RWB

The slides from NGC should help.

A cent coin (or a planchet) is too large to fit in the feeding mechanism for dimes. Therefore, a dime-on-cent error is not possible. However, a cent-on-dime error is possible. OP's ("kevin gilland") dime appears normal except for the rim being pushed inward.

Slides 16-17 but even simpler, and placed at the top of the newbie message board where it will be seen. New collectors have limited specialty vocabulary and numismatic context, so language has to be very clear.

But -- it would be simple to refer them to a standard description versus trying to re-explain it 5 times a day.

Suggestion The "Newbie" board has a constant flow of "doubled die" coins that are really common mechanical doubling. It might be helpful for NGC to post a short tutorial on telling the difference between the two, and then pin it to the top of the "Newbie" board. I note that VAMWorld does this and it is likely helpful to both new collectors and experienced hobbyists who want an occasional refresher.

JKK - Correct. I quoted your post that included "Modwriter's" statement, and it came out as under JKK's name. Sorry for missing that. Added a note to my post.

According to his biography and family letters, TR was regularly given various toy bears and other animals. These were donated to an orphanage. His letters indicate that he thought it was great publicity and furthered his "rough and ready" public image.

If "Modwriter" really wanted the OP to "makeup his own mind" then he should have pointed the OP to available free resources, not told him/her to waste their money on futile submission. The posted photo of a real 1958 DD should have been sufficient for all but the most dedicated sociopath. Maybe it won't sink in but to "Modwriter:" Your suggestion to a new, inexperienced and impressionable collector was, and remains, cruel and sardonic -- and let's add "crass" to the adjectives. The End.

Have you checked the on-line specialist listings for these? You photos are great, but they all appear to be mechanical doubling - not doubled dies. Check first and potentially save yourself a LOT of $$$.

The quality of the photos is the same. The photos were fuzzy and remain fuzzy. It will help if you delete the old photos so readers can concentrate on the cropped photos.

TR also did not like his portrait on the 1905 Inaugural medal, but kept his complaints to private letters. The medal was good bait for catching an artist.

PS: Good thing Morgan's wife - who resembles the dollar coin portrait - wasn't a teen bride. We might have had intentional pimples on her cheek.

Thanks! I misunderstand what was misunderstood, completely.

The effect called "Longacre doubling" is visible on double eagles as late as 1904. It is caused by a punch being driven into a die too deeply, and revealing the outline of the punch base at the end of the shank. This can be seen on individual letters/digits, logotypes, and as with the 1904 DE, when a detail on a working die is strengthened by re-punching certain features. Polishing and/or re-basining can remove this if there is sufficient relief to permit without damaging design details. It is very common among dies made during James Longacre's tenure as Engraver, but appears occasionally before and after.

The wife. CC's whereabouts are unknown.

The 4th (and 5th) one down is from the ancient kingdom of the Gungan and depicts King Jar Jar Binks in full battle dress. (Other coins show Jar Jar wearing a demure frock, a miniskirt, and a bias-cut slit-to-the-thigh evening gown.) [Ok -- enough of this foolishness. Just a tiny bit of ancient humor.]

FYI - According to assays done at the Philadelphia Mint, the real California gold quarters and halves contained about half their claimed value in gold. The balance was native silver, copper, zinc and other scrap metals.

Oh...OK... "I think you misunderstand what Roger is saying. I think what he means is - its unlikely for a strike through like this (sawdust) to be only in the fields and abruptly stop right at the edge of the neck. Its far more likely that it would carry over onto the neck." I misunderstood the misunderstanding or what Insider understood of what I wrote about understanding, ehhhhh....yeah, OK. Yes. I agree with physics-fan 3.14. That is the idea I meant to convey.

Agreed - and very few numismatic authors do this. Some are so taken by their "genius" that they forget their readers and write both FOR and TO themselves. Most seem to make lists and have them printed.

RE: ""...the sharp boundary shown on the coin is highly unlikely ". Disagree 100%. A struck thru made by a soft substance (grease, cloth) has a rounded border. A struck thru from a hard substance has a sharp border as this. The inside of a strike thru often leaves an impression of what made it; however, most of the time it is just smooth as you posted." No....we agree. What was called "sawdust strike through" appears to have soft borders and incuse detail - exactly as you explained immediately above. Hardwood solid bits or shavings will, under rapid, extreme pressure, behave more like a metal. (Much the same as landing on water from a height of 2-feet and 200-feet.) Cellulose cell walls are amazingly robust - just ask any concrete wall with a 2x4 driven through it by tornado winds. Material performance under high pressure - especially rapid application of force - was far beyond anything researched by the US Mint. However, the Royal Mint took great interest in the subject. This was led by Sir William Chandler Roberts-Austen, "Assistant to the Master of the Mint and then Chemist of the Royal Mint (1869), Professor of Metallurgy at the School of Mines (1880), and Chemist and Assayer to the Royal Mint (1882–1902). He developed procedures for the analysis of alloy constituents and an automatic recording pyrometer used to record temperature changes in furnaces and molten materials. He was the singular world authority on the technical aspects of minting coins. His work had many practical and industrial applications."

You need to tell people what you have. Then members can help you.

FYI - I had the pleasure of working with Daryl on overall concepts, research, structure and other kinds of "basics" of the book. We had multiple working lunches and library meetings to exchange ideas and share some of my many "goofs" in writing and publishing numismatic books. That Zebo found the book "...very easy to use, very good illustrations and logically laid out" is a credit to Daryl and his attention to detail. His approach included walking through the content as if he were a user, not the author. He also relied heavily on original research materials to get to the facts, and then let them tell the story while using his hands-on collection knowledge to analyze, understand and communicate meaningful results.

Funny, silly and a little sad. Small particles are more likely to collect in recesses of the die - Liberty's neck, for example. If they were stuck to a planchet, the sharp boundary shown on the coin is highly unlikely - especially after all the jiggling, rolling, turning, sliding, etc. that occurs before the planchet come to rest on the lower die. Sawdust is fluffy and highly compressible, unlike some types of solid wood. But, even the hardest solid wood leaves a smooth-edge impression on coin silver/gold. Compare with coins where a metal wire has been on the planchet - they do not produce the same surface deformation. (The Philadelphia Mint bought only hardwood sawdust from mills in the Philadelphia area. It was used very sparingly and recycled many times. Soft woods contained resins which would discolor planchets.) A coin spends nearly all of it's "life" in a bag of other coins - until it is released into the wild to explore the world. Most Uncirculated coin marks are caused by contact with other coins and sometimes with equipment. Once out of the bag, anything can happen.

None---and the pictured coin is not one. Look at the auction photo and compare to the OP's photo. Your language convicts you, not my bringing it to the attention of the OP. Your suggestion to a new, inexperienced and impressionable collector was, and remains, cruel and sardonic -- and let's add "crass" to the adjectives. The OP will learn about coins and collecting from his experiences and from other collectors, but not by wanton indiscriminate wastefulness.