When Did ...

[dvn]

Thanks for clarifying Bob.

I have always wondered, as I'm sure others have at some time or another, why so few or for that matter no listings of doubled dies on years that have a major DDO.

Take for instance 1969. Major DDO, but do we have any doubled dies for the reverse for that year? Take 1970, Major DDO, do we have any doubled dies for the reverse for that year? The year 1971 made some super strong DDOs, but again, any reverse doubled dies for that year? Better yet, how about 1972? Yep, another major DDO plus a ton of other DDOs to go with it, but again, do we have any doubled dies for the reverse for 1972?

Are not the reverse dies multiple-hubbed like the obverse dies during those years? If they had majors during those years for the obverses, why no DDRs? Not even a minor one? What was the Mint doing to get it right for the reverse but messing up big-time doubled dies for the obverse hubbings during those years?

Billy

[mustbebob]

Good questions Billy. I do know that unless the reverse dies were due for a design change, they could be made continuously all at one time and used in any year the design was still in effect. The very years you mentioned were all using the RDV-002, but yet the previous and subsequent years did indeed have DDRs reported. Very interesting indeed. Maybe the quality control was exceptional? During those same years, the great diversity of DDOs would seem to suggest that the same people who hubbed the reverse dies were either in a hurry, or didn't work on the obverse dies. I guess we will never know huh??

[dvn]

Good questions Billy. I do know that unless the reverse dies were due for a design change, they could be made continuously all at one time and used in any year the design was still in effect. The very years you mentioned were all using the RDV-002, but yet the previous and subsequent years did indeed have DDRs reported. Very interesting indeed. Maybe the quality control was exceptional? During those same years, the great diversity of DDOs would seem to suggest that the same people who hubbed the reverse dies were either in a hurry, or didn't work on the obverse dies. I guess we will never know huh??

This coin was sent in to me for examination and attribution.

Top photo has arrows #1 and #2 pointing to what looks like could be an extra right leg (viewer's left) of the statue. Arrow #3 points to what looks like the remnants of the other knee located between the statue's legs.

Bottom photo is the same but with an overlay of the statue shifted and superimposed over those remnants.

Another thing that is very interesting is take a look at column #7. It has a curving inward along that same length of where those extra remnants are. We see this type of curving inward on many of the doubled extra columns and/or statue doubling on our modern-day coinage (which is "single-squeeze" process) we all have listed in our files as DDR's.

The coin is a 1969-S Lincoln cent proof.

Billy

[mustbebob]

Now that's very interesting. I am sure you have probably seen some 1970-1972 business strike coins that appear to have that same 'curve'. I very seldom pay any attention to them, but now I might have to have another look. Thanks for the pics Billy. They give me something else to concentrate on.

[kloccwork419]

Wow. Im always amazed by you roverlays Billy. Either that or jealous..lolo

Isnt there somewhere or someone you can email to have an exact answer? Theres got to be someone in the minting process that can be reached

[Wheat Cents]

This has indeed been a great thread to follow this evening Billy, Thanks

Boy this is going to be a good thread...

This has indeed been a great thread to follow this evening Billy !

A most enjoyable and educational experience..

Thanks .

[fugnchill]

Hi Bob,

I just happen to be going through some of the BU 1970 rolls that I have and noticed the curved column right away so I checked for doubling but couldn't find any. The Lincolns on my coins seem a little mushy possibly due to grease or fatigue.

Lestrrr

[1sgret]

Wow. Im always amazed by you roverlays Billy. Either that or jealous..lolo

Isnt there somewhere or someone you can email to have an exact answer? Theres got to be someone in the minting process that can be reached

The mint is very particular and will not give out any information.

[Wheat Cents]

The mint is very particular ...

Yes "Particular" and "Peculiar"

[1sgret]

Yes "Particular" and "Peculiar"

Don't want to give away GOVERNMENT Secrets!!!!

[trails]

The government is very tight lipped about giving out any information concerning how they make coins. I met a dead-end trying to find out why trails happened and all I could get was that they knew of the anomaly and had no plans to study why or what caused it. Seemed that they were happy to let the "sleeping dog lay".

As to single squeeze hubbing. It has been around for countless years, ever since the early 1800, the only problem was that it did not give the relief wanted on a coin. So, subsequent hubbings were involved to strengthen the design.

The one thing to understand about the metal used in making hubs and dies is when pressure is applied, due to its atomic structure, it becomes more brittle as the pressure increases. Areas of "dislocations" form that causes brittleness and the only way to rid the metal of these dislocations is to anneal the metal (soften the metal through the application of heat). Do not confuse this with tempering which involves the same process but requires a different cooling period to produce the desired results.

So, after the initial hubbing, the die had to be annealed to rid it of dislocations caused by pressure. Once the die had going through the annealing process, it could then be re-hubbed. That was the old method or multiple hubbing and the annealing process was the time consuming part of it.

Somehow the MINT found a way to make an adequate die using only one hubbing. When pressure is applied to the metal, the compression of the metal produces heat from the movement of the atoms against each other (friction). This heat may have been enough to counter balance the formation of dislocations, however, this is just my thoughts on the process. One thing though, in the single squeeze process of hubbing more pressure would be needed to the hub for the desired relief wanted in the coin. So, with more pressure, you had great friction, great heat and the dislocations were possible held in balance. If this is the case, then the die did not become to brittle during the hubbing process. And thus, the single squeeze system of hubbing was created. Again, this is pure conjecture on my part, but it is very plausible when you think of the hubbing process and how dies (hubs) are made.

If by adding extra pressure to the hub makes the trails happen, then we can begin to see why the formation of trails could have happened much earlier on. If I do remember, extra pressure was applied to the hub for the making of proof dies that required a more of a relief in the coin. And lets face it, the worn master dies of the 1960's produced ill defined features at best on the obverse dies.

As Bob pointed out, in multiple hubbing trails may have been obliterated during the second hubbing and that just maybe true, however, we must consider that the second or third hubbing could have produced trails as well. If so, what happened to them? Or is it the case that at times (including the 1963 Canadian nickel), the MINT used an over pressurized hydraulic system on the hubs to produce the desired effect for more relief on a die?

We will probably never know the whys, ifs and whens of all the nuances of the single squeeze hubbing system, but it is fun to speculate what happens when that die (hub) is made. We can apply educated guesses to the gaps of learning left blank by the MINT and in doing so, find the truth.

BJ Neff

[1sgret]

Interesting Theory BJ. Thanks!!!!!!!!