1966 Wash 25c DDO

[JKK]

Okay, this is ridiculous.

 

So I just get the coin microscope. Second coin I stick under it--and the first one that isn't a cull--is a 1966 quarter, worn, not even collectible. I'm just practicing, learning how to use the 'scope, don't expect to find anything interesting. I decide to look at the motto.

 

DDO. I look at it four times and there's no doubt about it. The motto's right side has a shadow, especially noticeable on WE and the right side of TRUST.

 

I have never in my life even seen a double die up close, much less owned one. Just pictures, enough that I have an idea what to look for.

 

Now, either one of two things is true. Either I just had preposterous luck, and found something pretty cool even if the coin is no better than F-12, or that year DDOs were so common that no one cares. It's not listed in my very early Cherrypicker's Guide, but I think a lot more die varieties and errors have been found since then.

 

Any thoughts?

[cpm9ball]

It isn't listed in the 4th Edition either. Are you sure it isn't mechanical doubling? Does your new microscope have a camera attachment so you can post a photo?

 

Chris

[JKK]

It doesn't have a camera attachment. And I'm not sure it isn't mechanical doubling, because first I will have to educate myself on what that is and how it differs from a legit DD. My ignorance in the area is prodigious.

 

It would figure that I'd get kind of excited about something that turned out to be insignificant. I did give myself a reality check by feeding the 'scope another ten quarters from the mid-sixties, none of which had any doubling that I could see.

[James_OldeTowne]

It most likely is strike doubling, also called "mechanical doubling".

[Coindude]

From what I've seen and have seen described, Machine or Mechanical Doubling appears as flat shelflike doubling. Actual double dies show character for better wording on my part.

[JKK]

After examining it carefully I'm sure you guys are correct. Research indicates that not very many people consider it something special; if anything it would be considered a detriment.

 

Well, on the one hand I learned something pretty necessary. On the other, I looked pretty foolish. Much appreciate the guidance.

[cpm9ball]

After examining it carefully I'm sure you guys are correct. Research indicates that not very many people consider it something special; if anything it would be considered a detriment.

 

Well, on the one hand I learned something pretty necessary. On the other, I looked pretty foolish. Much appreciate the guidance.

 

What makes you think that you looked foolish? I don't think there is a person, here, who hasn't committedf some kind of blunder or another. Heck, it seems as though I'm always getting out the old crow bar to help dislodge my foot from my mouth.The important thing is that you have learned from it.

 

Chris

[halfpint]

http://www.geocities.com/NCADD/educational1.html

 

perhaps this may help.

[JKK]

What makes you think that you looked foolish? I don't think there is a person, here, who hasn't committed some kind of blunder or another. Heck, it seems as though I'm always getting out the old crow bar to help dislodge my foot from my mouth.The important thing is that you have learned from it.

 

Oh, I'm confident I looked foolish. I blurted out something ignorant without researching the facts, which is a pretty good definition of foolishness. (As differentiated from stupidity, which would have been to insist in the face of all visual evidence and knowledgeable opinion that my original viewpoint must surely be correct.)

 

At the same time, I am sure you're right that I'm not the only one who has ever done such a thing, and one way or another I did come to understand something new about coin collecting. It's like investing: there's always some new arcanum to learn. One can only man up and laugh it off, so this is me doing my best to laugh. Much appreciate the consolation.

[richbeat]

Don't sweat it. We've all been there, and actually I didn't take it as being foolish. Machine doubling is very common, so that's where the odds are. Keep looking (and looking), you will eventually find a doubled die.

[cpm9ball]

What makes you think that you looked foolish? I don't think there is a person, here, who hasn't committed some kind of blunder or another. Heck, it seems as though I'm always getting out the old crow bar to help dislodge my foot from my mouth.The important thing is that you have learned from it.

 

Oh, I'm confident I looked foolish. I blurted out something ignorant without researching the facts, which is a pretty good definition of foolishness. (As differentiated from stupidity, which would have been to insist in the face of all visual evidence and knowledgeable opinion that my original viewpoint must surely be correct.)

 

At the same time, I am sure you're right that I'm not the only one who has ever done such a thing, and one way or another I did come to understand something new about coin collecting. It's like investing: there's always some new arcanum to learn. One can only man up and laugh it off, so this is me doing my best to laugh. Much appreciate the consolation.

 

Here are some of my photos of a 1966 Kennedy SMS DDO.

[cpm9ball]

...............and some more.

[JKK]

Thanks, cpmball. I'm given to understand two things:

 

1) The mech doubling has a telltale shelflike look rather than a crisp look (as one sees in your photos). There's no doubt that my quarter is the shelflike kind, so its' surely a mech doubling.

 

2) Bearing in mind that a lot of people do this stuff for a living, and a lot of pros and hobbyists alike put a lot of coins under very close scrutiny, just about every existing error pattern is known and catalogued. Ergo, if it ain't in a comprehensive reference, it probably ain't a valuable error.

 

I think this is what has kept me interested all these years, even when I was inactive. There's no end to the arcana. The more coins you see, the better you get at evaluating them.

[cpm9ball]

.........just about every existing error pattern is known and catalogued. Ergo, if it ain't in a comprehensive reference, it probably ain't a valuable error.

 

Not so! There are still many DDO, DDR, RPD, RPM, MPD, etc. out there that have not been catalogued. I have four (cent, dime, half & dollar), but I'm waiting for the newest CPG to be released before I start the process of authentication.

 

When I first became interested in errors, I didn't know what mechanical (machine) doubling looked like. Like you, I thought I just made a great discovery when I found the first one. With help from other members and looking at many, many examples of true die doubling, it is gradually becoming easier to spot the telltale signs.

 

There is another thread in the Coins Forum about the 1878 8TF Morgan. I posted some close-ups of doubling and repunched dates. You might want to take time to look at them. The more you see, the easier it becomes to identify them.

 

Chris

[19Lyds]

Regarding Camera Attachments and photographing coins through a microscope,

 

just remove the plastic eyepiece doodah and stick the camera up to the lens. If you have a digital viewing screen you can usually come up with some cool photographs which can then be cropped and resized.

 

This machine doubled IKE was shot "through the Lens":

 

 

Here's a DDO 1971 IKE that has not been cropped but was shot "through the lens":

 

[kryptonitecomics]

What makes you think that you looked foolish? I don't think there is a person, here, who hasn't committed some kind of blunder or another. Heck, it seems as though I'm always getting out the old crow bar to help dislodge my foot from my mouth.The important thing is that you have learned from it.

 

Oh, I'm confident I looked foolish. I blurted out something ignorant without researching the facts, which is a pretty good definition of foolishness. (As differentiated from stupidity, which would have been to insist in the face of all visual evidence and knowledgeable opinion that my original viewpoint must surely be correct.)

 

At the same time, I am sure you're right that I'm not the only one who has ever done such a thing, and one way or another I did come to understand something new about coin collecting. It's like investing: there's always some new arcanum to learn. One can only man up and laugh it off, so this is me doing my best to laugh. Much appreciate the consolation.

 

Heck I sent off a DDR 1961 Proof Frankie to CONECA to get there opinion and it turned out to be machine doubling.....at least it didn't cost you anything to find out it wasn't rare and valuable (thumbs u

[JKK]

Heck I sent off a DDR 1961 Proof Frankie to CONECA to get there opinion and it turned out to be machine doubling.....at least it didn't cost you anything to find out it wasn't rare and valuable (thumbs u

 

Good point. And I had already bought and wanted the coin microscope. It's really introduced me to a whole new world. It's also depressed me some, when looking at coins I thought were great that actually have a lot wrong with them. But I remind myself that the coin grading process itself tops out at what you can see with a 10x loupe (correct?). If you have to have 60x to find the flaw, it isn't a detractor.

[kryptonitecomics]

Yes don't micrograde.....most graders in the business don't use more than 7X loop unless they see something that concerns them...then they might go up to 10X if necessary.

 

Same thing happens when we all try to evaluate coins from the super sized images on this forum.....we tend to undergrade because the smallest mark looks like a crator

[cpm9ball]

I only use the microscope for close examination of varieties, not for grading. If I did, none of my MS Morgans would be AU.

 

Chris