Lincoln Cent 1955

very likely a double die but we have to see Liberty and the entire obverse.

I question this one. That year (1955) was one of many years that they used the dies for way too long. The dies wore in a pattern that left what appeared to be die doubling. I think you know where I'm going with this. The 1955 "Poor Man's (So called) doubled die. The wear left the outside devices especially noted the extra 5 toward the rim, which was just wear on the die. Because the die wore, the devices seem doubled, but are not. Why? If you note the letters are not doubled the same on each area. Some letters are doubled (appearing) as just part of the letter. If this were a real doubled die the letters hubbed would have been the same size. Because this is just extreme die wear the consistency of the doubling is not the same on each device. When the date comes up as an image, then we will know the truth. On the so called doubled die, all devices obverse & reverse are extremely worn. Here is one of these so called images and you be the judge?
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum..._MANS_DD.jpg
On a variety the hub made the doubling so every coin made with that die will have the same doubling. If they wore and made an appearance in later die states, they coin couldn't be a doubled die, more of a worn die. In a roll of 1955 plain cents I went through, I found 19 were the so called doubled dies. So I checked for markers and they came from several different die pairs. Several years this type of wear was noticed particularly on the date, but the rest of the coin as well.

Catchakra: It seems like I over looked that one. My mistake. When I saw the no wear marks on the outside of the edge of the 1955, then I knew something was incorrect in my assumption. With the mark on the N on IN is appeared to me as something else. So I was wrong.
As for the missing marker. Not a big thing. Die scratches on fields get flattened with time/die cracks/chip/break only get worse with age. A die dot usually remains in place. But something to consider is that the reverse die may have been replaced or the die dot may have happened after your coin was struck. So not having a known marker doesn't disqualify, but if you have a marker that matches then it can confirm that it is from the same die state and that if a matching marker is present, then you got the real deal. Re-checking the site, yours is the correct die. The marks over LIBERTY are not present from what I can see, but damage can mess them up. Nice find, I was wrong.

ADDED
I just looked at my collection to see if I had one, but I didn't have one. Maybe someone with an example could see if they have a marker that your coin may have.

The LIBERTY you provided for this coin is the same LIBERTY you provided for your 1976 D DDO.

Ever wonder where you started off with the wrong thinking? On Catchakra's coin, I view the first image the N on IN. Well assuming that it was die wear as the size of the doubling was smaller than the letter device. (See image.)

On the top image of the N in the circle I was misled there. dismissing all other doubling as a worn die. But when he showed the LIBERTY, I wasn't convinced. When He mentioned a die number from coppercoins.com/ I checked it out and saw I was mistaken. First because I hadn't seen that die before or found one, and second the die states threw me off/or I hadn't considered what affect/difference there was in the MDS/LDS images. So I posted all the images to show the difference. The two images with the IN MDS/LDS shows the full line to the right of the devices. The LDS example shows a shorten doubling that looked like something else. When I saw the LIBERTY image, the doubling was so strong, where as the image on the thread was weak or appeared damaged. but when you compare the two different die states images (MDS/LDS on LIBERTY) we see the difference that wear has on the dies. The loss of detail is much more apparent. So we can see why snap judgements can lead us astray. Sometimes takes that second look and thought to see where we went wrong, and learn from our experiences.

If I can teach one person something that I've learned, the day has not been wasted.