2005 D Kansas Quarter Double Buffalo Head

Hmm, not completely sure on this one. How does it compare in hand with the mint photo?

Hmm.. could be, as Coop says, the doubling is in the center of the coin, So I'm going to see what Coop has to say on this one.

Yep no prob at all @bill—we are all learning here. I'm not sure on this one—MD vs. a DD.

I agree, medium/high bounce Machine Doubling. Note the affected area is moved. (A sure sign of Machine Doubling) On a site, that has the DDR's on that design, there are none on that design:
https://www2.briansvarietycoins.com/listings/cat/8
Just on the Ocean View examples. TO the design probably won't have a DDR on the reverse. (Sometimes the design that would be affected, can be is there is no design that could be doubled on that area) Or none have been found yet.
But on your coin this is just Machine Doubling.

This is a quarter not a nickel. Ocean in view is a nickel. I don't see any difference between the first and second quarter. Maybe the first is a little stronger strike?

I think the peoples around do not understand that the era of double dies is 97% end. From the 2000 the dies was done by CNC procedure so no more Hubbs etc. MD or bounce yes but double dies? almost none. Some times at mint they rework the dies, and then some design deficiencies could happened. It is not the case of this coin.

@Doug: Before 2000 in fact 1999 was use we can say as no harm to production and test. I agree some could be attribute as Double Die and this is just when they rework the dies. I know the interview, I know others discussions prior of this interview.




In fact the community will go ahead with DD instead redesign doubling or re-design or maybe reworked die error.

I remember I has with the regretted Bert, Ken and Will an discussion about new names attributions, and we find that the community refuse to accept. So let say Double Die.