• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

2004D Roosie, check your change

9 posts in this topic

Just read in Coin World that there has been a doubled die found giving Roosevelt an extra ear (rotated). CW reported that Fivaz stated it will be included in the next "The Cherry Pickers' Guide to Rare Die Varieties" .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just went through a pile of change.... now I'll have to go through it again!! I don't subscribe to CW so if anyone has any further information, I sure would appreciate it.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Dime a doubled die?

From Numismatic News


It looks like Roosevelt is wearing an electronic earpiece on a 2004-D dime and hobby error authorities are examining it to determine whether the curious looking piece is the product of a doubled die or simply a damaged die.


Bill Fivaz of Dunwoody, Ga., photographed the coin that has been moving from expert to expert for analysis.


Erik Neilsen of California was the finder of the dime and Fivaz said he was contacted about May 20.


Chicago authority Tom DeLorey laid out the case for the dime being a doubled die and Jose Cortez laid out the counter position. Other well known authorities expressed enthusiasm to examine the actual coin after seeing the photographic image. The U.S. Mint was also contacted by Fivaz for its views.


There is no immediate way of knowing when a conclusion will be definitely reached.


On the pro side of the doubled die, DeLorey’s said, “I concur with the diagnosis that the doubling on the ear is die doubling, caused by a rotated and slightly off-center first impression of the hub on the shallow point of the die blank that left just a small area of the design impressed upon the die blank.


“I understand that the prevailing theory on this and other pieces with small, central doubling is that the die blank was tilted in the hubbing press, and that when the hub came down it hit the die blank and caused it to ‘snap’ into the proper position.


“While this is plausible and certainly likely, it may also be possible that the hubbing press operator brought the hub down slightly, gently kissed the die blank with the hub, and then decided that he needed to straighten the die blank out before cycling the press fully. This could explain the large amount of rotation between the two impressions, though it is just a theory.”


Cortez, who had not examined the actual coin before this issue went to press, said that “it appears from the photo that this dime is not a result of die doubling, but rather a damaged die.


Below are some of my reasons that support this.


“1. The most apparent and telling fact is the secondary image. It is on top of the primary image. I have included the image and have highlighted with black arrows depicting the area where the secondary raised remnants are on top of the primary ear elements.


“2. It is impossible for the relationship between the secondary remnants to be associated on top of the primary ear design elements with genuine hub doubling.


“3. If this were in fact a doubled image of the ear (which I am assuming it is supposed to be), it would not be where it is, nor would it have a rotation of approximately 45 degrees and a tilt of approximately 18 degrees. This much extreme tilt during the hubbing process would without doubt damage machinery. It would also subject the cone on the die stock to pressure at a point that would render it useless without retooling the cone.


“4. Although at first glance the secondary remnants appear to be another ear, it will not match up with the primary ear on the Roosevelt dime, nor have the pattern of an ear.


“In summation gentlemen, this is a die damaged during the hubbing process. A small piece of steel with an unusual shape found its way into the process and left its signature. These small pieces of steel are produced during the turning down process of the dies, and because they are very small they often find their way to the presses, and show up on a finished die.This is nothing new, and has happened many times in the past.


“I am including a photo of the reverse of a 1966 Washington quarter that has an image very similar, but curved in the opposite direction.


“In my opinion, further study needs to be done before publishing this coin as a doubled die.


Fivaz commented, “I think Jose Cortez’s analysis makes a lot of sense, and I’d hesitate to label it as a ‘doubled die’ until all the cards are in.”


So the hobby waits. Is it a doubled die or is it not? It will be a while longer before a definitive conclusion can be reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI for you all - the 2004D dime turned out to be a die clash and there have been a few more reported....


I thought this was still contentious, Jason. Some folks on either side of the fence. Can you give us details of each argument and why the die clash theory has won out? Thanks!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI for you all - the 2004D dime turned out to be a die clash and there have been a few more reported....


I thought this was still contentious, Jason. Some folks on either side of the fence. Can you give us details of each argument and why the die clash theory has won out? Thanks!




Hey Mark,


Here is an email corospondance (used with permission) from Jose Cortez to Ken Potter involving Billy Crawford also. Ken and Billy did reverse overlays to come to the conclusion...




Congradulations on your work involving this coin.


The most amazing thing that I have witnessed has

taken place.Two great minds in the field of doubled

die research came to the same discovery of facts

on this coin at almost the same time.


My theory about the coin is proved wrong,and that

is fine,because it was wrong! But, so was the theory

of, and insistance of, it being a doubled die.


My theory had a problem that bothered me,but which

I only discussed with Billy Crawford. All the burrs

from turning down the cone on the die stock I had

encountered (as images on top of the primary image)

were always very squared off. This image was not.


I discussed my concern about this matter to Billy

Crawford on Monday of this week. He in turn came

back to me with the idea that possible it was a dropped

hair from someplace on the obverse design.


I explored this possibility,but came up with nothing.I

told Billy about my negative findings. He continued

to beleive that it had something to do with design on

the coin itself.


At about 6:30 this morning he called me with new

findings about the coin,along with pictures to prove

his point. A clashed die!!!!


Afterwards,he advised me of your email with the same

findings,along with the link to your pictures.


To both of you I say, great work by 2 great minds who

would not give up until they had an answer that satisfied

their curiosity about this coin.


My sincere congratulations on a job well done!!!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much Jason! I hope that the die clash will be explicity outlined. That'll bring this discussion full circle. smile.gif



Link to comment
Share on other sites