1956 d ddo 1 - VOTE NOW!!!

[Brad]

When the "You Make the Call" forum was added to this site, the intention was to discuss Controversial Die Varieties like the 1956 D DDO 1. In the early days of the forum we had Polls about different varieties. The polls were not very successful - probably because we only had about 10 members.

Anyhow, I found this coin in a roll, and I would like to try this again.

This is an opportunity for you to give your opinion. You do not need to be an expert to vote. Is the so-called 1956 D DDO 1 a doubled die or something else?

[kloccwork419]

Im voting no. I dont see any doubling at all

[corroded]

Billy calls it a CRPD-001 in his book.
Wexler calls it a WRPD-001.
Reckon they know, but why just the five? "5"?

[JonMN34]

Looks more like a dropped digit or something of the sort than a repunched date

[unc-usf-fsu]

I'm with Jason, I don't see any doubling.

[mustbebob]

I do not believe it to be a repunched date, or a doubled die. Dates were engraved...not punched at this time. This one has been giving me fits for years now, but I believe it to be nothing more than die gouges or damage. That being said, I still have 4 of them in my collection.

[jcuve]

When I first saw pictures of this coin last year I really wanted one - that is until I read BJ's article about the three 49S DDOs and how he discussed the theory that digits weren't punched rather they were engraved. My subsequent observations and common sense told me this was correct and I decided I was not paying a bunch of $$ for this coin unless it was pretty cheap (and used for reference purposes.)

I am no expert but I guess for it to be a doubled die, it would have to have been a severily rotated and greatly misaligned hubbing for an extra five to be turned that far AND still be in the approximate location of the normal five - which would be hard to beleive - I am guessing that's why it was originally thought to have been a re-used master die.

So no, at this juncture as interesting as it is, I no longer think it is a doubled die.

[fugnchill]

Looking at the attached picture I would definitely toss it in the return pile (No DDO). I believe there is a BU example out there though which could be more convincing. The top corner of the 5 took a hit and pushed the metal up. The lower corner of the 5 has the dark shadow sliding S.W. which the other digits have also and possibly a little on the MM. I generally look for a rounded secondary image with separation of the digit and serif (This explains why I'm horrible at class VI doubled dies).
This looks more like the die or planchet slid into place at initial contact.

Lestrrr

[trails]

I have written a few paragraphs concerning this particular die and as hard as I have tried to make it a doubled die, it just does not fit.

If the 5 digit had been towards the center of the die, then like other single squeeze dies, this may have happened. But, it is not so. The theory behind the extra portion of the rotated 5 digit is the dropped punch on the master die. I question this for two reasons; first, I do not think that a dropped punch would leave that much of an indent in the die surface. And second; I do not believe that the numbers were punched into the die surface, but actually engraved.

Th e big question about engraving is. "can work that small be done". If we look back at the Lincoln cent before the 1969 galvano change, we see examples of engraving done on both LIBERTY and IN GOD WE TRUST. These changes were not put into the 1909 galvano, but into the master die for that year of change. So, the answer is definitely "yes", engraving work that small can be done.

As for the argument that an overlay is an exact match for the rotated 5 digit to the regular 5 digit, this to is faulty. Yes, the junction's angle, where the upper vertical bar meets the horizontal bar does fit, however, the horizontal bar is to long on the rotated 5 digit. So, it is not an exact match as many believe it to be.

I have talked to Dr. Wiles about the CONECA listing for this die and he now feels that it was not a damaged master die that was used, however, beyond that he is unsure what has happened. I do know that both Chuck Daughtrey and Bob Piazza feel that this anomaly is die gouges, the same way that I also feel.

It may take a meeting of the minds to finally de-bunk this die from the ranks of doubled die status.

BJ Neff

[tmawhit]

I found one of these the other day--studied it until my eyes crossed and then threw it into my wheat recycle ben. It is now out there in a bag being sold as unsearched wheats at some coin show.

From my looking at one up close and personal, I don't think it was a DD, but I should have kept it. :(

Tom W.

[fugnchill]

I need to correct what I said earlier (above), I don't know why I was looking at the shadowing of the 5. I didn't even see the die chips and gouge last night...curious!

I knew I had seen higher grade examples. Here's Brians example:
http://www.briansvarietycoins.com/shop/cat/1#
I checked Billy Crawfords work on it also. He has the overlay posted and it is close.

Looking at the closer pics, It does look like die chips and a die gouge. Interesting locations though.

Lestrrr

[jcuve]

I want to reiterate the points I raised in my earlier post but include some graphics.

The first overlay shows a second five fitting over most of the second supposed five. Hopefully you can see what (I think) BJ meant by the two not matching up completely; the back side of the five is off a tad and the top of the supposed five extends well beyond where it should be.

The second overlay shows the entirety of the coin and how drastically off the earlier hubbing would have had been for a second five to be found in that location. Has there ever been a documented doubled die that off? ...I doubt it.

http://i732.photobucket.com/albums/ww322/jcuve/56dcomp02copy.jpg

http://i732.photobucket.com/albums/ww322/jcuve/56dcomp01copy.jpg

[trails]

You are correct in your assessment Jason and nice overlays.

The rotation between primary and secondary image would seem impossible for a hubbing mishap and that is the reason behind the dropped punch theory. This theory basically came from the IHP period where a 1 digit was found in Liberty's neck (yes it is Liberty and not an Indian). The rational was that if it could happen then, why not again in 1956.

Yes, the IHP period was where the MINT did punch in the date, evident by all the misplaced digits and repunched dates. Oddly enough, the last year for these type varsities was in 1908 for the 1909 IHP does not have a MPD or RPD, nor does any Lincoln cent. Could it have been that the MINT started engraving the date with the 1909 IHP?

BJ Neff

[trails]

Dr. James Wiles has chimed in on this die and his much valued opinion is the same as mine. This is the link.

http://board.conecaonline.org/showthread.php?p=7294&posted=1#post7294

This virtually ends this die as being an sort of doubled die and as you can see, Dr. Wiles has removed it frm the CONECA listing.

For those of you who do have this die, please do not be discouraged and throw it into the unwanted wheat pile. This is still a unique die and worthy of a special spot in any variety Lincoln cent collection. That is where mine is and that is where it will stay.

BJ Neff

[Brad]

I agree. Just because a coin is not a doubled die or rpm does not mean it cannot have value. There are other die gouge coins that have premiums....the best example being the 1890 CC tailbar morgan.

[coppercoins]

First of all there's simply no way this could be a doubled die. It just doesn't fit.

Second, it's not a repunched date. No such thing exists on Lincoln cents.

It's die damage. A tooling mark on the die.

[dvn]

I'm glad all you people were there to witness exactly what happened that proves it's not a valid listing for your files.

I'll continue to list in my files.

Billy (dvn)

[trails]

Just to reiterate what Chuck has said, "It is not a repunched date". The punching of the date into the working die stopped for all denominations in 1908. From that point on, all dates were engraved into the master die.

BJ Neff

[coppercoins]

The mark on the die is squared-off. The outside edge of the 5 of the date is squared-off. That's where the comparison ends. There is NO evidence of the curve of the 5 below. There is NO evidence showing the end of the top of the digit...it just fades off.

We could take ANY squared-off device and stick it in that spot and claim that's what it is and it would be somewhat convincing. That's why logic comes into play.

And no, I wasn't there to witness what happened at the mint, and I find such statements of accusation to be rather uncalled for.

[1jackel1]

I have to agree with Bob on this one, those dates were engraved and i find it impossible to be a double die. so i am voting no. i believe this to be die cracks or gouges from the minting process and probable early in the minting.

George

[corroded]

It's an orphan and I have soft spot for orphans. I will keep mine also.

[dvn]

The mark on the die is squared-off. The outside edge of the 5 of the date is squared-off. That's where the comparison ends. There is NO evidence of the curve of the 5 below. There is NO evidence showing the end of the top of the digit...it just fades off.

We could take ANY squared-off device and stick it in that spot and claim that's what it is and it would be somewhat convincing. That's why logic comes into play.

And no, I wasn't there to witness what happened at the mint, and I find such statements of accusation to be rather uncalled for.

I have attached two images of the specimen I examined. The top image has arrows indicating various points on the underlying remnants that are crucial areas. Arrow #1 points to the end of the horizontal bar lower right corner. Arrow #2 points to the top left corner. Arrow #3 points to the upper left side. Arrow #4 points to the bottom left diagonal end section. You mention, "There is NO evidence of the curve of the 5 below." I have to totally disagree. The specimen I examined exhibits a partial segment of the remnants protruding outward below the curve of the primary "5" digit. This is pointed out with Arrow #5.

The second attached image is the same but with an overlay of the primary digit "5" rotated and superimposed over the underlying remnants. I could discount this as being some die gouge or some "squared-off device" if only a couple of the crucial points just so happened to accidentally match or line-up.

However, when ALL 5 arrow points match up ALL at the same time and to ALL the exact same crucial positions, that is not just some lucky coincidence. To me, ALL 5 crucial points matching is overwhelming evidence the underlying remnants are segments of a "5" digit.

It has been mentioned that, "'It is not a repunched date'. The punching of the date into the working die stopped for all denominations in 1908. From that point on, all dates were engraved into the master die." This maybe true, or it may not be true. Speaking only for myself -- I don't know, and as been seen on various varieties throughout the Lincoln cent series, strange things have happened. But to use only that reasoning by itself would not just simply automatically eliminate what is seen on this working die.

Another example that I have in my files and is illustrated in The Cherrypickers' Guide to Rare Die Varieties by Bill Fivaz and J.T. Stanton is the 1934 Lincoln cent on page 101 assigned as FS-01-1934-101 (formerly FS-013.79). In the guide under description states, "The remnants of a secondary 3 and 4 are evident below the primary digits."

The only thing I disagree with their description is I do not see those remnants as a 3 and 4, but rather, I see those remnants as the digits 9 and 3.

Attached is two images of that 1934 Lincoln cent listing. The arrow #1 points to remnants of the lower curving tale of the digit "9" while arrows #2 and #3 point to the remnants of the "3" digit. The bottom photo uses the those two digits superimposed over those remnants. I see a match to the remnants to include the correct spacing between the two digits.

If to deny that the 1956-D Lincoln cent as some die gouge, or squared-off tooling, or whatever anomaly, then one must deny the 1934-D Lincoln cent in what is evident on that working die. I simply can't do that. As an attributer, I must go by the evidence that I see presented before me.

When I examine the 1956-D, the evidence that the underlying remnants are segments of a secondary "5" digit are too much overwhelming.

While other attributers my discount the 1956-D cent and not list, which is certainly their prerogative to do so for their particular filing system, however, I go by the evidence that I'm actually seeing on the coin and therefore I shall continue its listing in my files.

Billy (dvn)

http://www.dvnmagazine.com/1956dp1.jpg

http://www.dvnmagazine.com/1956dp2.jpg

http://www.dvnmagazine.com/1934p1.jpg

http://www.dvnmagazine.com/1934p2.jpg

[abe]

Is it below or above the surface?

[Brad]

Is it below or above the surface?

It is above the surface.

If anyone wants to get an example to examine in the comfort of their own home...they can buy the one I have for sale! :angel::angel::angel:

[jcuve]

One of things that is so cool about LCR is debates like this where specialists give important input.

And collectors such as me can too attempt to contribute. That said, I haven’t examined the ‘56D or the ’34 in person and I think that makes a difference with this, and all of these polls Brad created. When you can examine something under the scope and take your own pictures it opens doors that are otherwise closed.

But I still have an issue and I hope I don’t offend anyone as I explain it as I have the utmost respect for everyone who has contributed to this thread. While I have to admit that Billy’s new pictures are more convincing than the others as far as the area in question looking like a second 5. The theory (which I do feel is strong) about the digits of the date being punched, while not a fact, but if true, would mean the ‘56D would have to have been made from two impressions from a hub.

I made several overlays; they are made by me, a collector and not an attributer, so they might be off. They should be ballpark correct (I hope). I reduced my earlier 56D, made one for the ’84P DDO and also using Billy’s new overlay of the ‘34P DDO but showing the entire coin for effect. (They will appear below.)

For me there are three components of possible hub doubling on the 56D that added together would make this one of the most fantastic doubled dies imaginable. 1) The misalignment of the hub and die, both in terms of rotation and being off-center is enormous compared to other known doubled dies; 2) only one area of doubling has been found, that of the 5; 3) the doubled area (the 5) just so happened to end up next to the second complete impression of the 5. I by no means suggest that combined together that this all makes it impossible for this to be a doubled die, or should it end this debate, but statistically the probability would have to be infinitesimal. I start to wonder if the possibility of something hitting the die and leaving an impression that looked like a 5 is greater…


(Now if it were proven that dates were punched then everything I said and these overlays would be meaningless.)


1984 DDO (ear & bowtie):

http://i732.photobucket.com/albums/ww322/jcuve/1984-OV-JRC09.jpg

1934 DDO (date):
http://i732.photobucket.com/albums/ww322/jcuve/1934-OV-JRC09.jpg


1956D DDO (5 of date):
http://i732.photobucket.com/albums/ww322/jcuve/1956D-OV-JRC09.jpg

Jason

[coppercoins]

It is not so much the spread of such doubling as would be necessary to create the 1956D cent as noted in the overlay, rather the shape of the mark and the lack of supporting evidence in areas that would be very important to this being a doubled die.

Note in the other examples given by Jason C. and by Billy C., the 1984 and 1934 doubled dies show multiple areas where items of reasonably similar depth ALL show in the doubling, with some levity for angled impressions, die polishing, etc.

The 1956D cent in question shows deep gouges that make up what is purported to be the top of a 5 digit, but the remainder of the digit is completely missing, and there seems to be no taper to the area that is present to support a suggestion that the lower section of the 5 did not touch the die during the errant hubbing because of angle. So we have what is supposed to be a deep hubbing of half of a digit with no evidence at all of the lower half of the digit?

Perhaps an arguement can be given that the lower section of the doubled 5 may have been present at the time it was hubbed, but was removed by polishing prior to any reported coin to date. I would have to point out to the petitioner of this arguement that the depth of the field in the area where the lower section of the 5 would be present is of normal depth. If the entire 5 had been hubbed into the die then the lower section removed by polishing, the field would be raised in that area causing the height of the relief of the existing 5 to be lower.

Given the evidence I have seen on this die, and given the arguements I have read as to why it should or should not be listed as a doubled die, my opinion remains the same as it was when I discovered this thread. That this anomaly, while interesting, does not match the evidence expected on a true hub doubled die. It much better matches what should be expected of an errant tooling mark on the die, and happens to be in the right place to be mistaken as a tilted 5.

[dvn]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. As well as I'm entitled to mine. I'll leave it at that.

I also leave it with the individual on their decision whether to collect or not to collect.

Billy (dvn)

[Brad]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. As well as I'm entitled to mine. I'll leave it at that.

I also leave it with the individual on their decision whether to collect or not to collect.

Billy (dvn)

Agreed.

I hope someone makes the decision to collect the one I have for sale. :LOL_Hair:

[trails]

One thing definite; it is not a repunched digit since the digits were engraved into the master die.

I myself favor this as an errant die gouge or gouges for even though there is some similarity of a five digit to the rotated secondary image, I cannot see how this would be transferred to a working die form a working hub.

BJ

[MintyFresh]

When the "You Make the Call" forum was added to this site, the intention was to discuss Controversial Die Varieties like the 1956 D DDO 1. In the early days of the forum we had Polls about different varieties. The polls were not very successful - probably because we only had about 10 members.

Anyhow, I found this coin in a roll, and I would like to try this again.

This is an opportunity for you to give your opinion. You do not need to be an expert to vote. Is the so-called 1956 D DDO 1 a doubled die or something else?
I would call it a repuched mint mark. Found it on this thread; http://www.lincolncentresource.com/RPMS/RPMS.html

[garylcsr]

I have a hand full of them and another hand full of the 58/7. I know they are both none error or variety coins but hey they don't cost a dime to sit in my safe till someone says the are worth thousands lol:sign10:. that wont be till the rest are melted and i have the only one. but i don't see Bob getting rid of his so i will never have the only one:(

[trails]

I would call it a repuched mint mark. Found it on this thread

I am a bit confused; we are talking about the 5 digit and not a mint mark.

BJ Neff

[Darylscoins]

this one is excactly what it is.. I believe it to be a Broke die in the 5 in date as the upper prtion of the 5 was weakening and then broke from either alot of wobbling or due to pressure.. I have 2 great examples of this one and a few others in different dates.. 1955 1957 all show the same tilt to the die

the question is? if the die broke,, then they would have not other choice than to REPUNCH THE DATE.. in BU examples it shows more of the die under the 5...

[koinmon]

I ALSO DON'T BELIEVE THIS TO BE A DOUBLED DIE BUT MEERLY AN OPERTUNISTIC DAMAGE TO THE DIE.
George

[ericodapro]

I vote no on this one as well. I think it is similar to this example http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4311

[DoubleYou]

I don't know what to say. This is a HOT topic, and I never saw the die until recently! I have a suggestion that no one has mentioned yet: a very humble suggestion.

Could it be a MAD counterclash?

Somehow I feel stupid.

[dvn]

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just about the only attributer left that list this.

However, I can fully understand and appreciate the compelling arguments against.

Billy (dvn)

[DoubleYou]

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just about the only attributer left that list this.

However, I can fully understand and appreciate the compelling arguments against.

Billy (dvn)

To my knowledge, John Wexler hasn't chimed in yet.

[dvn]

To my knowledge, John Wexler hasn't chimed in yet.

I talked with JAWs about it and he mentioned to me he has second thoughts. Whether he continues to list or not I don't know.

Billy (dvn)