Need Fresh Eyes On This 1982-D

Completely normal from the images provided. It might also help if you explained what you see. One of the most frustrating parts of being an attributer is when someone sends in a coin saying "doubling" and nothing else. If I cannot pick out what they are seeing, I cannot explain what it really is. Unfortunately they didn't give us a crystal ball with this job.

In fact upon looking at coppercoins site it is similar to the 1982-D 1DO-001 Class 2+6.

The extra thickness you see is a simple case of a slightly soft strike.

I see no split serifs anywhere.

It's actually the planchets and the design that cause the confusion. ZSolution is to learn and really know the design, and nothing will fool you.

There are no known minor doubled die reverse cents for 1983 because the design has very few sharp edges to look for minor splits....1964 is loaded with them because there are a lot of sharp edges to check for splits. It's much more common to have very minor doubled dies reported and listed for proof coins, becaus the design is far sharper and the minor stuff is easy to see.

So you see, it has to do with the design and the amount of time the dies are used - far more than any other reason. There probably are a ton of very minor doubled dies for early 80s cents - but the design is shallow and the dies wore quickly, so for the better part, they are not provable, thus no interest generated. Capiche?