Coin Community Family of Web Sites
Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our Youtube Channel! Check out our Twitter! Check out our Pinterest!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some coins?
Our coin forum is completely free! Register Now!

Needed: A Discussion Of Modern Doubled Dies

 
Next Page | Last Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3
Pillar of the Community
United States
4463 Posts
 Posted 10/22/2019  11:22 pm Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add USSID18 to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
I have a pertinent question regarding modern error coins post pre-squeeze die production. Why are error collectors so "gaa-gaa" over a processional function of metal forming? In particular, a central "doubled" image of microscopic proportion as the "doubled column" or "Doubled throne"? As a LONG-TIME collector of HUB-doubled dies and RPM's, which in my humble opinion are a true introduction of the die MAKING process, therefore a true "doubled die". For example, a recent posting of an "un-attributed" so-called Doubled Die.

http://goccf.com/t/358442

In the squeeze process, this is NOT a product of multiple stages (steps) in forming the Master working hub as with the older processes of die making, but a single high pressure imprinting process where a preformed metal base die is imprinted with a master image of unchanging state(s). Now, the actual process needs be considered....exactly what is happening to the metal face of the manufactured die. What REALLY causes these "multiple images". Is it a "double impact"? No, for it is a constant pressure squeezing. If that be so, HOW are slight anomalies then introduced? One must consider the first law of thermodynamics....which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, not ONLY is the metal being forced to form to the design of the master upon the slave, the slave reacts to the master's movement. This happens in a multi- directional manner, both laterally and circularly.....IT MOVES as the Master form smashes down it's image upon the slave form. This slight shifting, in a back and forth and clock-wise/counter-clock-wise motion as the pressure DOWNWARD is applied. THIS is what causes those slight anomalies upon the face of the now made Working dies. This combination of movement under pressure is the cause, NOT a process of double-tapping, double stamping or whatever word you choose. And, because of all other factors, this effects mainly the more central design elements. One final point to toss in is the atomic strength of the metal slave itself at the micron levels, all molecules possess slightly different strengths, therefore at certain points upon the metal face may be variances of molecular strengths, causing a multitude of different "errors" of microscopic sizes one die from another. This is nothing more than COMMON....I repeat COMMON metal machining....NO product is without some flaw somewhere. And that is EXACTLY what I consider these to be, nothing more than ...a FLAW...NOT a "Doubled Die" but remotely could be considered an error.....much as the Mechanical Doubling or Mis-aligned Dies were of the old process. And all of you know what Mike Diamond called these....."Waste-Basket Errors". This "product" of the single-squeeze process is nothing special, and at best needs be relugated to status of "machine error" at best and therefore any "market acceptable" values should fall accordingly!

So WHY in Heaven's name are these "trash" coins being elevated into the status of such wondrous glory as Doubled Dies? PLEASE answer me this! Has the societal devolution of logic and reason permeated that far into the field of Numismatics? Well, you the reader can be THAT judge.

**Link Fixed**
Proud member of the Black Sheep Squadron!

Edited by USSID18
10/23/2019 09:18 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
828 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  02:59 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add CoinTheTerm to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Hmmm interesting rant there USSID18, by the way the link you provided is not a working link but I imagine you are talking about a Class VIII DDR (probably even my own since you hijacked my whole thread with a similar rant.) You seem very bothered by this and I really have a hard time understanding why? I hear what your are saying about the process but your logic or lack there of, is what you are missing here. Your experience as a coin collector should lead you to brush up on the different classes of double dies. As a newb on here I have been reading much about this topic and I can tell you that a CLASS VIII double die occurred much earlier then you think or refuse to admit. It is present for example on the 1964 Lincoln cents and is probably one that you yourself have searched for. I would hope that you understand that "all your years of collecting coins" do not make you an expert. To be fair you are essentially calling the work of some of the most prevalent figures in the game as being wrong, since both Dr. Wiles and Wexler have both attributed Class VIII DDR's. Wexler even says in his article that many attributed Class II double dies are actually Class VIII or a combo of Class II+Class VIII.

Here is a link that may help you brush up

Classes of double dies
http://doubleddie.com/58222.html
Specifically Class VIII
https://doubleddie.com/203990.html

Also do yourself a favor and don't be so harsh on criticizing what others are collecting just because it doesn't match your own style. If you really want a discussion on the topic you should write to Dr. Wiles and Wexler and tell them how you feel about the attribution of these modern day Class VIII double dies, I'm sure they would love to hear you discounting their many years of experience, study, and knowledge.

Really surprised how much this bothered you. Try to relax and be more open-minded and accepting of things happening in the community

1964 Class VIII DDO
http://www.varietyvista.com/01b%20L...4PDDO022.htm

1950 Class IV + VIII DDR
http://www.varietyvista.com/01a%20L...0PDDR002.htm

1972 Class VIII DDR
http://www.varietyvista.com/01b%20L...2DDDR001.htm
Edited by CoinTheTerm
10/23/2019 03:24 am
Valued Member
United States
230 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  04:09 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Bamaboycoin to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
with Coin the Term well put
"Show someone the kindness of a smile, that they've yet to find TODAY" That's truly a priceless gift
Bedrock of the Community
Learn More...
United States
10183 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  04:53 am  Show Profile   Check spruett001's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add spruett001 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks for the links, @CoinTheTerm. It's a good place to start.
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
-Lucretius

"Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you."
-Kurdt Kobain

My Want List: http://goccf.com/t/282022
Pillar of the Community
United States
2425 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  07:14 am  Show Profile   Check Tanman2001's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add Tanman2001 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Do you realize that the minor doubled dies you're referring to and many major doubled dies from the past 20 years are made the same way? To debunk the minor ones you'd have to debunk all of them. And I fail to see how any of the following aren't doubled dies:

http://varietyvista.com/09d%20WQ%20...0quarter.htm
http://varietyvista.com/01d%20LC%20...2%20cent.htm
http://varietyvista.com/01c%20LC%20...1%20cent.htm
http://varietyvista.com/01c%20LC%20...4%20cent.htm

I could argue that Class I DDs and Class VI DDs shouldn't be labeled the same thing because they look completely different and they're made in completely different ways, but we all know that's not how it works. The exact cause isn't as important as long as it's a doubling of the design that occurs during the creation of the working die. Maybe that's a bit too much of a generalization, but you get the point.

Also aren't all doubled dies just mechanical flaws?
Edited by Tanman2001
10/23/2019 07:28 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
517 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  07:43 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add hfjacinto to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
After reading the rants above, my interest in error coins is less than it's always been. I mean I wanted a 1955 dd LWC but I want that one as it's clearly visible, these current crop of minor doubling are of no interest to me. But if they are to you, enjoy.
Pillar of the Community
United States
1494 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  09:11 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Bump111 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Interesting discussion. I always look through my pocket change for obvious "naked eye" doubling. I couldn't begin to identify the class of doubling or if it occurred on the hub or working die. If someone is driven to pursue this niche in the hobby - I say more power to them. I hope they find success and fulfillment in the process like I do in what I pursue.

As a chemical engineer, I zeroed in on the reference to the 1st Law in the OP. Rather than applying specifically to die doubling (I can't find an obvious correlation) I wonder if an equation could be formulated to predict how long a die will last. Since the first law deals specifically with conservation of heat / energy and energy is transferred from the die/press to the planchet, it implies that an equal amount of heat and energy are transferred back to the die (unless an intervening process is used to quell the transfer.) By design, differences in metal hardness come into play. I wonder if the Mint employees chemists or chemical engineers to work on questions like that or if they farm this out to the academic institutions?
Edited by Bump111
10/23/2019 09:12 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
4463 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  09:23 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add USSID18 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Proud member of the Black Sheep Squadron!

Pillar of the Community
United States
4463 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  09:36 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add USSID18 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
The point attempting to be made is NOT the way Doubled Dies as CtT listed and gave eloquent reference to at all! For ALL three examples given are what IS the point. Those are true doubled dies. The PROBLEM is with ONLY those MODERN, since the 1990's process of die making went from a multi-hubbed working die, to a single-squeeze method. The processes are different is all, therefore resultant doubling is different. The comparison of a pre-squeeze to a post-squeeze is therefore comparing apples to oranges. And previous classifications refer to the multi-hub method.


Class 6 rotation, for instance, is the rotation of a SECOND master hub, which is circular motion in itself, but an additional source added to produce a third product. To compare this to the downward movement of a squeeze and say the resultant product is a "similar" Class 6 is basing that upon "looks" only, not in the manner in which it was accomplished. Call me a bit old school, for I see a completely different PROCESS, which by logic means a completely different outcome.


When you look at other forms of stamped metal objects made by this same process, you will see a variety of design anomalies, for this is the very nature of produced goods, there are MANY small tics, and variances around the object. When comparing the forms used, there is no defect present, yet the products will show these flaws. They happen when the pressure is applied, and can vary from object to object, the main form(die in case of a coin) is not damaged to replicate a like error from one finished piece to the other. There is where the distinction should be made. Now the dies produced by single-squeeze might have these flaws, replicating them per each strike, that die was NOT a product of multiple hubbings. It was once said "All roads lead to Rome", and this appears to be a situation where just because something looks the same, even tho entirely different directions were used, then the end is the same?
Proud member of the Black Sheep Squadron!

Pillar of the Community
United States
2786 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  09:37 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add CoinHunter27 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I really like Tanman's examples. Those are considered strong and legit doubled dies to me. I can see however that one would consider class 6 doubled dies are really not "doubled dies". With that being said, I think that class 6 should be labeled differently than class 1 doubled dies. Class 6 doubled dies aren't even really doubled. While not removing all the listings, I would rename those.

-CH27
"Time is the coin of life. Only you can determine how it will be spent" -Carl Sandburg

Some of my best finds:
1942 LWC DDO FS-104 http://goccf.com/t/344022
1963 25 Type B reverse http://goccf.com/t/352858 1964 LMC Tapered Planchet http://goccf.com/t/344895 1867 Indian cent RPD: Snow-1 http://goccf.com/t/357323



Pillar of the Community
United States
2425 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  10:21 am  Show Profile   Check Tanman2001's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add Tanman2001 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I agree there are no true Class VI doubled dies in single-squeeze era, that is absolutely a misclassification. It's not possible for the Class VI's of old to happen in single-squeeze and they don't even look similar. But I still think they are doubled dies.

Honestly I'm not sure you understand how a doubled die is formed, or maybe you are just misspeaking, because the master hub is not involved in any way. A doubled die occurs during the creation of a working die, the "squeezing" of a working hub and a conical die blank. If some anomaly were to occur on a master hub then EVERY working die would have it, which isn't what we are seeing whatsoever.

And I fail to see how if a working hub strikes a die blank twice no matter how minute, even if only a little part is transferred twice, how that's not doubling. That's what a double die is! A portion of the design was duplicated on the die. Yes it's no longer possible for multiple complete hubbings, but it's still possible for multiple partial hubbings if the working hub is tilted. There isn't one way a doubled die can occur, that's why we have the classes.

How can you go against every single expert and decades of research and just change the definition of a doubled die to fit your own opinion with NO evidence? And you're the one complaining about the "societal devolution of logic and reason." You didn't even explain, if these aren't doubled dies, what they are! A mechanical flaw? An anomaly? That's what a doubled die is!

You know you can just say you are not interested in the minor ones and that you won't collect them right? You don't have to demean those who enjoy collecting these and those who believe in the opinion of numerous experts with decades of experience.
Edited by Tanman2001
10/23/2019 10:22 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
828 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  10:51 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add CoinTheTerm to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
You know you can just say you are not interested in the minor ones and that you won't collect them right? You don't have to demean those who enjoy collecting these and those who believe in the opinion of numerous experts with decades of experience.

with Tanman on this, very well put and very clear. There seems to be a problem here with some narcissistic behavior. I don't understand why the opinion of one should be the opinion of all. The classifications and attributions that have been given to these coins have been developed by people who have many years of experience and are prominent figures in the community not based on opinion.
Edited by CoinTheTerm
10/23/2019 10:52 am
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2794 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  11:21 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add oriole to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Nobody can determine by means of logical arguments what collectors should like or not like.

Doubling on coins, however caused, is not a great interest of mine, but if others' interest is great, I am happy to hear what they have to say and maybe I will learn something and develop a new interest.

Likes or dislikes are very subjective, like beauty.

All of us are nut cases as far as non-collectors are concerned.
Edited by oriole
10/23/2019 11:42 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
2786 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  11:50 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add CoinHunter27 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
with CoinTheTerm. A lot of new collectors are drawn into the hobby with these new doubled dies. I think if they were called anything different, we wouldn't have as many questions a day on CCF as we do with new DDs. The fact that they are called doubled dies draws collectors In.

-CH27
"Time is the coin of life. Only you can determine how it will be spent" -Carl Sandburg

Some of my best finds:
1942 LWC DDO FS-104 http://goccf.com/t/344022
1963 25 Type B reverse http://goccf.com/t/352858 1964 LMC Tapered Planchet http://goccf.com/t/344895 1867 Indian cent RPD: Snow-1 http://goccf.com/t/357323



Pillar of the Community
United States
504 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  1:35 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add nick10 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Since the process by which the doubling occurs is different, I agree the modern doubling should be distinguished via a different name, something more obvious than a different Class number.

Look at how many people here have under 10 posts. I suspect newbies excited over finding a "double die" feel deceived when they learn their find is just one of many moderns, and don't come back. Since this doubling happens near the center, perhaps call it a Doubled Center coin.
Pillar of the Community
United States
4463 Posts
 Posted 10/23/2019  1:57 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add USSID18 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I agree there are no true Class VI doubled dies in single-squeeze era, that is absolutely a misclassification. It's not possible for the Class VI's of old to happen in single-squeeze and they don't even look similar. But I still think they are doubled dies.


I see one person has seen the point I am trying to make! The ambiguity tho of then saying "well, it ain't...BUT yet it is?" No, these are NOT a Class 6 Doubled Die as produced from multiple hubbings, then again they still are DD's? Defies logic in my pea-brain.


So now I must assume it is fully acceptable to blur the lines of distinction, between what is true & logical with that of a false premise and great use of semantics to just keep the "hobby" going and to make it interesting for others? Even when it is in error? Enticing under false pretenses used to be a prosecuted offense!......(fraud).....Nonsense!.....Remove the ambiguity.....and begin calling these what they are, "centrally located processing flaws" NOT a double die!
Proud member of the Black Sheep Squadron!

Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

Coin Community Member eBay Sales

Certified Coins   Certified VAMs   Certified Errors  




Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2019 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2019 Coin Community Forums
It took 1.52 seconds to rattle this change. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05