69s DDO or MD?

[mobyjobi]

Im not sure if this is MD or Doubling.

[coop]

Machine doubled. The doubling reduces the size of the device.

[jcuve]

Agreed...MD

[1jackel1]

I should no better to be saying this as i might open a can of worms with this statement lol. Somebody please explain to me in full detail as to why machine doubling,mechanical doubling, doctor md doubling, or what you want to call it is not considered an error in the minting process, i know it is not done in the hubbing process but however it is done at the mint from the machine producing the coin, this makes no since to me as we all know that all true errors and doubled dies do come from the mint. All machine doubling coins come from the mint too??? in my opinion it is an error because it is done in the process of making the coin even though it is ejected slide doubling and there are more reasons but i can think of them at the moment from coming out of the machine itself.

I have been doing this for a long time and we all still consider md as a non error but in reality ,it is. and only because it comes from the mint. I have many nice examples of these coins in my collection that are wide spread md and there are people that do collect them as an error and not a doubled die and there are people on the fence about it and i am one of them.

thank you for reading, now do not kick me lol

George

[GrumpyEd]

Nobody says MD is not an error, we say it's not a "die variety". Because the die could have produced a normal coin, the error is in the minting of the coin not in the making of the die that made the coin.

As far as being an error, yes it is but it's a very common error and more of a quality control issue and not worth anything unless it's extreme.

[georoxx]

People that collect them "as an error" are uninformed. The product (MD) has nothing to do with hubs or dies.

From Wexler's site: Unlike genuine doubled dies for which the doubling is on the die itself (hence the term “doubled die”), mechanical doubling is the result of loose parts in the coining press. These loose parts allow the dies to shift slightly at the moment of impact when the coin is being struck. This slight shifting of the dies is what causes the flat, shelf-like appearance of mechanical doubling.

Could go on, but you can search the net and find more info on it as well (or better, perhaps) than I.

-George

[coppercoins]

No can of worms necessary...

The proper term for it is "Machine Doubling" - it comes in different sub-forms that are all nearly identical in appearance, but are different in how they are made. At any rate, they are not errors because of tolerance. A certain amount of tolerance off the "perfect" coin is to be expected in a process that makes millions of pieces each working day, and one of those tolerances is in how perfectly the coins are struck.

Machine doubling happens when the machine isn't working 100% correctly - anywhere from a second kiss of the die to a loose die that bounces, or even cases where the coins stick to the die while being ejected. It is extremely common, which is the first reason why it is not collected for value - it's too common to warrant premium value.

Small die cracks, grease filled dies, and minor lamination peels are all clumped together in a family of minor anomalies that are expected parts of the normal minting process. While the coins are not "perfectly minted" they are inside the tolerance of what should be expected from the mint. Their purpose is to mint billions of coins we can use in commerce - it's not to mint perfect coins to the scrutiny of a microscope.

Die varieties are those things that happened to the die BEFORE it was placed into service. EVERY die goes through an inspection process by mint employees before they are hung on the press to make coins. Defective dies are removed from service and are never used. Without this step doubled dies would likely be a lot more common than they are, and with certainty it is safe to say that if the dies were not inspected as they are, we would have a LOT more very severe doubled dies to collect. Given that, doubled dies are not supposed to make it out of the mint, thus they are collected by those who like them and are worth a significant premium value considering the design is really the only thing wrong with them.

That last phrase is important - that the coins were minted normally with a die bearing a design flaw - that's what makes them "die varieties" and NOT "errors", which are coins that had something wrong happen in the minting process.

Anyhow, your coin - especially a 1969 cent, which seems to see its good share of machine doubled coins, is very, very common. They are literally all over the place. I could mail you a roll of them tomorrow - seriously. While they might make for a neat conversation piece, they are not worth any premium value because loose dies were the name of the game during that era and a LOT of coins came off the press with machine doubling.

Basically, as a whole subject, machine doubling is common. As an anomaly 'type' I could find one literally in every dollar worth of coins. True hub doubled dies come one in every hundred dollars or more worth of coins. They are just much more scarce because of the nature of how they happen...and that makes them valuable.

I hope this helps.

[georoxx]

Could go on, but you can search the net and find more info on it as well (or better, perhaps) than I.

-George

...or, you could just wait for Charles' always informative explanation.

-G

[coppercoins]

Coins that are not 'perfectly' minted but are minted completely within the tolerance of the mint are NOT errors to me...but that's just the way I look at it. There is a certain amount of 'give' in how coins are minted. Sitting around staring at them through microscopes trying to find the smallest thing wrong with them to call them 'errors' is a bit anal to me.

Just as I believe flyspeck doubling on a coin (like doubled columns, bar-Ls, and the like) is a bit anal on the die variety side. The ONLY reason they are listed on my site is out of an attempt to be thorough, comprehensive, and "complete" - not that I claim them to have value. This will be reflected in the values of the different extremely minor doubled dies listed on the site when the new version comes out. Many of them will have little premium value...they don't sell, thus they have very sparse history of collectible value. Anyhow, different subject.

[coppercoins]

"Sub-forms" of machine doubling are well explained in Simon's post elsewhere on this forum, but in very brief to have it all in one place:

Very specifically, all "machine doubling" happens during the time when coins are in the striking chamber being struck by their die pair and collar. Machine doubling happens TO THE COINS. Doubled dies happened TO THE DIE.

1. Strike doubling: Shows evidence that a die lifted off a coin, the coin moved a little, then the die came back down onto the coin in a slightly shifted position.

2. Die chatter: Happens when a die bounces due to being loose. It leaves a flattened appearance just like strike doubling, but the doubling is "dragged" out. Small drag lines show all throughout the "doubling".

3. Eject doubling: A coin gets stuck to the die and is popped out of place by the eject handler. The result is metal "scooped" sideways and scraped upward as the coin pops off the die. Identifiable by a raised, sharp ridge line along the "doubling"

Not necessarily "Machine Doubling" but worthy of inclusion here:

Abraded die doubling: Happens when a die is over-polished. Abrasive die cleaning tends to remove bits of metal in the direction the abrasion happens (usually with a metal brush). The result is 'humps' on the coin that loosely match the shape of their accompanied devices.

Die deterioration doubling: Comes in many forms, but is the result of die over-wear.

Split plating doubling: Happens on zinc cents, usually when worn dies over-strike a coin splitting the copper shell at the outsides of devices on the coin.

[coppercoins]

There...I'm done, unless there are additional questions.

Oh...and MY personal feel for what is and what is not an error is not up for debate. I have thought long and hard about it and this is the way it is for me and whatever I write. You are more than welcome to disagree if you like, but there's no need to argue the point with me. You won't change me

[simonm]

I consider any coin that was not struck as originally intended (as in something that was not intended in the original design) to have an anomaly.
I consider any anomaly that is not within expected mint tolerances to be an error, and by that note, I feel that varieties are a subset of what I would call an "error", as they are a product of something that was not originally intended.

That's just my opinion on it. I think Bob had a great thread a few months back pertaining to "what constitutes an error".

[coppercoins]

That's a good definition that generally fits where I see it. I guess my only issue with the terminology is that 'anomaly' fits any error or die variety because they are 'not normal', which is basically the definition of 'anomaly'.

'Anomaly' is a union of the subsets 'errors' and 'die varieties' as well as the tiny little things that aren't exactly normal, but aren't completely unexpected either.

I mean, 'anomaly' fits, but I think it fits a much larger group of coins.

[Amadauss]

Is there any place, where you can find out when a die had a flaw thus creating a double die when used, that gives the date and the amount of coins that might have gotten out of the mint as a double die before discovered?

[coppercoins]

No. They only kept record of how many dies were used, and how many coins each struck. No information at all regarding what variety (large or small date) or whether the die had doubling on it. If they knew about the doubling, the die never would have made coins in many cases.

This is why nobody knows the mintage figures for 1960 small and large date coins. There was no record kept of the change.