| Author |
Replies: 15 / Views: 1,749 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4541 Posts |
Die deterioration? I'm really not sure, it just came in the jfk chronicle set this way  
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6478 Posts |
Maybe MD, but hard to tell from pics. 
|
|
Valued Member
United States
261 Posts |
The 2nd stamp looks rounded like a DD. This coin is a proof though isn't it. Seems many proofs look like this and have been noted as MD. However, this coin is so new yet there is nothing to compare it to.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4541 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4541 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Do you have a normal on to take an image of and size to the same pixels as your image. Not familiar with how this coins devices should look like.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
663 Posts |
I'm sure this is absolutely no help, but the "K" looks like DD and the "E" definitely looks like MD to me.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5828 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
534 Posts |
Tried to throw together a quick comparison if it helps any. Regular coin device.  Possible DD? (OP's coin) 
Edited by SjlundCoin 09/23/2015 10:45 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1249 Posts |
Devices seem to look smaller so I would say md. You should be looking for seperation of serrifs. If it were a DD and it had that much seperation in the middle of the device the one of the ends would definitely be seperated
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Die Deterioration would be on the opposite side of the devices. (in the direction of the rim the outsides of the devices) Hub doubling would enlarge the overall size. (Looks like the same overall size of devices) Looks like Machine damage reduced the size. So it is MD.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
534 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
I guess you would need to put three devices in an image in a row and make a Side by Side and see if they are larger or normal overall shaped. (Posting just one device in an image doesn't give us the correct definition of size)
When we enlarge one device in a large image, nothing can still look liked something. (I usually put 3 or more devices per image to keep it more in perspective)
Some times I can see something in my scope (3.5X-35X infinite zoom) that can't be found in a photo. Then I know it is too minor to be a collectable.
But if it were hub doubling, several devices should be affected nearby.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10038 Posts |
If daviscfad could take a pic of a normal one and his doubled one in the same setting & at the same time with the same setup, then overlaying the pics would tell if the devices have been made smaller or not.
Sometimes even a slightly more angled picture can make devices look off in size/thickness.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189053 Posts |
I took a real close look at mine today with the 10x loupe and I see no doubling.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4541 Posts |
I am leaning more towards Machine Doubling.. To me the new style of hub doubling strangely resembles MD so for me its tuff to tell
|
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 1,749 |
|