1983-D Lincoln with possible double ear.

[mustbebob]

Thanks for the lesson Wendell, but after 43 years in the hobby, I think I know a little bit about the hubbing process. I did state that we were CLOSE to the center of the die not at it. Using the conical shape of the die, the first place affected would indeed be the beard. What concerns me is that this anomaly shifts pretty far south from the ear lobe. As far as class 8 DDs during multiple hubbings, which hubbing it occurred on does make a difference. If it were (and we assume it did snap back) made on the initial hubbing, any subsequent hubbing that was correct would obliterate some or all of the anomaly, especially in the area of the ear lobe.
Anyway, this is neither here nor there for me. I have not seen one in hand, and therefore, will withhold any judgment. My opinion right now is that I am uncertain it is a doubled die. Even though a duplicate has been found, that doesn't necessarily make it a doubled die.

[DoubleYou]

Absolutely right. I agree. I'm not sure of it myself. That's what you experts are for!

[mustbebob]

Too bad we couldn't be flies on the walls when all these were made. It would sure help explain a lot!

[dvn]

Too bad we couldn't be flies on the walls when all these were made. It would sure help explain a lot!

Tell me about it Bob! You got that right!

Billy (dvn)

[DoubleYou]

Amen!

Wendell

[Roller]

Looks like Wendell's specimen ... there's your dupe!

Billy (dvn)

Don't be discouraged. Who knows who's right. And, in any event, we are having fun.

[DoubleYou]

That's the thing Roller: we can't know who's right. We can only examine the evidence and try to come to a conclusion. No matter what comes out of it, the point is: we had fun.

I feel like preaching a sermon!

Wendell Carper

[dvn]

Don't be discouraged. Who knows who's right. And, in any event, we are having fun.

I think your misreading what I'm saying. I'm not encouraged nor discouraged, I'm neutral since I haven't examined the specimen. Wendell pointed out that Wexler has examined his coin and he wanted to see another duplicate of it. Now we know there is a duplicate specimen.

Billy (dvn)

[DoubleYou]

If there is any misreading, it has to do with the term "dupe." Normally we don't substitute dupe for duplicate. Dupe normally has a far worse meaning, but I understood what you were saying. And I don't think Roller was talking to you, dvn, when he was talking about discouragement. But who cares? Numismatics is fun, not discouraging! Otherwise I'd be in a different hobby!

Wendell Carper

[dvn]

If there is any misreading, it has to do with the term "dupe." Normally we don't substitute dupe for duplicate. Dupe normally has a far worse meaning, but I understood what you were saying. And I don't think Roller was talking to you, dvn, when he was talking about discouragement. But who cares? Numismatics is fun, not discouraging! Otherwise I'd be in a different hobby!

Wendell Carper

Well excuse the heck out of me. Just to clarify all on this forum, when I say dupe it means a duplicate working die.

And when you say, "And I don't think Roller was talking about you, dvn, when he was talking about discouragement." then why the heck did he QUOTE me????

Billy (dvn)

[DoubleYou]

I think he cited you because you gave a definite determination that his coin and my coin came from the same die.

Now please don't get this thread off track!
__________________
Wendell Carper

[dvn]

I think he cited you because you gave a definite determination that his coin and my coin came from the same die.

Now please don't get this thread off track!
__________________
Wendell Carper

That's not the way you presented it in your post.

You asked for opinions in this thread. Opinions were given. If you don't like the opinions then don't ask and don't preach to someone who has many more years experience.

Billy (dvn)

[DoubleYou]

Dear Billy Crawford,

I'm sorry that I've offended you. I merely was trying to get off the "dupe" and "discouraged" topic. I embrace your opinions with open arms, and indeed they are all absolutely great, far better than mine. I know I have much less experience than you. That's why I posted it. I was not saying that I didn't want your opinions. I'm sorry if I in any way made it sound like that. I'm not the best writer in the world, and sometimes I don't use the most succinct phrases. Will you forgive me, dvn?

I actually was trying to compliment you. In college, we "cite" references in our papers and have a "Works Cited" page at the end. When I say "cite," I recognize that you are an authority in the matter for which you were cited.

Indeed, it is thanks to your expertise that I am a die variety collector today.

I am profusely sorry that this has happened, and I do hope you will forgive me.

Sincerely,
Wendell Carper

[Roller]

That's the one. I'd recognize it anywhere. Your photos were not as good, so naturally it didn't appear to be so. I'll email John Wexler and see what he says.

By the way, where is the discussion you posted three weeks ago? I'd like to read it.

Thanks for the compliment on my photos. (It is true.) I hope you are right. "Discussion" is, sometimes, a euphemism. But I do rely on the experts on this site. They have been right on my questins so far. Allowing for human error, I keep the ones I find interesting despite opinion.

[Roller]

Wow! This thread is getting way out of line. I'm considered an expert in a few things (not numismatics or anything related) and I try to tolerate pilgrims. No need for a thin skin. Lets get back to the topic. I'm happy to send my coin to anyone (expert) who wants to see it.