not that I am trying to dispute your assessment, but it looks like the typical "shearing" seen on many minor coinage specimens previously determined to be machine doubling. Looks to have that "step/shelf" look and not split serifs; how many times in the past has that been used to rule out die doubling v. machine doubling?

Barry · December 18, 2003 12:21AM

<< <i>Neat find but to tell the truth I can't even see it in the enlarged pictures. mike >>

I'm glad it's not just me.

mgoodm3 · December 18, 2003 12:50AM

That's pretty subtle notching. Maybe the single sqeeze is a two-stage process (like the turbo-boost kicking in) or there was an earthquake while they were making the dies.

bigtonydallas · December 18, 2003 12:50AM

Could this doubling be die deteriation doubling of some sort? Or could it be die chatter? Could the heat generated by coining so many coins have warped the die in some fashion? I hope it is a true double die.

coppercoins · December 18, 2003 1:27AM

Perhaps I should have explained that not all hub doubling is going to have well defined separation lines and that not all hub doubling is obvious. This one is not obvious, especially to novice eyes. The thickness of the letters spread to the southwest along with the hint of notching at the top left and bottom right of the letters is something that can be caused by nothing other than hub doubling. It is not machine doubling, it is not die deterioration doubling...these things look completely different.

As for whether I can show a normal coin next to the doubling, that's simply not feasable on a site that will already be over 2GB full of doubling alone. Anyone who grabs a realtively recent cent and looks at it through a loupe then compares what they see to these photos will be able to see the difference.

Wolf359 · December 18, 2003 1:49AM

I do see some "spreading" to the SouthWest of Liberty with the RTY. Look at the R leg and under the arrow.

It's tough though. Wonder if PCGS will cert it? They hate varities which need magnification.

coppercoins · December 18, 2003 2:07AM

<< <i>I do see some "spreading" to the SouthWest of Liberty with the RTY. Look at the R leg and under the arrow.

It's tough though. Wonder if PCGS will cert it? They hate varities which need magnification. >>

PCGS wouldn't certify 90% of the die varieties that exist, and this would definately be one of them. It is a new discovery and has been listed by three sources within the past month, but it is not published anywhere except for coppercoins.com at the moment. Although it is VERY unusual to have any hub doubling on a definite single-squeeze year, it is minor in scope thus none of the certification companies would likely recognize it.

BTW, less than 5% of all die varieties can easily be seen without magnification. ANACS will certify any proven, published die variety. If you're going to have a die variety certified I would recommend ANACS. PCGS has not caught up to the curve on this twist in the numismatic market - in fact, they are about the farthest behind.

JohnZ · December 18, 2003 3:04AM

but I can remember a time where reading a manifesto like the one I just typed would have sent me in a tail spin off into the twilight zone. Sorry to be so detailed and blunt, but you asked.

Not at all coppercoins. Your responses are always very informative. I happen to do more reading about coins than actual collecting.

Gilbert · December 18, 2003 11:29AM

With the exception of the "hint of notching" you describe (I just can't make it out) what is happening with "LIBERTY" appears the same shadowy, steplike, sheared off image I think I see in about the same position on the first zero, inside right of the second zero and the left of the one.

Even if it is a "doubled die" surely you will concede that minus the notching, it looks very similar to machine doubling. I mean, isn't that why the phenomena is often mistaken for true doubling, and so much has been published to help distinguish the two.

coppercoins · December 18, 2003 11:37AM

<< <i>With the exception of the "hint of notching" you describe (I just can't make it out) what is happening with "LIBERTY" appears the same shadowy, steplike, sheared off image I think I see in about the same position on the first zero, inside right of the second zero and the left (SW if you will) of the one.

Even if it is a "doubled die" surely you will concede that minus the notching, it looks very similar to machine doubling. I mean, isn't that why the phenomena is often mistaken for true doubling, and so much has been published to help distinguish the two. >>

Actually there is no shearing at all, there is no sharp difference in the relief at all across the devices. It looks nothing like machine doubling, which would have a hard ridge, a step down, and shear or slice marks across the doubled area...this has none of that.

I wasn't showing this off to be questioned about it, actually. It is definately a doubled die. How it happened I cannot answer, but it is a doubled die. What I was showing around is the fact that, contrary to popular belief (including myself) doubled dies can and do exist past 1997 when the mint went to the single squeeze die making technique...that's about it. This in itself seems to be missed with the responses here - this opens up a whole new can of worms for all the people who believed that doubeld dies were impossible on any US coin dated post-1997.

If this isn't a doubled die, how can anyone explain that three separate seasoned experts at this agree that it indeed is, one of whom has been the leading author of books on the subject for over 20 years?

coppercoins · December 18, 2003 11:40AM

BTW, there's nothing going on at or around the date - that photo was included to help identify the coin and show one of the markers. The date is not doubled. The only doubling visible on the coin is in the BERTY of LIBERTY.

mgoodm3 · December 18, 2003 12:16PM

You gotta wonder that there's probably no way to be sure that your impression with the hub is complete with the single sqeeze method of die preparation except by the pressure obtained. Say they didn't quite get all of the impression with the "single sqeeze" and did it a second time just to touch it up a bit and got what you see. It would be interesting to to talk to the die preparers about the process.

Conder101 · December 18, 2003 11:20PM

I've looked at the picture and I agree that it is definitely a doubled die (which for a post 97 cent is a bit of a shock!) but the thing that always surprises me is how every time I see a double die like this with barely discernable notching on the serifs it is always described as having a "Nice spread".

Highly unusual doubled die find...

Comments

Leave a Comment