| Author |
 Replies: 15 / Views: 1,964 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1442 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
219 Posts |
Absolutely beautiful! It's always nice to have a coin that's the finest in the pop report.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5589 Posts |
Isn't that what we all have referred to as "round-the-clock" doubling. I don't think that it is DDO punch doubling, by definition. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1101 Posts |
I think Dr. Haxby's "mixed font" best describes this variety.
That is a beautiful coin!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5589 Posts |
Yes, Phil ... the vast majority of offsets on an 1881 is machine or Mechanical Doubling and not doubling due to the die. There are some hand repunchings as well. I have been looking around for an article that I read that gave a good, introductory explanation of some of the different types of "doubling". Here is the article by J.T. Stanton, which was posted on Coinbidders.com that gives an overview. What he calls " Strike Doubling" is what most of us refer to as Machine or Mechanical Doubling. The latest opinion of most of the error/variety experts consider this type of doubling to be "post or after strike", as the die is lifting off the planchet and, as such, is really not hub or die doubling. This doubling has nothing to do with the die .. it is where the working die is a little loose in the carrier or holder. And this is why I think the PCGS was/is wrong in saying that the coin in this thread is DDO .. it's not. http://www.coinbidders.com/Strike%2...0-%20PDF.pdfEdited by okiecoiner
02/20/2017 4:10 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1923 Posts |
Nice CV that was a huge upgrade from ICCS/CCCS grades I have one in ICCS MS-62 and ICCS AU-55 but of the lighter punch doubling around the clock coins.
I'm thinking of sending some of my coins in to PCGS that I think are under graded by ICCS MS-64 that I think should have graded MS-65
CV have you sent in any higher graded coins to PCGS I have a couple MS-67 coins in ICCS certs I wonder how they would grade them.
Edited by papeldog
02/20/2017 10:18 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1442 Posts |
papeldog...I dont recall sending any coins to PCGS that were higher than MS64...and some of my ICCS MS64s didn't cross-over (New Brunswick 5c 1862 and 1864 ICCS MS64 didn't cross at PCGS)
I've had good experience crossing over MS60-MS63 Victoria coins
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1442 Posts |
PCGS is getting several of the Victoria Large Cent Varieties wrong...but when in Rome...  |
|
Moderator
 Canada
10458 Posts |
Quote:Isn't that what we all have referred to as "round-the-clock" doubling. I don't think that it is DDO punch doubling, by definition. Look at the serifs in the I of VICTORIA. That is definitely a doubled die obverse. I suspect there are many variations of Doubled Die Obverses out there.... "Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert OppenheimerContent of this post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses...0/deed.en_USMy eBay store
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4868 Posts |
Very nice!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5589 Posts |
SPP ... The I in Victoria was handpunch corrected into the die. Just look at the difference between the I and the C or T. The majority of the offsets on the 1881's are not DDO, as I posted earlier. As Phil says from past Dr Haxby posts .. he calls them "mixed fonts", but the offsets in the '81's are really more of a "mixed cause", because most of the fonts are the same, but the offsets go in all directions. It's why I think that the '81's and 82's are as much fun as the '59's. It's too bad that the 81/82 didn't have 10 million minted or we would have as many varieties as the '59's, but mostly on the Obverse rather than reverse. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1442 Posts |
i sent a 1881H "Round the clock doubling" in ICCS MS65 to PCGS as well...under their DDO label... 100% agree they shouldn't call it " DDO"...I've seen Louis use "Doubling of Legend" or "Partial doubling of legend" there are 7 or 8 very distinct types of "doubling of legend" for the 1881H that are easily identifiable by my count... I think the PCGS " DDO" label will become an umbrella term for these 7 or 8 different varieties |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1101 Posts |
1881's are a really fun date, and there are a number of varieties that would be "Double Dies" (2 or more impressions from the same punch) or some that could be more accurately described as "Dual Dies" (2 or more impressions from different punches). This variety doesn't fit either of those categories. The letters were repunched in the die as okiecoiner says above. Quote:
Just look at the difference between the I and the C or T. These letters were punched with letter punches that were a different font (as Dr. Haxby has said) from the original letters on the die. I suspect someone picked up the wrong letter punches that day and proceeded to make a wonderful variety for us collectors. Which letter punches were they? Quarter maybe? I don't know, but that would be a fun project for someone to figure out. Those three letter punches ( I, C, and T) were shorter in height than the original letters. The C is more closed and the T has longer serifs than the original. The A's were also repunched on this die. Maybe someone can do some overlays and solve this mystery? Edited by Phil310
02/21/2017 08:47 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5589 Posts |
The real bugaboo about the 1881's of this type is that there was also Mechanical Doubling readily apparent(on this and other 1881 strikes) .. plus the repunching with "good" punches, and some with an incorrect punch of a different font/size. Forget that I brought all this up. It was just more of my opinions about the accuracy of some TPG certs that are coming around ... grade creep, failure to put marks/corrosion in remarks, and evidence of cleaning. C-V's 1881 just happened to come up .. a great looking coin that I didn't think was ID'd correctly. No harm, no foul. Sorry |
|
Valued Member
Canada
284 Posts |
That is one lovely coin! Congratulations. 1881 is my favorite year for varieties on large cents, such an interesting year.
|
|
Moderator
Canada
10458 Posts |
Quote: The I in Victoria was handpunch corrected into the die. Just look at the difference between the I and the C or T. The majority of the offsets on the 1881's are not DDO, as I posted earlier. Bill, the die is doubled, and would be classified by anyone as a Doubled Die Obverse ( DDO). That conclusion is drawn from the net result, i.e., the coin being struck with clearly doubled devices. It is not just a single element that is doubled on this coin, there are split serifs and notching of elements all over the legend. While there is minor Machine Doubling in this particular coin, like the A in REGINA, no Machine Doubling or Die Deterioration Doubling could ever create the top serif in the I of DEI, the notching of the bottom serif in I of GRATIA. That classification of being a DDO, is completely independent of how it was doubled, whether from an offset die sinking process (like the 1974 nickel dollars), or hand punched by someone who needed new glasses (like this coin). As I said earlier, I suspect there are several variations of DDO for this coin, by both mechanical and hand-applied methods... "Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert OppenheimerContent of this post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses...0/deed.en_USMy eBay store
|
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 1,964 |
|
Posted 02/20/2017 05:43 am
