2005 D US Nickel DDO?

@ numidan

I like your explanations, except you do not mention Machine Doubling. We have three kind: Strike Doubling ( Die Deterioration), Machine Doubling and Mechanical Doubling.

I like the way you explain and show. From a long time me and others we question the attribution of MD. For me in 95 % of the case is wrong, and this from the pure physical, mechanical, molecular points of view.

Thank you come to show what science can find.

What Soft you use for those studies?

all my respect
Silvio

PS: NUMIDIAN please PM me I want to talk with you. Fantastic study.

@numidan BTW, the correct terminology is doubled die, not double die.

A little late to this thread, so it's a little hard to parse through all this information now.

But I'd still like to give my opinion on this one. I feel strongly that this is Die Deterioration, not a doubled die.

Very clearly a late die state coin with heavy die flow and rougher surfaces and certainly not Machine Doubling as you have noted.

That 2011-D example you referenced is a great example because similar doubling shows on both sides of the coin. You can't see it on the obverse because the lettering closest to the center is only on one half of the face, but on the reverse you can really get a sense for the direction of the doubling. Notice how the doubling is always towards the center of the coin. If it were a doubled die, this means the die or the hub would have had to physically expand or contract to have doubling with that trait. Now this is possible because of metal expanding and contracting from heating (see Class II doubled dies) but doubling caused by that would not show anywhere near the center of the coin, it would be confined to the lettering at the very edge, and it is likely that class of doubled die was eliminated with the introduction of the single-squeeze hubbing process in the late 1990s.

Yeah they definitely didn't eliminate the doubled die entirely, but certainly made some classes unlikely to ever occur again.

Though I am now reminded of a recent discovery: http://www.varietyvista.com/04d%20J...2PDDO001.htm

Probably the only plausible Class II/VI doubled die from the single-squeeze era I've seen, which reasonably should not exist.

But that die is what you would expect from a doubled die caused by thermal expansion/contraction of the die or hub, doubling exclusively on the lettering or design near the rim in a direction perpendicular to the rim. It wouldn't be centrally located.

I'm not too familiar with the differences between the Canadian and American mints, though there are probably some slight differences. We never see any doubled dies like those two you posted with such strong separation lines, normally it's just thickness and vague split serifs if not tiny and at the very center. Though the direction of the spread is very similar to what we see here, all of the doubling is in some random but consistent direction.

Not on the same coin but the directions are different. The top image has the doubling towards the edge of the coin (slightly rotated anti-clockwise) and the bottom image the doubling is towards the center of the coin (slightly rotated anti-clockwise).


Just curious.

Did anyone notice the differences in curvature of the field of nickels produced before 2004 and those after?

Did the mint make changes to the slope of the pointed shape of the working die rods used as shown in image below? Does someone have a recent picture of a working die rod?


source:https://doubleddie.com/58222.html