| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 2,774 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
130 Posts |
Here's one that mr.potter and I talked about, I own both large over small, and small over large, what does everybody think of thoses DDOs, potter says they have it all wrong, I'll post them shortly  |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
395 Posts |
Who is "they" and what do they have wrong?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2651 Posts |
I would like to see Kens write up (that you refered too) saying that they are "wrong"...what ever you mean by that. They are definitely Doubled dies. You can see the small date and the large date with ease.
Looking forward to seeing your LD pics
SD
Edited by Jayman931
09/06/2013 11:06 am
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
130 Posts |
if their both the same, why does the large over small look like this (wexler)  and small over large look like this  remember their both DDO-001, I agree with potter, their not both the same, not even close |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2651 Posts |
This thread is useless without pictures of your coins. Both of those pics you posted above appear to be the same. Look at the m/m. The only difference I see is a die chip on the 6 of the lower picture and a different Die State. This is my opinion I could be wrong but I do not think I am. Can you post the link that back your claims that Ken Potter told you that the two above coins are different. They are clearly made from the same die. I am not trying to be rude but you make a lot of claims and do not provide much proof. You also try to sound like you are very knowledgeable but you are not. It is obvious you still have a lot to learn when you do not know what a Grease Filled Die is and you think a clipped planchet is worth $168. I admire your enthusiasm but you need to back up claims you make. This is a pretty tight knit community with a lot of knowledge and a lot of people that like to help other people. You can learn (I learn something everyday) a lot from a lot of people hear. Edited by Jayman931
09/06/2013 11:31 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
130 Posts |
their not the same, potter is wrong, look again at the coin, its just the opposite potter is large over small, easy to see  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2651 Posts |
By looking at the mint mark (which is a M/M) its obvious they are the same. The mint marks are added after the hubbing of the Small Date/Large Date. You can also see the same exact die polish marks on both coins (around the 9...6...and 0) The top photo is an earlier die state than the bottom photo. But they were struck with the same die.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
The 1960-D Small over Large Date is well-known while a Large over Small Date has never been confirmed. It is impossible to have two different hubbings with the exact same repunched mintmark position so the images you show are of the exact same doubled die in two different die states.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
The two images are from the same die. Large over small. The die scratch between the 6 & 0 and through the 9 is exactly the same.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
901 Posts |
First I did not like the thread to an ebay coin listing.  The 2 coins look like they're from the same die, slightly different die state  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Here is one example I have:  Same die scratches on the date. Here is the quote from Potter's site: Quote:1960-D/D 1c Small Date over Large Date + RPM D/D Wide North! This is the same variety as the one listed in the ' Red Book' as a Large over Small Date (they just got it backwards as it is a Sm/Lg not Lg/Sm). Note ' Red Book' has it listed backwards. He agrees that it is a small over large date. The two images you posted are from the same die. Edited by coop
09/06/2013 2:25 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
130 Posts |
all potter is saying is the small date is first then the large date is over that, I'll use potter coin, the only way to get that branch out of the date is small over large, not large over small
|
|
Pillar of the Community
917 Posts |
Quote:
all potter is saying is the small date is first then the large date is over that, I'll use potter coin, the only way to get that branch out of the date is small over large, not large over small That is not what he is saying, you misunderstood. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
I'll repeat the above information. You might have missed it. Here is the quote from Potter's site: Quote:1960-D/D 1c Small Date over Large Date + RPM D/D Wide North! This is the same variety as the one listed in the ' Red Book' as a Large over Small Date (they just got it backwards as it is a Sm/Lg not Lg/Sm). Note ' Red Book' has it listed backwards. He agrees that it is a small over large date. The two images you posted are from the same die. |
|
Valued Member
United States
130 Posts |
thanks coop, shortly i'll post some real talkers
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 2,774 |
|
Posted 09/06/2013 11:04 am
