The next class, Class II, is harder to find empirical evidence to conclusively prove the cause of the Hub Doubling. Most often hypothesized as a 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 from deepest to lightest hubbings, which goes toward the Center (C) or towards the Edge (E).

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 of a fictitious 1960 Lincoln cent where doubling would be more pronounced toward the rims.

Let’s clarify the direction of the spread. Here we have 1971P DDO-001 (1-O-II-E); the design elements inside (closer to the center) have a lighter hubbing, and may very well have been hubbed first, meanwhile the design elements nearest the rim are deeper and might have been hubbed second.

One critical point is the order (or direction) of the hubbings. The order is indicated as llightest to deepest, this determines the direction. In the above and below examples, (1.) is closer to the the center and is lightest, while (2.) is deeper and near the edge. Doubling is not always consistent and is hard to explain why as evidenced by the light northerly spread on the date seen below.

The inverse direction is shown below: 1985P DDO-001 (1-O-II-C) which shows the outer impression, closer to the edge, being hubbed lighter (indicated as 1.), while the inner impression, closer to the center, and was hubbed more deeply (indicated as 2.).

Below the closeup of the date on 1985 DDO-001. The illustration to the right, shows two hypothetical hubbings spread toward the center (C) on a fictitious 1985-D cent. The lighter impression, is outer, and indicated in red. The inside deeper impression is indicated in green.

1985 DDO-001 (1-O-II) above, and 1984D DDO-001 (1-O-II) below, both show, to a degree, how far into the design Class II doubling can be present in that the upper regions of the hair and the lower bust. Both areas clearly showing doubling. 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 would have likely obliterated what little may have shown.

Is it the Hub or the Die which did not return to its original diameter in between hubbings? Being that Class II DDOs tend to be unique compared to other listed doubled dies for that date, it is likely the Die in most circumstances.

Our next example is 1964P DDR-020 (20-R-II-C) (coin courtesy Chris Welch); which as the designation states, is spread toward the center. However, in this case there is another level of distortion in that that lighter (outer) impression is oddly 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.

Not to be forgotten are the notches. Both the Jefferson above and the Roosevelt 1964 DDO-001 (1-O-II) below, show nice notches at the serifs. 1964 DDO-001 also exhibits a doubled forehead, hair and LIBERTY, but shows very little on the date.

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

On to CLASS III

All doubled die illustrations are by Jason Cuvelier