1973 nickel DDO

[Hinkle]

Now that's a DD. Hahahaha. 😂 just kidding, I'm thinking this would be MD. Just because I'm taking the 70s where bad on that is my guess. But wanted to post to make sure. What would be your thoughts on this one.🧐

[Mohawk]

Hi Hinkle,

You have this one exactly right.....definite machine doubling.  And you're 100% correct about the 1970's being bad for machine doubling on US Coins.  Based on my observations, you really start seeing a lot of machine doubling on US coin in the 1950's and it continued right on through the 1970's.  You still see a lot of it on US coins from the 1980's, but the problem seems to have been getting a somewhat better by then.  But the 1960's and 1970's were definitely the worst for it.  Even proofs of this era, which are supposed to be the best that the US Mint can offer, are often plagued by machine doubling until about, I'd say 1977 at the earliest.  By the time they got to the Anthony Dollar, though, the machine doubling problems on the proofs got a lot better.  Now, carbon spots and finger prints are a whole different issue.....

[Hinkle]

2 minutes ago, Mohawk said:

Hi Hinkle,

You have this one exactly right.....definite machine doubling.  And you're 100% correct about the 1970's being bad for machine doubling on US Coins.  Based on my observations, you really start seeing a lot of machine doubling on US coin in the 1950's and it continued right on through the 1970's.  You still see a lot of it on US coins from the 1980's, but the problem seems to have been getting a somewhat better by then.  But the 1960's and 1970's were definitely the worst for it.  Even proofs of this era, which are supposed to be the best that the US Mint can offer, are often plagued by machine doubling until about, I'd say 1977 at the earliest.  By the time they got to the Anthony Dollar, though, the machine doubling problems on the proofs got a lot better.  Now, carbon spots and finger prints are a whole different issue.....

Thanks Tom, I really double check on these 70s especially. There's alot that will trick you between DD and MD. I came up with a few cents and nickels that I could have sworn were DDs. But turned out differently. pretty much can tell what I'm looking at now. 

[Mohawk]

Just now, Hinkle said:

Thanks Tom, I really double check on these 70s especially. There's alot that will trick you between DD and MD. I came up with a few cents and nickels that I could have sworn were DDs. But turned out differently. pretty much can tell what I'm looking at now. 

I think you're doing great Hinkle!  Telling the difference between machine doubling and doubled dies can be tricky....I know it took me a while back when I started with coins again in 1999.  I was always thinking I found something great, only to find out it was damaged or had machine doubling.  But you're definitely getting it down!   Keep doing what you're doing, you're learning a lot!

[Just Bob]

Your coin is actually a good example of one of the ways to recognize some types of mechanical/strike doubling. Notice how the top bar of the "3" looks skinnier than the rest of the numeral and the other digits? That is a sign that metal has been displaced during the striking process (including as the dies separate). A doubled die, on the other hand is created during the hubbing process, and almost always results in extra thickness, if not actual doubling of the devices. Also, notice how it looks like there is a "3" on top of another "3." On a doubled die, it would usually look like a "3" next to another "3."

[Hinkle]

7 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Your coin is actually a good example of one of the ways to recognize some types of mechanical/strike doubling. Notice how the top bar of the "3" looks skinnier than the rest of the numeral and the other digits? That is a sign that metal has been displaced during the striking process (including as the dies separate). A doubled die, on the other hand is created during the hubbing process, and almost always results in extra thickness, if not actual doubling of the devices. Also, notice how it looks like there is a "3" on top of another "3." On a doubled die, it would usually look like a "3" next to another "3."

I'm taking it that a true double die is the whole coin obverse or reverse ether side would be shifted to one side.or just the date or certain lettering on the coin. The mechanical doubling is most likely just off centered a bit making it look like a DD. I'm really looking for that certain one that is shifted one way looking like two of everything. If I keep the hunting eventually I'll be able to find one. I'll be patient doing so. I feel that really cool one is out there for  me to find. 😎😁

[JKK]

3 minutes ago, Hinkle said:

I'm taking it that a true double die is the whole coin obverse or reverse ether side would be shifted to one side.or just the date or certain lettering on the coin. The mechanical doubling is most likely just off centered a bit making it look like a DD. I'm really looking for that certain one that is shifted one way looking like two of everything. If I keep the hunting eventually I'll be able to find one. I'll be patient doing so. I feel that really cool one is out there for  me to find. 😎😁

The key is to realize that a double die effect happens to the die itself when it is created. Every coin struck with that doubled die will reflect the doubling, which will continue until the die fails or the mint workers realize that the die is *spoon*ed up. If you measured precisely enough, you would be able to tell where the center of one image was, and the center of the other, and if there was rotation, which direction. Highly expert observers can do just that. You could learn a lot by looking at a great photo of a 1955 DDO and noting the variable difference between the images. You would infer that not only did the center move in one direction as the die was being created, but that one side of the die moved farther.

Mechanical doubling happens to a given coin. It is not a property of the die, but a manufacturing hiccup as the coin is struck. It is why the ghost images look shelfy, like shadows--not full-fledged copies of the devices, but very low relief shadows. After you've seen a number of the real double dies, most of the mechanical doubling seems almost comically weak by comparison.

[Just Bob]

8 hours ago, Hinkle said:

I'm taking it that a true double die is the whole coin obverse or reverse ether side would be shifted to one side.or just the date or certain lettering on the coin. The mechanical doubling is most likely just off centered a bit making it look like a DD. I'm really looking for that certain one that is shifted one way looking like two of everything. If I keep the hunting eventually I'll be able to find one. I'll be patient doing so. I feel that really cool one is out there for  me to find. 😎😁

I would suggest spending some time studying Wexler's site on varieties, especially the sections on How Dies Are Made, Doubled Dies, and what he refers to as  Worthless Doubling. Here is a link to the doubled die page:

CLICK ME