RDV For 1964 LMC

They can be the same hubbed dies and still look slightly different.
1. Sometimes the hubbing is too strong and part of the deeper devices don't form. (IE: the cornice in the center of the memorial cents in the 1960's)
2. Die wear and die polishing may affect the die so much that the devices get thinner on over polished dies. (IE: The fields are reduced and the devices get thinner.)



See if this helps. If not, then ask another question.
This coin's die was so reduced in the field, that the first digit was reduced in size as only the top of the device was left on the die.
With die wear/deterioration the tops of the devices flow toward the rims looking longer and strange looking. Space between the devices get closer because of die wear.


3. Struck Through Grease and make some letters wider and shorter in height. The grease prevents the tapered devices to form.



4. Machine damage on coins can alter the look of the devices.
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum...VICES_01.jpg
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum...VICES_02.jpg
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum...VICES_03.jpg
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum...VICES_04.jpg
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum...VICES_05.jpg

Better images I hope. Note that on the flat AMERICA you can see the thin, knit line in the center bar of the E. There is also a looping line in the bottom part of the R, but not discernible in the photo.

Hi Coop - thanks for the additional pic's, especially the ones showing Feeder Finger Damage. I had a few specimens in a coin tube I now know what to do with (recycle).

The line I'm speaking about does not appear incuse and is generally centered within the center bar of the E. I can't seem to capture it well with the camera, but I'll play some with the lighting to see if we can get a better read.

I suppose that one of the two specimens above comes from a worn die. The subject specimen appears to be from an earlier die state thus where the problem is in my mind. I would expect wider devices to be associated with the refaced/polished die or a die packed with grease as you note above (not to mention uneven throughout). Do I have my thinking backwards on this? The designers initials appear consistent on both coins which suggests the same master die. But the crispness of the devices on the subject coin has me stumped a bit.

Thanks for hanging in there with me on this.

Note the fields on your coin. You can see the die flow on them and also on the devices. I refer this a snow drifting. It flow on the fields and over the devices:

Note how the die flow is trying to level the coin. The edge between the field and 4 is moving because of die wear. It is not a pretty site. But it is the dies way of showing its age.

On this one you can see the devices flowing toward the rims.

uploaded/coop/1983-P_roosey_reverse_vlds_liu21_ccf__A.jpg

Your last two images are different years of coins correct? Note how the top image has wider devices and the lower one thinner devices. But in the top one it looks like slight machine damage in the areas you are pointing out. It may have affected just that isolated area during the strike.

Tip of the day:
When making side by side images of coins, use the same year/mint mark to see if it is mint issue. This could be different if different master dies were used. Also same sure to crop them exactly the same and sized the same. IE on LIBERTY, cut the devices on the outside edges of the same devices to make your side by sides. Also keep as many as possible in the image, or at least 3-4 devices per image. When you take an image of less that 3 you can get the sense of the overall size of those devices. If the image needs to be too close to see something, then it is too minor to be valuable.