| Author |
Message |
 RussellhomeVeteran Member
Posts: 280
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Mechanicsville, VA
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:06 pm |
 |
|
I found some long, lost coins today (which means I hadn't search them for DVs yet) - and noticed extra thickness on the Liberty and Date of one 1961 proof cent. The lower part of the B of Liberty has a clear notch on it as well. Is this another case of master die doubling or is this a DDO? The one marked "Cent 1" appears to be notably thicker.
_________________
-----
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 eagamesExpert Member
Posts: 3013
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
|
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:39 pm |
|
|
Notice on your cent #2 the top tip of the 6 has a hub break?
That break is on most normal 61 proof cents. There's also a master doubled die on some of those (they have that same break like yours)and they have minor doubling you can see on the top of GOD mostly on the top of the O. These were listed as Pr 1-O-II (in Wexlers old book) but I'm not sure if the listing is still valid.
Your other cent #1s date does look wider than most 61 proofs and the hub break looks a bit different but still is there, not sure what it is if anything.
_________________
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
RussellhomeVeteran Member
Posts: 280
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Mechanicsville, VA
|
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:20 pm |
|
|
I checked out the CONECA site and they list an MDO-001 - which sounds like it may be what I'm seeing here. I assume MDO means Master Doubled Obverse. I did a closeup of the tips of the 6 and the 9, and they are different.
Left side is 'Cent 1'
Left side is 'Cent 1'
So it looks like different master dies were used - but the thicker one may still be master doubling.
_________________
-----
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Bob PSite Admin
Posts: 3482
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Niceville, Florida
|
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:06 am |
|
|
I agree that they are Master Die Doubling. The thicker date seems to be from die wear. I do not see it as a doubled die.
_________________
Bob Piazza
Site Admin/Moderator
Attributer/Photographer
bobp@coppercoins.com
mustbebob1@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
RussellhomeVeteran Member
Posts: 280
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Mechanicsville, VA
|
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:39 pm |
|
|
| Bob P wrote: |
| The thicker date seems to be from die wear. I do not see it as a doubled die. |
Bob
Well - I did an overlay and the thicker date is actually just about the same width as the one that looks thinner. I think it just looks thicker because it is flatter. But there is a little extra stuff inside the loops of the 9 and 6. Is that wear too?
The photo above is an overlay. I cut out the date of the "Cent 2" photo and pasted it over the top of the "Cent 1" photo. It is funny how much thicker the "Cent 1" looks -- but as you can see, the "Cent 2" photo covers it up almost completely (i.e. they are the same size).
_________________
-----
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob PSite Admin
Posts: 3482
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Niceville, Florida
|
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:28 pm |
|
|
Ken,
On Proof coins, we need to remember that the coins are struck multiple times to ensure a deeper, sharper strike. I don't think anything on there, (even what you are seeing on the insides loops of the 9 and 6) are anything abnormal.
BTW...your overlay was very well done.
_________________
Bob Piazza
Site Admin/Moderator
Attributer/Photographer
bobp@coppercoins.com
mustbebob1@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
 DickExpert Member
Posts: 5780
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Location: Rialto, CA.
|
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 am |
|
|
Bob, I sent you a PM.
Dick
_________________
" Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
