1969 S Double Die? 0

[Keith Dee]

Does this look like I may have a double die? It’s not a shinny penny at all so I know it’s not reflecting like some of them that screw with my eyes lol. Hope the pictures good enough for anyones analysis.

[Mohawk]

Nope....definitely not a doubled die.  Your coin has machine doubling, which is very common on Lincoln Cents of this era.  The fact that the mintmark is doubled is a dead giveaway.  On cents before 1990, the mint marks were punched into the die separately after the die was already made.  Therefore, a doubled die would not cause any doubling on the mint mark on a pre-1990 cent.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Mohawk

[Keith Dee]

You know what  I forgot about that mint mark bit. Oh well back to the drawing bored😂

[Keith Dee]

I’m just going to say and I’m not arguing this is a double die before someone jumps my a— for not listening to good advice. I just forgot about the mint mark deal. I just wanted to add that this is actually the first time I’ve seen any type of doubling machine or die in pretty much any copper penny. I find them all the time in the later zinc ones. That’s kind of what got me thinking this has to be one and caused me to over look the mint mark being punched in after the fact. That really makes it hard for the latter stage ones I guess🤣 Well that is if your not a pro at spotting them.

[Keith Dee]

Do all the devices on the obverse have to be doubled to be a true double die as well? I read this some where and I can’t remember where. They said something like if there’s doubling on the obverse and reverse it’s most likely machine doubling Is that correct? Or Something along the lines that all the devices will show some kind of doubling🤷🏼‍♂️

[Keith Dee]

Well besides the mint mark of course.

[Mohawk]

On 11/19/2021 at 8:03 PM, Keith Dee said:

You know what  I forgot about that mint mark bit. Oh well back to the drawing bored😂

That's all right....we all forget things from time to time .  Better luck next time!

[Oldhoopster]

@Keith Dee

This is what you need to see on the 1969-S doubled die.  

 

[Keith Dee]

On 11/20/2021 at 9:30 AM, Oldhoopster said:

@Keith Dee

This is what you need to see on the 1969-S doubled die.  

 

Yes I know and should of known better to even think I had one. I’ve read up on machine doubling and compared the pictures before. I guess running on 3 hours of sleep in 24 hours didn’t help my brain function properly and got a little amped up over it. I guess I can’t count this penny box a total loss in my hunt. I still have about ten rolls to go and I found a 2000 wide AM. Unfortunately my last penny pick up from the bank gave me all new 2021’s.  Not to thrilled about looking at shiny new penny trying to find an error on it😂 

[RonnieR131]

Good find, Keith! 

[Mohawk]

That 2000 Wide AM is a great find Keith!!! Congrats!!  And I can imagine you wouldn't be thrilled with a bunch of brand new 2021 cents.  That would be very boring to look through.

[Conder101]

On 11/19/2021 at 7:40 PM, Mohawk said:

On cents before 1990, the mint marks were punched into the die separately after the die was already made.  Therefore, a doubled die would not cause any doubling on the mint mark on a pre-1990 cent.

But 1969 S DDO cents are known with machine doubling on the mintmark.  So doubling on the mintmark can't be used to dismiss the possibility of a 69 S DDO.  You HAVE to check other places for the strong doubling that occurs on that coin.

 

On 11/19/2021 at 8:49 PM, Keith Dee said:

Do all the devices on the obverse have to be doubled to be a true double die as well?

On the 69 S DDO yes, but there are other coins with doubled dies that don't show doubling on all the devices.

Edited November 25, 2021 by Conder101

[Mohawk]

Quote

But 1969 S DDO cents are known with machine doubling on the mintmark.  So doubling on the mintmark can't be used to dismiss the possibility of a 96 S DDO.  You HAVE to check other places for the strong doubling that occurs on that coin.

I was unaware of that Conder and I'll keep that in mind in the future.  This is what I love about this place......22 years into this hobby and I still learn new things all the time!! Thank you so much for sharing that fact 

[Keith Dee]

On 11/23/2021 at 7:23 PM, Conder101 said:

But 1969 S DDO cents are known with machine doubling on the mintmark.  So doubling on the mintmark can't be used to dismiss the possibility of a 96 S DDO.  You HAVE to check other places for the strong doubling that occurs on that coin.

 

On the 69 S DDO yes, but there are other coins with doubled dies that don't show doubling on all the devices.

Sweet nice too know. I saved it and didn’t toss it back. It does have other doubling on Liberty and IN GOD WE TRUST but not strong enough for me to conclude it’s a true double die. In any case she’ll be something to reference any other 69’s I come across to. And what’s the story with the 1960 D small date over large date D over D penny, can that not happen to any other year? Not saying it happened to this one but how or why was a small date stamped over a big date such as the 1960?

[Just Bob]

On 11/23/2021 at 10:50 PM, Keith Dee said:

. And what’s the story with the 1960 D small date over large date D over D penny, can that not happen to any other year? Not saying it happened to this one but how or why was a small date stamped over a big date such as the 1960?

The original master die for 1960 had a small date, but there was evidently a problem with the "0" getting filled, so a new master die was created in which the "0" was made taller and more oval shaped, (and the other numbers of the date changed as well,) creating the large date variety. A large date hub was used to create a working die, but, somehow, a small date hub was then impressed into the die on top of the original impression. Oddly, the mint mark was also first punched way too high, then re-punched lower, creating a D/D. So, you have a combination of a small-over-large date and a RPM on one coin.

[GBrad]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:37 AM, Just Bob said:

The original master die for 1960 had a small date, but there was evidently a problem with the "0" getting filled, so a new master die was created in which the "0" was made taller and more oval shaped, (and the other numbers of the date changed as well,) creating the large date variety. A large date hub was used to create a working die, but, somehow, a small date hub was then impressed into the die on top of the original impression. Oddly, the mint mark was also first punched way too high, then re-punched lower, creating a D/D. So, you have a combination of a small-over-large date and a RPM on one coin.

Extremely well explained Just Bob!

[GBrad]

On 11/23/2021 at 7:23 PM, Conder101 said:

So doubling on the mintmark can't be used to dismiss the possibility of a 96 S DDO. 

I think you meant to say a 69 S DDO........ Just a typo I have no doubt, but just wanted to clarify it if I am correct in saying so..

[Keith Dee]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:37 AM, Just Bob said:

The original master die for 1960 had a small date, but there was evidently a problem with the "0" getting filled, so a new master die was created in which the "0" was made taller and more oval shaped, (and the other numbers of the date changed as well,) creating the large date variety. A large date hub was used to create a working die, but, somehow, a small date hub was then impressed into the die on top of the original impression. Oddly, the mint mark was also first punched way too high, then re-punched lower, creating a D/D. So, you have a combination of a small-over-large date and a RPM on one coin.

Nice. Thanks for the explanation. 

[Conder101]

On 11/24/2021 at 2:55 AM, GBrad said:

. Just a typo I have no doubt,

It was, thanks I fixed it.