Woods020

1917 type 2 design. They changed the type 1 during the year over public uproar over bare breasted Liberty. Type 2 added chain mail, and changed the stars on the reverse. Type 1 tended to be sharp and well defined, type 2 have consistent strike issues notably the rivets in the shield and and liberties head.

Would make a great bday present for yourself. Treat yourself.

Being a 52 baby he needs to add one to the collection

Happy Birthday. You were born the same year as the superbird. Hope you have a super one!

Agreed. It was fun to wonder what was in it. I could see the coins on the end but no date. But I’m fairly sure it was a fresh mint roll from back in the day. I just hate it wasn’t a roll from new dies with strong bands. But I’ll take it.

Yes DDD (die deterioration doubling) is fairly consistent and makes complete sense given the cause. This appears to be shelf doubling (I.e. mechanical doubling) which is caused by something shifting in the striking. I was curious how that would be consistent. Logically it just seems unlikely that if there was something moving in a machine moving as fast and with as much pressure as a coin press the coins would shift erratically. I’m beginning to understand it could be a controlled shift.

What section? I have the book and read it, but don’t remember where to find it. I’ve read a lot on the subject just still confused on how it can be so consistent over multiple strikes. I’ll go back and read the relevant section. I fully grasp the concept and cause, just curious how it can be so consistent. RWB - I found the small section in FMTM, but it doesn’t answer my question. You refer to it being chatter, which I understand, but what I don’t get is how can it be consistent? You use an example of spinning a quarter on a surface and pressing it down with a half dollar. Highly exaggerated for demonstration I get but that also illustrates how it would be hard to have the same effect over and over.

Michelle, Its good to hear you are excited and want to learn. The pictures aren’t clear enough for good grading feedback, but I can point you to a few resources that I find helpful. This is just my personal recommendation. 1. PCGS photo grade app is free and a nice way to see side by side photo comparisons through the grading scale. It’s also convenient in that it is a phone app. 2. ANA grading standards is a nice book to study if you want to go deeper. I don’t remember the cost, but I don’t believe it was unreasonable. A gently used copy can probably be had for a very reasonable price.

It’s just a well deteriorated die and bag marks. Other than that doubling on the MM nothing to note. And I’m just using it as an example to learn how a moving part can move in the same way with repetition. If you pick up 99.9% of coins other than immaculate examples they will all have marks. They go off the press into bins. Then into huge bags with thousands of its kind. Then to multiple levels of distribution, rolling, etc. The fascination with stray marks isn’t productive to your time. Many more things to learn and study on coins that will serve you better.

What section? I have the book and read it, but don’t remember where to find it. I’ve read a lot on the subject just still confused on how it can be so consistent over multiple strikes. I’ll go back and read the relevant section. I fully grasp the concept and cause, just curious how it can be so consistent.

Something I have been meaning to ask for a while, and haven’t gotten to it. I got rained off the golf course this afternoon so I’m going through some 60s silver rolls I bought at an estate sale recently. I opened a roll that seemingly is original from 64 of Denver minted dimes. It was a neat old roll but curiosity made me open it. Anyway probably 35-40 of them in the roll all exhibit the same doubling on the mint mark. I do not think this is an RPM and it seems like MD vs DDD to me. So here are my questions: 1. Confirm this is MD? If it is DDD it answers my second question 2. If yes, can MD be replicated over many strikes? As I think through it, it seems improbable that multiple strikes of a loose component would move the same way multiple times. If it was DDD I could see it because the dies are worn and it is consistent although worsening over time. I have seen a few instances now of this type of doubling that is consistent across multiple coins. Thoughts? Been curious a while and this roll reminded me to ask.

Generally I would agree but you can clearly see the upper left serif of the Initial D, which I don’t think would be the case with erosion or MD. But we will see what others say.

Please delete - accidental duplicate post

I recently got a roll of 64-D Washington Quarters and this was one I had set aside after a quick look. It appears to pretty clearly have an RPM to the South, but it does not match any of the varieties on Variety Vista. What am I missing guys? Is it serious strike doubling?

The 64+ appears to be a better strike and more luster. Look at fine details in the stars and the letters of Liberty. Now pictures are hard to say for sure but if you look closely based on these pics it does look stronger on the +. Remember grading is a composite of multiple factors including strike quality, number and placement of marks, luster/eye appeal, etc.. It is possible for one coin to have more/more distracting marks but grade higher in total. This one seems the + has a lot better strike and only slightly more marks. My opinion of course and others will surely give theirs if mine is wrong.

You will probably get a lot of opinions. The important thing is to calibrate the white balance with the situation. Aside from that I recently read a survey on another forum where the preferences were: 58% Black 25% White 8% Grey 9% others Several people had amazing pictures with red, royal blue, etc so it’s possible with anything I suppose if you have the skills. I’ve been attempting to buy a camera set up for 6 months now and I’m firmly stuck in analysis paralysis. I’ve read entirely too many opinions and try to over think it. I’ve had setups in carts a few times and pause before I hit order and change my mind when I read the next article. Don’t do like me and overthink it. Just talk to the guy coinbuf recommended and use a setup that is proven and simple.

San Fran made both proofs and business strikes at this time. Someone here can quote when SF quit producing business strikes. I want to say 82. But I have embarrassed myself once so sure not promising that’s right. But there were a few years, not sure how many, that the mint sets included an S penny. I think that stopped on 75, but again not going to swear to it. I don’t collect mint sets myself and generally think they are a waste of money unless it’s some of the very earliest ones so I am clearly not a mint set expert in the slightest. But when you see the blue and red striped cellophane packaging that means one thing….P&D mint set. The OP was right. Even in the last pictures he posted the fields don’t look mirrored. He was for sure right.

That’s a big part of the reason I thought the S cent was a proof was I forgot they did this in the early 70s. I thought if it’s San Francisco and well struck it must be a proof set he is looking at and not a mint set if it’s government packaging. I’m too young for Alzheimer’s to be setting in 😂

He has a question. Or thinks he has a variety. I was just arguing it was a proof when it clearly isn’t. But his question still stands.

I was incorrect. It is a mint set. My apologies it sure looked like a proof. I have to stop looking on my phone at all these pictures haha. I shoot myself in the foot. That’s a nice mint set for what it’s worth. Does the AM spacing differ on the cents from the one you think is CAM versus the others in the same set? The reason I wanted to see better pictures, other than I thought it was a proof 🥴, is to see if there is MD that makes it look closer. There are also several DDOs for that one but none seem to effect AM. I am trying to think of a logical reason why they may appear closer than normal.

I probably should have asked initially if you want a scope or camera. You probably aren’t going to be satisfied with one or the other only as they are different tools for different purposes. I wouldn’t view details with a camera and I wouldn’t expect high quality pictures from a scope.

Much better pictures. It should show us all just different minor changes can make in a picture of a coin. It can look like many different coins. Completely agree it’s AU but it’s also harshly cleaned. It wouldn’t straight grade. Certainly not one worth grading. 1921s are too common and with AU details it’s essentially worth silver price.

The $30-$60 usb scopes are commonly used by a lot of new collectors, and will suffice, but far from great. The biggest issue is they usually have a built in light that can’t be controlled. It’s generally too harsh and nothing you can do really. But it will get you started if that’s the budget. Something along these lines: https://www.amazon.com/Plugable-Microscope-Flexible-Observation-Magnification/dp/B00XNYXQHE/ref=mp_s_a_1_11?dchild=1&keywords=coin+microscope&qid=1625695216&sr=8-11 or https://www.amazon.com/Microscope-Dcorn-Magnification-Observation-Compatible/dp/B08NCMTN4D/ref=mp_s_a_1_1_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=usb+coin+microscope&qid=1625695341&sprefix=usb+coin+&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExNVRNR0Q4V0ZKNlFKJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwNzAyMzUzMURVNzVTR1FCSjNUVCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwMzIyODkxMlRGSFBKODRXVTlZViZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX3Bob25lX3NlYXJjaF9hdGYmYWN0aW9uPWNsaWNrUmVkaXJlY3QmZG9Ob3RMb2dDbGljaz10cnVl If you are serious and have the budget a stereo microscope with a trinocular camera is probably best. I have this one and I’m very pleased. I had to swap Barlow lens to get the right working distance but it’s pretty nice once it’s calibrated. You don’t need super high magnification. You will be working between 3x-30x 99% of the time if not 100%. There are less expensive stereo scopes and cameras in the $400-$500 range that are nice also. https://www.amscope.com/stereo-microscopes/3-5x-90x-stereo-zoom-microscope-w-dual-halogen-lights-10mp-camera.html

In the earlier sets, let’s say pre-1970 just for a starting point, do any of them have coins that have cameo devices? Look for frosting on the raised parts similar to the 1937 tribute sets if you aren’t familiar. Not to say those should be graded either but it’s a positive attribute and something to look for that makes them a little nicer.

How in the world can you state there should be no doubt with the pictures posted? You are talking about an unknown variety you think should be readily agreed upon with this? Believe me there is doubt.