[Example] Class II (Distorted Hub Doubling):

[jcuve]

Class II (Distorted Hub Doubling):


The next class, Class II, is harder to find empirical evidence to conclusively prove the cause of the Hub Doubling. Most often hypothesized as the misalignment event relating to either the Die or the Hub, which has expanded or contracted too much in relation to the first hubbing during the annealing or tempering processes.

Class II is characterized by having a spread along the outside devices that goes toward the Center (C) or towards the Edge (E). The order of hubbings is typically determined by presuming that the deeper hubbing comes last whilst the lighter hubbing occurred earlier.

Dies are annealed (cooled slowly) to make them softer so they are more susceptible to taking an impression of the Hub. The Hub in contrast is tempered, quickly cooled, so that it is more durable and does not distort while transferring an image to the Die. If for whatever reason, either the Die or the Hub were not to return to its normal size in between hubbings, doubling could result like the illustration below (1971S DDO-001) where doubling would be more pronounced toward the rims and would either be spread away from or towards the center of the die:




Next is a fictitious illustration showing a 1960 which gives an indication of how the doubling can be spread toward the center or away from the edge (rims):





Let’s clarify the direction of the spread. Here we have 1971P DDO-001 (1-O-II-E) 1DO-001, the design elements inside (closer to the center) were hubbed first and then was followed by the somewhat deeper second hubbing that lies closer to the edge (rim):




The inverse shown below is a 1985P DDO-001 (1-O-II-C) 1DO-001 which shows the outer impression (closer to the edge) being hubbed first while the inner, deeper impression was hubbed last:



1984D DDO-001 (1-O-II C + VI) also shows, to a degree like 1985P DDO-001 up above, how far into the design Class II doubling can be present in that the the lower bust and VDB are clearly doubled as well. And where are the rest of the doubled devices? As with Class I and V, the doubling is more pronounced on the outer edges. The inner design elements would have both been barely doubled and the second hubbing likely would have obliterated it towards the center.



Below is another illustration showing two hubbings spread toward the center (C) on a fictitious 1985D Lincoln cent (similar to the ‘85P and '84D above): the initial impression, which in this case is outer (red) and the inside, final impression (green):

[jcuve]

Is it the Hub or the Die which did not return to its original diameter? Arguments have been made that Class II (or Class VI) Doubled Dies are in part or wholly from a Distorted (or Distended) Hub. The obvious counter argument is: if the Hub were responsible, there should be many, many similar Doubled Dies showing almost the exact same doubling. In 1971, on business strikes, there has only ever been one Class II DDO identified. With such an extreme change in diameter as evident in the spread in LIBERTY, surely there would be lesser hub doubled dies leading up to the distortion seen on DDO-001 if it was Hub involved- wouldn’t it? However, there are an unusual number of Class II Doubled Dies in certain years such as the Lincoln cent obverse in 1962. I am not aware of there being evidence of a single Hub being part of the equation. A die marker linking the Hub to the various dies would be a start followed by an examination of normally hubbed coins, where in the case of the distorted Hub, producing Dies which exhibit a design spread closer to the edge baring the same marker(s) is identified.

Our next example is 1964P DDR-020 (20-R-II-C) (coin courtesy Dave Kearns); which as the designation states, is spread toward the center. However, in this case there is another level of distortion in that that initial (outer) impression is narrower. This is almost opposite of the situation with a related class of Hub Doubling (Class VI, Distended Hub Doubling) which is characterized by an increase in thickness toward outside devices.



There are a number of other Class II DDRs in 1964 and one wonders if maybe, here somehow the Hub was involved…or not. With no other Class II ’64 DDRs on hand, I cannot make an attempt to answer this.
Below is an example on the reverse of a DDO/DDR combo: 1955 DDO-004 DDR-004, both cases being Class II, and on a proof!


Finally, here is a complete look at 1971S DDO-001 (PR 1-O-II C) 1DO-001 with its very strong spread in LIBERTY:

[JeanK]

Beautiful work Jason!
You going to put a cd book together for us? (hint hint).
Jean

[mustbebob]

Very well done Jason. Lots of class II DDs on 1964 and 1964D. This also makes me want to further investigate some of the class II + VI doubled dies that are listed. Is it actually two classes? Could it be the extra thickness and the doubling is all part of the same thing.

[jcuve]

Thanks Bob and Jean.
Bob: I am working on Class VI - I have (what I think) are a few new observations. I see parallels and differences between II and VI which I am writing up will post, at some point once I am done shooting examples...

A CD book? ...Possible...thanks for the encouragement Jean

[JeanK]

Let us know when you start to take orders! (hint hint)
Of course, you will have to start with Book One, then onto Book Two, etc.
Jean

[lineop3]

As always, I'm impressed in your knowledge of the different classes and the fine examples to go along along with them.
We are fortunate to have you take the time to teach us in a way we could understand the differences. Thank you JC...well done.

Aisha

[copperlover]

great illustration

Lucien

[jcuve]

A example of a CLASS II DDR on a Jeferson Nickel: 1981D DDR-001 (1-O-II C)

[jpl6332]

Excellent work jason