Minor Doubled Dies: Why More From Philadelphia Than Denver?

Many of the 1941 rehubbed "T" with doubled four coins are listed in the Cherry Picker's Guide, Variety Vista, Copper Coins (search for 1941 Philadelphia and DDO), and the Wexler site with various numbering. Not all are listed on all of the sites, and many of the Wexler site listings for 1941 are apparently in the process of being updated with new or better photos. Here are a few of the examples where the doubled second "T" and lightly doubled four are in the photos:
1941 FS-102, DDO-002, 1-DO-002, WDDO-002
1941 DDO-007, 1-DO-035
1941 DDO-009
1941 DDO-012
1941 DDO-021
1941 DDO-026

All three of the 1949-S Doubled dies are listed in the Cherry Picker's Guide, Variety Vista, Copper Coins (search for 1949-S and DDO), and the Wexler site with confusingly different but similar numbering. They are:
1949-S FS-101, DDO-001, 1-DO-003, WDDO-002
1949-S DDO-002, 1-DO-002, WDDO-001
1949-S DDO-003, 1-DO-001, WDDO-003

After retiring, I was talked into going to three estate sales with bags of cents. I misbehaved, and bought many of the bags. Then I spent months sorting the first few dozen of the bags by date and mint. On a positive note, many of these bags were pulled from circulation in the 1960s, based on the names of the long-gone banks on several of the bags and the condition of the coins. Now, I'm going through multiple coffee cans filled with single dates to search for varieties. I've been going through far too many 1941 Philadelphia cents since May. (So much for "retirement.")

When I come up for air, I'll post some of the coins I've found. I can safely say there are at least 25 unlisted minor 1941 DDOs and at least three that may be fairly significant. I'm holding off sending any of them in until the Wexler site is updated for 1941, because many of them may already be listed there.

That is an interesting idea. I am having difficulty understanding how a Doubled Die degree of minority/majority could be quantified for such a chart!

If some one would like to attempt an example, I would like to see it!

@pet2226

I did some research: Only the US Mint can reduce fraud schemes and add some transparency in the coin-collecting universe. US MINT sets its own coin production quality control protocol for its own use. Anything that is out of these tolerances is/are valuable. If the US MINT sets standards and tolerances for coin mint errors for collectors, this will help make coin-collecting transparent. Currently, the coin-collecting business is governed by an "expert" company that does grading and trading. They have control of coin coin-collecting business. Small guys will be out of sight. Till then, it works as usual.

@Pete2226, A statement like standard quality control is so common for any manufacturer that produces products. In this case, US MINT would have policies and procedures set in place that track their productivity for their own use, not for collectors. Whether accidental/intentional, it would be obvious that the US MINT would not have records of coin/s mint anomalies, visible/magnifying errors, and their measurement. And I don't think US MINT will allow third parties such as PCGS, NCG, and other coin experts, share certain confidential information. Privacy Act.

It has been like this: Collectors relying on communication and information from the coin site/s and from the coin "expert," not from the US MINT channel.

The Big Question: Does anybody want changes? Yes, no, and maybe. Hopefully. US MINT and technology will eventually disrupt the current way of doing things in a more transparent, fair, and reasonable way for all current and future collectors. This is just my fair and reasonable opinion.

I can only prove to you my personal experience with these coin "experts" 1.) Here we have a "numismatic specialist" who has been in the coin business for over 40 years; they are a member of this and that, coin organization, club, etc. 1.) A Coin expert site that also has its own expertise of this and that. 3.) We have coin grader companies, and they also have their expertise in this and that.

These three experts have varying opinions about my coin. One expert saw my coin physically, and here we have two experts who saw photos of my coin. This expert, who saw my coin physically, told me their assessment. While we have two experts who only saw photos of the coin told me they are "firm in their assessment".

If we have an official standard of mint errors tolerances and varieties set in place, etc., we will not have these issues in coin collecting.

@Pete2226, we can only hope that things like this should be considered; it is for sure will bring positive impact to the coin collecting universe. Also, and remember if it is not in their books, newly error coin discovery, "expert" would not want to deal with it. More likely they will just used coins comparison. It is all.

2014 information still good for references:: Keep in mind machine, technology tools, things of doing, etc are now different from 2014. So we can expect and sees different types and looks of mint error etc. Example: pressure, strikes, speed impact etc.

Good morning, coin community. Everyone's opinions do matter. Here is my contribution, and my opinion is not intended to alter your views on things.

Story of Double Die Discovery:

Some collectors, including John A Wexler, found double die coins. According to his online bio, he is a high school mathematician.

The article explained: He "found his first double die error in 1971." The article did not specifically indicate what type of denomination or years of this coin, which was attributed by error/variety specialist Alan Herbert, known as "Answer Man". According to a Coin World article, Alan Herbert began his coin collecting when he was in his 30s.
According to John Wexler, he continues his coin searching: in 1972, he said the US MINT produced various 1972 double dies. The article did not indicate what type of denomination it was, and the article did not provide US MINT confirmation of these findings.

In his own words: During the 1970s and early 1980s, John Wexler served as "Hubbing Variety Statesian" for CONE and began writing for CONES club publication Errorgram". You can find this information on "Wexler's coins and Die Varieties.

Here are my varied opinions on Types of Variety.
According to the article, "counterfeit and altered Lincoln pennies were found during the 1960-1970s." The US. SECRET SERVICE warns about counterfeit coins created through plating, which was sometimes done for school science projects or other private purposes".

Here are my varied opinions on so-called true Double Die coins.
According to an online article, Infamous 1955 Doubled Die Coin: At the time of discovery US Mint did not officially confirm the existence at that time it occurred". It was the numismatic experts and collectors who publicized the error". The error was discovered by Mint employees shortly after striking had begun, but the Chief Coiner decided to let the coins circulate.

According to the online source, the "US Mint confirmed that a Working hub was Misaligned". The most famous example is the "1955 Lincoln Cent."

Mint non-confirmation: "At that time, the US Mint did not officially acknowledge the coins as a recognized error. They were simply viewed as defective and released into circulation". Happy hunting and stay informed.