1997-P 1-Ddo-001 Lincoln Memorial Cent Doubled Ear?

I can't tell from your image if that is one of them. Shadows are cast on it oddly.

As for the photo in my book - it's a coin I found from a $25 box that came from Charlotte, N.C. in April of 1998. It's the only one I found.

My uncle is a beginner at this stuff, but is getting training from me. This variety is the first variety he ever found. An AU-ish coin from pocket change in Southern Missouri back in 2006.

I know others have found them, and I know the original discoverer saved up a couple of rolls of them - but there aren't all that many of them in existence so far. Biggest problem with these is that some experts remain unconvinced that these are actually doubled dies.

My response...all it takes is looking at the doubling inside the upper ear to be convinced.

Probably the first time a Black & White image from a book came through with good detail?

That is the real deal. Look at the die scratches SW of the ear. They match coppercoins image. Congratulations on your find.

added:
Are both images the same of your coin in your image?
I was rechecking as I thought this was the one from Chucks image. So the jury goes out again. But looks very close to the real deal. Maybe someone with the same variety can check to see if their coin has the same die scratches. (Coins from the same die don't always have the same die scratches as they come and go in different die states.) Sorry I haven't found one yet.

I don't think it is. Not enough there to tell for sure, but I'm doubting it.

Just keep looking. That what I've done for many years and still none.....

It hasnt been contoversial in awhile. It is a doubled die. By the way, ken Potter does not believe this coin to be a well placed die chip. I don't think JT is still into the die Chip theory and I am not sure about Bill.

In any case its a doubled die . here's Ken's page on it.

http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/...r1cOffer.htm

The statement on that website about the 1997 Doubled Ear cent is an outdated, confusing , cut and paste.

In the CPQ, when it first came out, (Volume 1, 4th edition) Bill and JT werent ready to commit to it being a doubled die.

Ken Potter along with me were early proponents of the doubled die theory based upon the "tilted hub" scenario. Ken wrote a letter to the US Mint and they confirmed the theory. This theory has been proven time and time again with all the newer Doubled Dies that are emerging.

Ken and I have seen many, examples of this coin. I have seen and sold dozens, I've kept six. I have even discovered coins that exhibit different die states on the reverse yet the obverses are identical.

Keep in mind that Bill and JT have also said that their pricing for 1972 Doubled dies is flawed , so since the book has been published, errors have been acknowledged. There have even been coins seen in the CPQ that will be removed in future editions as they have been disproved. The 1980 D/S Lincoln comes to mind.

So now, lets look at the statement on the website you mention, (The Lincoln Cent Resource) one bit at a time.

"Bill Fivaz and J.T. Stanton state in the Cherrypicker's Guide, "...this is the
most controversial of all Lincoln Cent Varieties. ... we do not believe it is a doubled die at all. Rather, we believe it is nothing more than a well placed
die chip."



The above was stated before the authors were convinced.

Next:

"Ken Potter states, "The cause is most likely due to a tilted die
blank seating itself into proper position during the hubbing process".
Potter also states that doubling is evident on the obverse in 15 places.
The coin is listed by CONECA as 1-O-IV." I see confusion there based upon the designation, but it is not a Class IV DDO. But it has been listed by CONECA for quite awhile as 1-O-IV + VIII, reflecting the tilted hub theory. So the reference to I-O-IV is not accurate anymore.

That is Ken's theory which is correct based upon the confirmation letter obtained by Ken years ago.

Next:

"This class of doubling, class IV
offset hub doubling, is not consistent with Potter's hypothesis."

That is a totally misleading and incorrect statement as Ken did not offer that as a hypothesis. Ken says this is a Class VIII Doubled Die, "Tilted Hub Doubling". Class IV (Offset Hub Doubling) doesn't enter into it.

Unfortunately, the author of the above website did not understand what was being said and mistakenly offered a "not so hot" explanation of the 1997 Doubled Ear cent , which has been accepted as a Doubled Die for a long time.

Thanks,
Bill

PS: please point me to the statement by John Wexler that you alluded to, I couldn't find anything by John on this coin in the statement you mentioned.