1982 Copper LD DDO / DDR

yessir..it is 2.95

First of all, I apologize, I only gave the very first weight and after calibration found my scale had been off by a gram..next 3 weights all came in at 3.05..secondly if you view the coin types of brown 1982 coppers, you can clearly see the similarities..i have been told by people on this forum before in the past that sometimes the doubling can be so close its next to impossible to see wven with a microscope and you have to go with the height and width as well as loss of crisp defined edges of devices..designer initials also can be tell tale when merged and distended obscenly beyond typical. So ive been told.

So you're telling me Merc that the thickness absurd size of devices compared to most coins is normal? My 82 SDs look like a third of the size and most of my LDs are the same..ugh so confusing

Here's the best advice I can offer. Forget looking for error coins, collect whatever denominations/series you like and if you happen to come across an abnormal coin, THEN bring it to us to ask about it. Most coins are NOT error coins; error coins are rare. You can look though thousands of coins and not find an error/ variety coin among them. Collect and have fun doing so, it will be less frustrating for you and more rewarding in the end. Feel free to ask questions but just work on building your coin collections and you'll have more fun doing so. Bonne chance!

Also, if you are going by the thickness of the numbers alone, remember that they will only show that in one direction. not in every direction. Meaning if the thickness is uniform (but thick) throughout the entire number then you could call it normal and not doubling.
Now that being said, if the coin die was heavily polished, then the number will show a thickening to them. (The numbers that are incused into the die are tapered - wider the deeper it goes) This helps to facilitated the removal of the new coin from the press.

THAT was excellent advice from y'all!! THANK YOU! Yeah ive been frustrating myself LOOKING for errors rather than seperating, making sets and then discovering anomalies...that sounds much more relaxed for sure..thanks guys, appreciate y'all!