nccc

I thought profilometer was a name you gave to it - like “profil-o-meter” and not an actual technical name. I'll do some online research to get familiar with them. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago about inquiring with the local colleges. I might just have to go there in person.

I disagree. My type 2 has a nice strike. Maybe you've got these 2 switched. The type 1 has thick letters. It would help if you posted marked up images.

Die wear results in a ‘mushy’ or ‘soft’ outline. Look how sharp the lines are on the thinner “P” in "PLURIBUS" on top of the thicker one. That is not die wear.

I already posted on this back on March 27.

I created some diagrams to illustrate what I’m talking about the overlay of the profiles on the "Type 2 over Type 1" Doubled Die Reverse. As you can see in Scenario 1 where the letters are directly lined up, the actual outline of the thinner letter would not show. What will show is the higher relief portion that ‘pops’ up within the outline of the thicker one. In Scenario 2 where the letters are offset, you will see that the doubling is overlapped rather than an outline within another outline.

I've thought of this as well, although an overlay of one image over another will not work as you’d have to make the over image translucent. I think the way to do it is to trace the outlines and do an overlay of them. But this is a lot of work to do manually. I’ll look into software that can do this tracing. That said, I think the 3D approach is better because it’s not just the outlines – it’s the profiles. A higher profile would ‘pop’ up above the thicker, lower profile and the actual outline would not show. I think this is exactly what's going on with the thinner “P” in "PLURIBUS" on top of the thicker one. Do you understand what I’m saying? Regards

physics-fan: Thanks for your reply and images. It’s good to get some feedback and comparisons. That said, the coins in these images look nowhere like mine. They’re also low resolution and not focused well. From what I can see, it looks like the coin on your first photo does have die wear. However, here’s a major difference – and it’s a key difference: on your first photo, the letters don’t have a sharp outline anymore. Instead they have a ‘mushy’ or ‘soft’ outline due to the die wear. Now, look at the letters on my "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR. Look how sharp the outlines are on the thinner letters: the "A" in "STATES", the “P” in "PLURIBUS", and the "A" in "QUARTER". Look how sharp the lines are on the thinner “P” in "PLURIBUS" on top of the thicker one. Also, on the "A" in "QUARTER" – look at the line of the right slope below the double peak. Again, a very sharp outline. As for your second photo, the coin in it doesn’t even have any doubling that I can see. What were you trying to show there? Your theory or proposal goes against the principle of Occam’s Razor. Based on the visual evidence that I’ve presented, the most obvious and simplest explanation is that IT IS doubling - and I have yet to see a reasoned response to make me think otherwise.

RWB: Thanks for the link. That post is very informative. I’m thinking exactly the same thing – a closeup 3D image. What is the actual name of this “profilometer” device?

RWB: Thank you for the tip. I’ve contacted some publications and all but one didn’t reply. On the one who did reply, I inquired about ownership of content/material and formatting of docs & images to send to them but they haven’t replied. Have you or do you know of anyone who has successfully done this?

I'm new here and haven't seen those images. However, I've thought of scanning the surfaces of both coins using some laser device that captures surface measurements/dimensions at a micro or nano level, then creates a 3D model that I can view on my computer. I don't have such a device but if I have time, I have thought of going to the local college/Uni and checking. I've emailed them but have gotten no response. These 3D models with their micro or nano measurements can help with all these theories we have.

Oh shoot, pressure "All of them except the '82-D and '83-D are going to be highly elusive in Unc and experts want to see uncirculated examples. Even a coin as common as the '80-D (5% of mintage) is tough in Unc because almost all examples come from mint sets." Have you looked at the PCGS TrueViews for these years?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this theory or claim you have. So, thin letters, single squeeze & low relief = Type 2 and thick letters, double squeeze & high relief = Type1? And this goes all the way back to 1977?

physics-fan: Do you truly think the doubling on the "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR is just hubbing pressure or die wear? Die wear is jagged & random. It does not form straight, sharply defined, or crisp lines that form into a doubled outline of a letter. Can you or someone show me die wear that looks like this: Look how crisp the lines are on the thinner “P” on top of the thicker one. And on the 'R' in AMERICA, the doubled outline follows exactly the outline of the legs of the 'R'. What is die wear are the striations below the legs. Look at how much distance there is in the gap between the thin and the thick/doubled outline of the legs (which is clearly defined). Did hubbing pressure or die wear really cause that? If so, why the wide gap in the doubling?

Die Deterioration/Wear part 2: To all of you who think the diagnostics on either coin is just ‘die wear’, here are a bunch of well known varieties with tiny & minute diagnostics. Yet, experts and the coin collecting community have accepted them. I’m not even going to include RPMs and VAMs which are even smaller. Here’s some of them: This is a diagnostic for the 1964 Kennedy Half Accented Hair. It’s a missing serif on the ‘I’ in ‘LIBERTY’ – the one on the other side is still there. On the reverse of the coin, the rays by the stars are weaker. These diagnostics are tiny & minute. Based on your criteria, they would just be ‘die wear’. https://www.usacoinbook.com/coins/2878/half-dollars/kennedy/1964-P/heavily-accented-hair/ Second is the 1972 Eisenhower Dollar Type 2 - High Relief Reverse Struck with Proof Die. Its diagnostic is that it has a “rounder earth” and “the islands appear to lump into one very large island or indentation where the islands would normally appear on the coin” as shown in the image example below. That’s the only diagnostic. Again, these diagnostics are tiny & minute. Based on your criteria, they would just be ‘die wear’. https://www.usacoinbook.com/coins/3333/dollars/eisenhower/1972-P/type-2-high-relief-reverse-struck-with-proof-die/ Third is the 1992 Close AM Lincoln Cent. These are the diagnostics. One is the slightly wider gap between the ‘A’ and the ‘M’. The other is the slightly wider gap between Monticello and the initials ‘FG’ and the tiny serif on the ‘G’. Again, these diagnostics are tiny & minute. All these are examples of very tiny & minute diagnostics but apparently, these are real varieties that experts and coin collectors recognize and pay for. Would you say that these variety examples are just ‘die wear’?

J P M: I think the industry term that I’ve seen is “notching” and the diagnostic is called a “notch” and some notches are double serifs while others are not. My ‘double peak’ is a notch but it is not a double serif.