2000 1c Different "Extra Beard?"

[Dick]

Billy, Bob, BJ, and others, I see the logic to your perspective, and agree that it could be that way. The markers are there, However the position of the bays in your photos, are much higher than the ones on my clashed dies, , (Not 2000, but 2006-P). I assume this difference can be attributed to the way the dies were positioned, OR, a possoble, subtle design change, which changed the "impact point, making it higher on the profile. I don't know, off-hand what else could cause this difference.
This thread has been very informative, and I thank all who have participated, "with, or without my position"! I based my opinions on the overlay by Coop, and my clashes compare with it. Explanation? this difference could be the topic for another thread, at some other time. It intrigues me!
Dick

[ddorpm]

"The markers are there, However the position of the bays in your photos, are much higher than the ones on my clashed dies."

Dick: You bring up valid points. However, mis-aligned die clash (MAD Clash errors) are not unusual or unique. Below is a photo of another 2000 Lincoln cent. One can easily see that this is also a severely mis-aligned die clash. But, in this particular case it is shifted out of the normal alignment to a wide south impact of the obverse and reverse dies. The Memorial bay from the reverse can easily be seen extremely wide south all the way down into the lapel area. We can also see the other outline clash of the bay wide south within the beard to include the horizontal edge extending to the right and showing between the beard strands. The only difference we see on this MAD Clash mint error from the so-called extra beard is here the shift is wide south while the other was shifted to the northwest. But both or simply MAD Clash errors and not a doubled die.

Ken: You make an excellent point. Though generally speaking, die clashes are fairly common, however, these types of MAD clash errors do make for interesting study and I agree with you they are certainly collectable.

[Gabe]

Billy.. your research on these has been enough to convince me that these are clashed dies. When these were first found, I though of the possibility of them bieng clashed dies, but didn't bother in looking into it. Thanks!

[Dick]

Billy, thanks for your patience! I would never have believed it without the photo! I'm new, ( old collector, but new at the varieties), and have a lot to learn. Please bear with me! Thanks, Dick

[eagames]

That's pretty convincing that these are MAD clashes.

On top of that.... for these to have been made by a doubled die would have required a lot of rotation. I don't know of any doubled dies with that much rotation.

[ddorpm]

"None of the three coins that are 2000P-1DO-001 that I have show a horizontal mark to the right of the upper ear lobe. They range from LEDS to LMDS, based on the metal flow lines and the die crack that progresses towards the rim (on the T)."

BJ: I received today in the mail the so-called extra beard from another collector. My examination of his coin reveals it is the EXACT same stage as you claim to have in your possession. This stage shows the die crack on the letter "T" of UNITED. It also shows all the die markers on the reverse that Bob illustrates on CC's web page listing for their 2000P-1DO-001.

This exact same stage coin that I'm examining as you guys have clearly shows the die clash remnants on the reverse especially the clash remnants located in the center of the pedestal. Plus, this coin on the obverse also shows clearly the clash line extending horizontally through the earlobe and to the right in the adjacent beard area that you say is not there.

I suggest you go back and take an objective in-depth examination of your coins or may be consider better lighting techniques.

John Wexler contacted me and it turns out he independently verified that while examining coins from his BU rolls he also came across additional specimens of this so-called extra beard. He informed me his examination of those coins also revealed to him this was nothing more than a MAD clash and not a doubled die. He stated to me he has officially delisted the variety from his "W" files and is currently preparing an article for publication.

I am currently preparing my article debunking this so-called extra beard for publication in a Die Variety News supplement.

[Bob P]

I have just completed my re-examination of the 2000P coin designated here as 2000P-1DO-001. I had searched for and found one additional copy of this coin, which made examination a bit easier.
I spent an inordinate amount of time analyzing this coin. I wanted to give an equal chance to either confirm or debunk the chance of it being a doubled die.
Base on my examination and numerous overlays, I was unable to find anywhere on the obverse that matched up with the 'doubling' in question. There were a few overlays that came close...but none matched. In addition, my coins did show evidence of a clash on the reverse...especially in the center bay. There was also polishing lines one would associate with attempts to clear the clash marks in the other memorial bays.
I also did overlays such as Billy did, and once I managed to produce a misaligned overlay, I was able to match most markings on the obverse. Of particular note were markings on either side of the ear lobe that matched perfectly with the center area of the reverse die.
Based on this work, and the work already done by Billy, I too have decided to de-list this die from the coppercoins.com listings. I know some of you will insist this is a doubled die, but based on a lot of hard work from a few people, it is hard to list it as one. It has been easier to debunk it than it has been to prove it is a doubled die. Thanks everyone for your inputs on this. It is another example of multiple organizations reaching a consensus that should prove to be the 'right answer'.

[wavysteps2003]

Billy - There is really no sense going on with this arguement. I have my opinion, you have yours. The following two pictures are of dies that I do have and they do not show any horizontal clash mark to the right of the ear lobe.





Your clash marks on the reverse are not there also on either of the three examples that I have, except for the small mark that could be anything.



I can not buy into such a strong clash on the obverse leaving nothing or virtually nothing on the reverse.

To answer another question. At first the offset between the primary to secondary images bother me, however, it was John Wexler who said that such offsets were possible. Example;



This die shows two sets of extra columns with one set offset by 45 degrees. I would also suggest that you look at 1999P-1DR-005, 2001D-1DR-006, 2001P-1DR-005 and 2004P-1DR-009 for all these dies do have offset angles from the primary to secondary images.

BJ Neff

[ddorpm]

BJ: I beg to differ. Here's two of your photos and I took the liberty of putting arrows showing the horizontal line at the earlobe and the clash remnants within the center of the pedestal. Your lighting and/or technique is very poor.

Anyway -- it's a moot point. This thing is debunked. I just don't have the time or the inclination to play around with you. It's more important to get this new information out to the collectors since many of these are being sold on eBay auctions as doubled dies. I have also seen some auction listings starting today purporting a "Low" type extra beard. We have a responsibility to our variety enthusiast and our hobby.

Bob: I sincerely appreciate your valuable time in re-examining your coins and the extensive effort in your analysis. As you say, organizations working together can only benefit collectors and our great hobby. Thank you for your efforts and most valuable input.

I'm outta here, lots of work to do.

[wavysteps2003]

Who the heck are you talking to Crawford. I am not one of your little buddies that you play around with. I do not appreciate your sarcasm or comments.

As for your die clash theory it is full of holes and before you debunk this as being a doubled die, I would advise that you stop and think before making this mistake.

BJ Neff

[coop]

The die clash should appear like this:
2000-S Proof example

Of couse this is a proof die instead of a business strike die, but you theory/image on the overlay is way off for location. The location of the back of the neck should be on bay # 3. The nose of Lincoln shouldn't be be it is illustrated, unless you are making an exagerated example. Just thought I would chime in on what I see on your overlay image on Page 2.

[Bob P]

OK Guys...Enough is enough. No more sarcasm or knock downs required here. If you wish to keep the doubled die theory going, then that is fine. HOWEVER...I have substantiated Billy's analysis after 3 days of work and God knows how many different overlays. I have 6 (count them SIX) different dies which have varying degrees of these lines from the bottom of the beard and ALL OF THEM come from die clashes. I have delisted them from coppercoins based on my own analysis. I have never spent more time trying to verify any coin than I have here this past week.
The way the process should work is that you prove it is a doubled die...not prove that it is not. I originally thought it was a doubled die as well. We all did. It is not easy swallowing your pride and delisting something so soon after listing it. (Yes...I made a boo-boo) What I did do was take a good objective look at the evidence Billy provided, and took it and did my own analysis. I went through every part of the obverse trying to match those marks, and as I said before, I came close...but no matches. As time permits, I will post images of these coins here, and maybe you can understand why these are clashes, and not a doubled die.
Coop, we made mention that the clashes were from misaligned dies. As you will see from the photos I post later. the locations will be different from almost all of them. Some are even multiple clashes. There will be no doubt that these are clashes either.
BJ, I understand your reluctance to debunk this, but because I have also, does that make me a bad guy? Ultimately, if Dr. Wiles deems it should stay on CONECA, then by all means it should. All we are saying here is that Billy has de-listed it, I have de-listed it, and John Wexler will de-list it. This is not the first time there has been disagreements between organizations concerning attributions. This whole thing has gotten out of control. It seems egos are getting in the way of good science. By all means, all involved should keep personal comments to themselves, and be professional about this. In this case, if you are not willing to look objectively at the data given for debunking it, then you have two options. First, you prove to me that it is a doubled die. Second, you leave the whole thing alone and go on to bigger and better things. Life's too short to get worked up about this sort of thing. AGREED????

[Dick]

Bob, I sent you a PM,
FDick

[eagames]

That overlay is good, you can see how the curved lines are the edge of the statue.

[Dick]

Nice photos, Coop. I downloaded both for my own future clash diagnostics. Now if I can just learn to do those overlays! I'm working on it, but......
Dick