1957 D Lincoln penny error/ New Photos

Is this a DDO, machine double or a combination of the two? Sorry for the earlier post but I am getting the hang of this.

Nice coin....I think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

How does one take photos like that through the barrel of a .44 cal S&W????

 

So you liked that did you awordcreated??? I point my iphone camera through a "currency microscope" 60x mag...like one here....http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mini-60X-Il...789?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2571e67d95
the only problem is I got hand cramps holding it steady)))

 

Looks like mechanical doubling (MD) to me. Keep up the hunt!

 

non_cents the doubling on the face looks like a shelf but the number 19 is very DDO like...the pictures will have to improve for sure.

I have searched 1957D and I guess there are many many error types for this particular year....a popular year for errors. Thanks for looking.

 

It certainly is tough to tell with the photos, but generally when you see MD as strong as it is on the face, I would bet that it is on the date, too. 1957-D was a particular year for very strong MD, and many coins can be attributed to a single die that produced a lot of MD coins. The following coin is a 1957-D with strong machine doubling...does it look like yours?

 

Yes my coin numbers 1 and 9 look a lot like this...I am very confused what a DDO would look like then.
Thanks for the clarification on my coin but I am confused.

 

I posted a good tutorial on telling the different kinds of doubling that you can see here: http://www.cointalk.com/threads/lets-talk-doubling.224087/

 

If you are just starting out get ready to be confused a lot. It usually takes years of experience to learn about coins and I still don't know everything , so take it easy and learn a little as you go.

 

Rascal is right...this isn't a subject you immediately learn overnight. It took me months and months of searching to actually find my first doubled die, and even longer to understand how it occurred and how to tell the difference between it and other forms of doubling. Relax, take it slow, and read up.
I'll link some good websites I would recommend reading.

lincolncentresource.com (also a lincolncentresource.net forum)<---has pictures of most major lincoln cent die varieties

doubleddie.com<----info on the die making process with pictures

coppercoins.com <----database of over 3,000 lincoln cent die varieties

errorvariety.com <----good website with how to tell the differences between doubled dies and other doubling

error-ref.com<----reference site for just about any error that is known to occur

 

Well that makes sense not. If the same die produced many like coins it is far more likely that the anomaly is on the die and not that the process malfunctioned over and over again in precisely the same way.

Or maybe we need a new error - loose retainer at the 3 o'clock position?

 

Thanks...it appears that once I think I know something I should just rest assured that I'm wrong....a little bit at a time is good advice.

Thanks for the links....

 

While it is true that often if an anomaly can be traced to a specific die then the anomaly is on the die, this is a case where a die has produced similar mechanical doubled coins. Some examples show stronger doubling than others, independent of die state. The die was obviously installed incorrectly, producing a large number of very similar mechanical doubled coins.

 

Now I'm blown just away....

 

Did you just say mint error?

 

I don't really follow. Mechanical doubling is an error...and what you see above is mechanical doubling. The die probably did not produce MD throughout its whole life, but many examples of 1957-D MD can be likely traced to a particular die due to die markers.

 

Let me think about this. An error that occurs during the minting process at the mint facility, by what you claim is the same die, over and over again. Why didn't I think that was a jelly bean?

 

Well, I don't really see any fault in my logic. An inconsistency during the striking process produces errors.

If you are suggesting that this is a die variety, by definition a die variety occurs only prior to die installation, and the coins struck by that die will have the variety from the first coin the die strike to the last. The same cannot be said for the above coin. Does that make sense?

 

I'll be kind and not scrutinize your concept of logic.

"inconsistency " my hinder. Where do you get that from? Same thing over and over again from same die is NOT "inconsistency ". <---- fault

You said this: " many coins can be attributed to a single die that produced a lot of MD coins. " which is why we are here now. Do not try to tell me or anyone what I am 'suggesting'. Please refrain from imputing on to me anything other than what I actually put forth. Can you understand that? And can you try to do that?

It doesn't make sense for you to conjure up an argument and then impute it upon me to defend from. "if you are suggesting" <-- kindergarten

Go after what was actually said, not what sort of response happened in your mind.

 

Don't ya know this coin is the star of the next Bond Movie? Anything is better than Daniel Craig.