Another 1917-P Lincoln Cent DDO FS-101?

A couple other photos

Not so much. Please look at the two dates side-by-side. Notice how the 7 is equally thick on both dates?

Anyway, thickness alone is not a very robust criterion for calling it one way or the other because a difference in thickness can reflect differences in die wear.


*** I edited your post a bit to get your images s-de-by-side ***

I'm just seeing circulation flattening here.

When people aren't sure about an attribution but still feel the need to register an opinion, I've noticed a tendency to raise a single objection and then present it in a one-sided manner that supports a particular point.


For example:.


1. " It looks like Mechanical Doubling" ... while altogether ignoring doubling elsewhere on the same coin that is clearly not mechanical

2. "The doubling isn't very impressive" .... while altogether ignoring doubling elsewhere on the same coin that is much more impressive (say the doubling of "WE")

3. "The details are much smaller .... or much larger ... than they should be otherwise" without
citing an example to support the position.


I'm not sure if many people participating in this forum are aware of it but not too long ago there was only ONE major 1936-P Lincoln Cent obverse doubled die variety, and there was only ONE major 1941-P Lincoln Cent obverse doubled die variety, and seeing a 1943/2-S steel cent was the result of an active imagination or overzealous use of the scope.


Does anybody want to factor in the doubling on the motto? Or would that just make it too complicated. ... Or for that matter, the U-M die marker on the reverse?

Hey bud they are sure that it is not fs-101. They are just being nice. Thats why I said look at the 9. I wanted you to figure it out yourself.

A couple of quick items to point out:

1. Using PCGS to attribute varieties is not optimal. Their photos are designed to highlight the entire coin rather than the specifics of the variety. Variety Vista and Wexler have fantastic detailed up close photos of the elements of the variety that will serve your goal much better.

2. VV and Wexler both have detailed descriptions of what makes the coin a variety that PCGS lacks completely. In this instance, both sites describe the doubling as:




Your coin should show ALL of the described doubling to be attributed, or it should have a very good reason why some of it is missing (such as damage, wear, etc.)

3. In regard to this coin, you appear to be relying strictly on the Motto and the Date as you haven't included photos of the doubling present on any of the other elements.

4. The coin shows significant circulation flattening on most of the devices shown. The 7, for instance, shows a enlarged upper bar on the doubled variety but a normal thickness lower member. On this coin I see the entire 7 as enlarged. If so, then it suggests that other elements may be enlarged due to flattening rather than doubling as well.

5. I don't see any doubling on the US of TRUST, and the second T appears clearly to have been hit and flattened as the left side of the lower member widens as it flattens.

There are other items that could be pointed out, but I don't want to belabor the point. Attributing varieties on worn coins is a crap shoot at best as so many of the signs and markers are lost. The consensus here appears to be that this coin doesn't show enough evidence to support your conclusion.

You may be right and the others here (including me) may be wrong. If you are correct, good on you as that would be an excellent find.

But you should be mindful of whether you are asking for others to offer their opinion or to proffer their agreement. You'll always get lots of the former but shouldn't get upset and call people names when you don't get any of the latter.