2007 S Silver Roosevelt W/ Extra Thickness?

I must interject again, for the last time on this topic.
My best comparison is this 2006 S picked up the same day as the coin in question. I get if the were changes to the dies between those yes. They appear much different. No big deal. It is not a slick in the stack, for sure.
Out.

I don't believe anyone else has confirmed this but I think there was a new obverse design variety introduced in 2009. The lettering of IGWT before this date seem to be slightly thicker than that on 2009-present. I have not recognized any difference between 2006 and 2007 though.

The thickness looks normal on your coin, I'm not sure what you're seeing. Maybe it would help if you took photos of the 2006 dime you have and put them side by side for us.

Well different things can affect devices, even on proof coins. If the one die is a fresher die state and the other one is a polished die, then the devices can appear to be different sizes. But they are just normal dies with different die events.

My first question was why was one year/compared with another year having different device sizes. Well my first assumption was that they may have changed die the design from one year to another. Looking them up, they appeared to have different sizes on the same year dies. So to solution #2. Die polished and fresh die. That is what I determined as being different on these years. (even proof dies get polished because of the strike are stronger and alter the dies more)

The last DDO for Dimes what 1972-S
http://www.varietyvista.com/07%20Ro...201972-S.htm
No DDO's on V.V since then.
Wexler's last one was 2012:
http://doubleddie.com/2257221.html

I think the answer is no. Your 2007 has normal thickness, but the 2006 you compared it to is thin. So it just looked like it had extra thickness by comparison.

I was just reminded of a 2007-P dime DDO that Ken Potter wrote about previously. It was never listed by Wexler or CONECA (I think just because it was never submitted. I believe it to be a DDO) so many have likely never seen it. Notice the extra thickness east-to-west on the date and TRUST. The modern doubled dies that only show as extra thickness never have the extra thickness evenly distributed throughout the lettering. It is almost always along a certain axis, leaving some parts of the lettering thicker than others. On this example it really stands out on the 2. Look at how much thicker than diagonal stroke of the 2 is compared to the lower horizontal stroke. If you look at your 2007 proof, the thickness of these two strokes is the same.

https://www.numismaticnews.net/arch...dies-ignored

Seems to me that fresh dies would exhibit sharper devices rather than mushy ones. As far as a polishing issues, would that not effect the laser etched frosting on the devices smoothing them out. Coop, can you explain to me, concerning the PCGS images you provided, how you were able to determine which ones were polished and which ones were not. On one pair, the polished one retains the original frosting. On the other pair, the polished example shows a lack of frosting.
Also, wouldn't polishing the dies between runs be more likely to widen the devices as well since they are tapered. If the surface is reduced, then the devices would become wider and the frosting effect would be removed in the process as well.
LDS DDD seems to be a more plausible answer at this point. Just conjecture.
Also, why do you continue to bring up cost/value/slabbing. I have addressed this issue a couple of times in previous replies stating I have no concern or desire to do so.
Having compared this example to about 10 other NGC PR69 DCAM examples sold at Heritage Auctions, none have devices this wide and mushy so it is not a normal example for this year. That leaves DDD as the most plausible explanation. I am sure that my opinion will be refuted in favor of another.

They do. But they are not distorted when the dies are fresher.


The dies are opposite of a coin. The fields are the outside of the die, the devices are deep into the devices. So when dies are polished, it affects the fields not the tops of the devices.

On the newer dies, when the frosting does fade, they can be laser etched again to produce that surface on the tops of the devices again.


On one pair, the polished one retains the original frosting. On the other pair, the polished example shows a lack of frosting.
On the older dies, they only etched the devices once after die creation. As it wore off the die, the coins didn't have the cameo any longer. (Thus the higher prices for the cameo and Dcams of the past)


It is not the coins that are polished, but the dies are polished. True if you took a proof coin and polished it, it would remove the definition on the coin:



Note while the coin is shiny, the design goes away. When a die is polished the fields are affected reducing the height/width of the devices, even shorting them. Take a look again at the set of 2006-S,2007-S images. The full shaped devices are the fresher die examples. The thinner and distorted devices happened because of the polishing. Just the tops of the devices are still present, the height is reduced making them shorter. Once this is done on the die, there is not going back. The devices can be re-etched to put back the frosting, but the die was altered and all coins for the rest of that dies life will show that the die was altered.


Proof coins only strike 3K coins. (6K strikes as each proof coin is struck at least twice. Some denominations are struck more with a higher relief) So there is no DDD issues on proof coins. They can be over polished and redone more than once, but because the strong strikes the die strikes are done when they reach there 6K limit.


Each has their own opinion. Which has the facts?