The term DOUBLE DIE is incorrectly used at times to describe hub doubling or doubled dies. Most often, this term is seen as an expression used to describe the “poor man’s” 1955 Lincoln cent with die deterioration doubling.
The term DOUBLE DIE is incorrectly used at times to describe hub doubling or doubled dies. Most often, this term is seen as an expression used to describe the “poor man’s” 1955 Lincoln cent with die deterioration doubling.
This checklist is my attempt to compile a comprehensive listing of all known variety and error types, subtypes, and associated effects. It is updated periodically to reflect the current state of knowledge.
While the traditional planchet-die-striking method of classification hasn’t been completely abandoned, it has been absorbed into a much more detailed and precise taxonomy. This is intended to reflect the numerous steps (and missteps) in the minting process that generate the great diversity of anomalies presented here.
Many of the categories will be familiar to veteran collectors. Others will perhaps be dimly recalled, while others will be unfamiliar. Many of the more obscure error types have been treated in detail in articles published in Errorscope. These articles are referenced next to the appropriate entry (“ES”). Other treatments can be found in Coin World (“CW”).
I have tried to restrict this checklist to basic error/variety types and subtypes. Combination errors have been kept to a minimum. Had I attempted to incorporate all conceivable two-error combinations, this would have generated almost half a million entries. That would have been both unwieldy and unnecessary.
ES=Errorscope
CW=Coin World
Patterns and Prototypes (accidental release)
Mid-year design modifications
Conceptual design flaws (foul-up in design or in translating design to master hub or master die) (CW 11/15/21)
Mistakes during design modification
Unauthorized strikes and unauthorized issues (CW 1/20/14)
Reduction lathe doubling (master hub doubling)
Master die doubling (master die with a doubled die variety) (CW 7/27/20)
Broken hub (chipped hub) (CW 12/23/13, 5/21/18)
Hubbed-in debris (CW 5/27/13, 1/17/22)
Damaged punch
Longacre doubling (probably impressions of punch shoulders)
Doubled dies (incl. tripled dies, etc)
Weak or incomplete hubbing (always part of a doubled die)
Tilted hubbing (always part of a doubled die)
Misaligned hubbing (uncorrected) (CW 5/30/22)
Repunched dates (ES July/August 2012; CW 12/14/09)
Re-engraved dates (on master die or working die)
Blundered dates (on master die or working die)
Misplaced dates (e.g. digits in denticles) (CW 4/21/03)
Phantom mintmarks (working hub has mintmark incompletely removed)
Horizontal mintmarks (inevitably repunched)
Tilted mintmarks (punched in at an angle) (CW 7/28/14)
Rotated mintmarks (CW 7/28/14)
Deeply-punched (high-standing) mintmarks (CW 9/29/14)
Weakly-punched mintmarks
Repunched mintmarks (CW 1/20/20)
Repunched mintmarks on the Jefferson nickel; Book by James Wiles (downloadable version)
Other repunched or re-engraved design elements
COIN WORLD SPECIAL: article posted HERE on 1975-S Roosevelt dime without mintmark
Omitted dates (foreign only) (CW 4/28/14)
Different mintmark styles and sizes
Overdates (CW 1/23/17)
Dual Dates (earlier date faint)
Wrong dates
Blundered dies (various types) (CW 8/18/08)
Special Finish Errors (Proofs, Mint sets, Special Mint Sets, Satin Finish, etc.)
Design Extension Dimples (CW 4/18/11)
Edge Lettering Font Variants
Mules (ES May/June 2010)
Mismatched business / proof dies
Finished proof die matched with business die
Transitional Reverse (Minor temporal mismatches) e.g.:
Inverted die installation (not an error) (CW 2/15/10, 7/22/19, 1/6/20)
Late use of traditional die setup (CW 6/5/18)
Fixed rotated die errors (see Part VI)
Collar installation errors
Use of flat, featureless dies (CW 6/30/14)
Use of cancelled and defaced dies (CW 5/12/14)
Cancelation overstrikes (coins overstruck by canceled coin, pattern, or test dies) (CW 5/18/17, 5/24/21)
Design/composition mismatches (CW 2/10/20)
Reeding vs. no reeding varieties (foreign only)
Concentric lathe lines (ES Nov/Dec 2003)
Rusted dies (CW 12/1/08)
Excessively deep rim gutter
Rockwell test mark left in die (hemispherical bump seen on coin) (ES July/Aug 2006)
Vickers test mark left in die (pyramidal bump) (CW 5/15/17)
Collar manufacturing errors
Hub retouching
Die retouching (CW 5/30/16, 9/30/19)
Die damage (ES Jan/Feb 2003, Nov/Dec 2004; CW 5/21/12)
Hubbed-In debris (CW 5/27/13)
Deformed collar (CW 12/18/20)
Clashed dies (ES March/April 2002; CW 3/22/10, 4/30/12)
Collar clash (CW 6/11/07, 2/24/22)
Die damage with design transfer
Die deterioration/deformation errors
Die exfoliation errors (CW 10/19/20)
Collar breaks (collar cuds) (ES May/June 2008; CW 11/22/10, 5/17/10, 11/22/10, 12/19/16)
Die cracks (CW 4/25/16)
Split dies (ES Jan/Feb 2006; CW 6/2/03, 4/10/06, 4/17/06, 6/20/11, 5/11/15, 9/17/18, 4/26/21, 4/18/22, 7/18/22)
Alloy errors
Subsurface Corrosion (CW 12/21/15)
Rolling Mill Errors
Blanking and Cutting Errors
Upset Mill Errors
Edge design errors (impressed into planchet before strike) (includes security edge errors) (CW 6/27/16)
Mispunched center holes (foreign only) (CW 1/7/19)
Annealing Errors
Poorly annealed or unannealed planchets (hard, brittle planchets) (CW 3/14/11)
Brittle coins (cross-classified with alloy errors) (CW 3/14/11)
Abnormally hard planchets (CW 12/17/12, 8/15/22)
On undersized or underweight planchets (CW 2/13/12)
Miscellaneous forms of mint discoloration
Plating Errors
Bonding/Bonding Mill Errors (ES Sept/Oct 2002)
Irregular planchets
Pristine Planchets (i.e. lacking tumbling marks) (CW 1/11/16)
Pre-Strike Damage (CW 11/15/10, 11/15/10, 1/23/12, 1/30/12, 12/15/14, 4/13/15, 6/8/20)
Inter-strike Damage (CW 1/9/12, 8/20/12)
Trans-strike damage (CW 7/12/21)
Wrong planchet and off-metal errors
Bi-metallic errors (foreign only) (ES Nov/Dec 2005)
Unstruck blank (“Type I”)
Unstruck planchet (“Type II”)
Die alignment errors
Collar alignment errors
Collar deployment errors
Weak Strikes (ES Sept/Oct 2000; CW 5/3/04, 9/11/06, 6/18/07, 3/1/10, 5/23/11, 6/23/14, 8/27/18, 3/2/20, 10/26/20, 11/27/23)
Skidding Coin Errors (CW 1/29/18)
Abnormally Strong Strikes
Stutter Strikes (ES Nov/Dec 2001, Sept/Oct 2007; CW 12/28/09, 7/25/11, 8/10/20)
Concentric strike lines generated by a single strike (ES Jan/Feb 2012; CW 12/26/11)
Machine doubling (a.k.a. machine doubling, machine doubling damage, machine damage doubling, mechanical doubling, strike doubling, shift doubling, ejection doubling) (ES July/Aug 2006; CW 3/15/10, 7/24/17, 12/23/19, 3/30/20)
Rim-restricted design duplication (form of machine doubling) (CW 10/6/03, 2/22/10, 5/24/10, 12/6/10, 5/13/13, 12/30/13, 3/8/21, 4/12/21)
Ejection Doubling (CW 11/7/22)
Skidding Die Errors (CW 8/15/16, 11/27/17)
One-sided double-strikes (ES March/April 2000, Jan/Feb 2002, July/August 2003)
Flat Field Doubling (imperfectly aligned proof strikes) (CW 4/29/13)
Off-center strikes
Chain strikes (CW 4/12/10)
Foreign Object Chain Strike (CW 5/25/15)
Machine Part Impingement (CW 5/25/15)
Saddle (Tandem) Strikes (CW 6/27/11)
Split Plating Doubling
Foldover Strikes (ES July/August 2007; CW 10/10/05, 8/15/11, 1/30/12, 9/15/14)
Edge Strikes (CW 7/18/11, 10/12/15, 3/1/21)
Extrusion strikes (an effect, not an independent error) (ES March/April 2004; CW 10/24/11, 1/15/18)
Multiple strikes (CW 3/30/15)
Indents
Brockages
Counterbrockages
Horizontal lipping (CW 11/30/15)
Die caps (CW 8/6/13, 1/7/20)
Capped die strikes (generic — without identifiable images)
Struck by impaled die cap (CW 6/10/13)
Capped die doubling (doubling associated with capped die strikes) (ES Sept/Oct 2005; CW 6/18/12, 5/16/22)
“Struck-through” errors
Uniface strike (cross-classified with indents) (CW 7/30/12, 9/16/19)
Sandwich strike (coin struck between two coins or planchets) (CW 5/16/11, 10/31/16, 11/20/17, 5/28/18, 3/22/21)
Nested coins (CW 3/16/20)
Mated pairs (CW 11/9/20)
Bonded coins
Strike clips (ES July/Aug 1999, May/June 2001; CW 6/15/15)
Detached reeding
Coin shrapnel (“breakaway fragments”)
Intra-Strike Damage (damage coincident with strike) (CW 5/30/2011, 12/20/21)
Cupping (CW 12/7/09)
Impact-Induced Warping (CW 3/16/15, 1/13/20)
Malrotation Errors (multi-sides coins only) (CW 3/23/15, 11/8/21)
Proof edge lettering errors (generated during strike by segmental collar)
Edge lettering applied after strike (incuse) (small dollar coins)
Note: Edge lettering and other edge design elements may be impressed during upsetting, during the strike, by a special machine before the strike, or by a lettering device after the strike. Similar-looking defects can occur in each of these processes. Any edge design that forms a closed interlock between the edge of the coin and the collar cannot be produced during the strike since that will prevent ejection of the coin after the strike.
Special Note: Some presidential dollar coins have had the edge lettering removed outside the mint. Use caution when buying any edge lettering error.
The diagnostics for authentic presidential coin missing its edge lettering are as follows:
1. Diameter should be 26.46 mm. Coins altered outside the mint will have a diameter that is less than 26.46 mm and will have a diameter of approximately 26.21 mm.
2. The coin’s weight should be approximately 7.98 g ± .03 g. Altered coins will weigh less from the removal of the edge lettering. Weights of approximately 7.89 g are commonly seen on altered coins.
3. An unaltered presidential dollar coin will have vertical lines along the edge. These lines are created when the coin is ejected. Altered coins will not normally have these lines, but instead will have horizontal lines. These horizontal lines are from milling or similar machines used outside the mint to remove the letters and are the aftereffects of the metal being abraded off the coin.
The above image shows the vertical lines present on the edge of an unaltered presidential dollar coin with no edge lettering
Table of edge lettering errors found on the presidential and native American dollar coins
Post-strike chemical treatment
Matte or frosted finish applied after strike
Post-strike die contact
Ejection damage
Illicitly applied die impressions (CW 11/16/20, 1/4/21, 2/1/21, 8/29/22)
Pseudobrockage (false brockage) (ES Nov/Dec 1999; CW 8/23/10)
Fused coins
Rolled and squeezed
Accidentally resized
Other (folded, crushed, scraped, bent, etc.)
Intentional damage (e.g., canceled, waffled)
Zinc deterioration on copper plated Lincoln cents
Ghost images (CW 8/1/11)
Doubling
Embedded matter (CW 12/14/09)
Edge overhangs (CW 11/30/2015)
Counterfeit Coins
Fabricated or Altered Errors
Damaged Coins
Enhanced Errors (genuine errors subsequently altered to look more exotic)
The Latest News about the Error-Variety Ready Reference
July 9th, 2012 – Welcome to this unique site. Through the efforts of our staff, we hope to bring to you, the collector, the best and most pertinent information available concerning error and variety coins. While the site is not yet complete, our plan is to continuously work on gathering information that is of interest to the E/V community.
This page will show you our progress by linking to new entries. So, stop by often and see what is new.
– BJ Neff
We have added a new page to the site; “Compound and Complex Errors”. This page will deal with the more unusual errors that have occurred. Make sure to check out this new entry!
– Author Unknown
July 16th, 2014 – Error-ref.com has found a new home and a new look. The site has been officially transferred over and you may encounter some errors. If you will please notify us of these errors.
Thank you.
– BJ Neff
June, 2017 – We added “Stress-Induced Surface Irregularities” to our list of errors and varieties.
May, 2017 – We added or updated “Vickers Test Mark Left In Die”, “Floating Collar Clash”, and “Field-Restricted Struck-Through Errors” to our list of errors and varieties.
– JC Stevens
February 20th, 2017 – We just added “Defective Punch” and “Detail-Erasing Die Wear” to our list of errors and varieties.
August 19th, 2016 – We added “The Henning Nickel” to Part XI. Non Errors.
– Author Unknown
October, 2021 – We added “Crenellated Rim,” “Feeder/Ejector Scrapes,” “Inverted Hump,” “Partial Collar,” and “[Struck Through] String.” We updated “Rockwell Test Mark In Planchet,” “Pivoted Die Error,” “Collar Damage,” and “Chatter Clash.”
November, 2021 – We added “External Disc Impressions.”
December, 2021 – We added “Hidden Initials And Symbols” and “Illicitly Applied Die Impressions.” We updated “Ejection Impact Doubling,” “Rim-restricted Design Duplication,” and “Die Rings (Tiny Rings, Semicircles, Crescents, And Spirals).”
January, 2022 – We updated “Die Scrapes.”
January, 2023 – We added “Design/Composition Mismatches” and “Die Exfoliation Errors.” We updated “Radial Flow Lines” and “[Saddle (Tandem) Strikes] On Quarter Dollars.”
February, 2023 – We added “Deformed Collar” and “Edge Strikes.”
April, 2023 – JC Stevens updated “Henning Nickel.”
May, 2023 – We added “Misaligned Hubbing (Uncorrected),” “‘Spackled’ Dies (Intentionally Applied Grease),” “Multiple Misaligned Strikes,” “Grease-Generated Counterbrockage,” “Exogenous Floating Die Clash,” and “Ejection Doubling.”
July, 2023 – We updated “Wrong Ring.”
October, 2023 – We added “Yanked-Out Fillings” and “Encircling Pressure Bumps.”
December, 2023 – We added “Struck-In Die Fragments,” “Misaligned Collar Clash,” “Catastrophic Collar Failure,” “Anvil Die Collar Clash,” and “Earliest Inverted Die Setup.”
– Shane Daniel
Definition: A delayed second strike is one that is delivered in a different striking chamber or coinage press after a considerable delay. Coins carrying strikes with two different dates are an obvious example. In the absence of such an obvious clue, collectors must probe a little deeper.
A delayed second strike will be delivered in a different striking chamber and will therefore carry different die markers. Die markers are blemishes — often microscopic — that serve to identify a particular die pair. Die cracks, die scratches, die dents, and die flow lines are just some of the markers to inspect.
Not all coins struck by a different die pair represent a delayed second strike. Lower denominations (cents, nickels, and dimes) were often struck in dual or quad presses in which die pairs were arranged in adjacent couplets. A newly-struck coin could easily move from one member of the couplet to another.
For higher denominations, a strike from a different die pair would represent a delayed second strike as the dies were never arranged in adjacent couplets.
A delayed second strike can also be identified by the presence of inter-strike damage of a kind that could not be generated within a striking chamber.
Shown below is a 1985-P quarter with a delayed second strike. After a normal first strike, the reeding was completely shaved off the edge and the coin was rolled and squeezed to a smaller diameter. It was then transported to a distant striking chamber (and probably different press) where it received a flipover, off-center, uniface strike. The die pair that delivered this second strike was characterized by an unstable hammer (obverse) die or die assembly that was swinging from side to side. This produced an extreme case of collar clash on the left side (the first strike shows no signs of collar clash in the corresponding area. A swing to the right followed after the hammer die reached the lowest point of its downstroke. This produced a dramatic case of slide doubling (a form of machine doubling).
Definition: The die-struck design on the surface of a coin is scraped off by lateral (horizontal) die movement.
This 2001-D Lincoln cent exhibits a design ablation error on the first strike. The hammer die made initial contact with the planchet in a centered position but settled in a misaligned position. During its lateral shift toward the northeast, the hammer die continued its descent through the body of the coin. The completion of the downstroke amounted to no more than a fraction of a millimeter of vertical distance. The combination of movements (vertical and horizontal) left a crescentic “zone of ablation” on the left side of the coin. All design elements that were generated by the initial, centered impact of the hammer die were completely scraped off. The zone of ablation is filled with fine parallel striations and shows a very gentle downward slope that begins at the original design rim.
After reaching the lowest point of its downstroke, the hammer die lurched toward the southwest, dragging itself through the newly-struck design. This left the design grotesquely distorted. This form of distortion is classified as a form of machine doubling known as slide doubling. Design ablation errors that occur on the first strike are usually associated with severe slide doubling.
Design ablation errors on the first strike are usually misidentified as simple misaligned die errors.
Compound and Complex Errors
This section is dedicated to errors that just do not fit into one category because of their compound nature or complexity. You will also find error coins that are of a spectacular or very unusual nature.
|
|
This 2.5 gram The obverse |
|
|
This undated |
Definition: An overdate is a modification made to a working hub that involves two different numerals being punched or engraved into the same spot. One or more digits may be affected. Overdates sometimes represent an attempt to correct a mistake when the wrong punch was initially used to punch in a digit. At other times it represents an expedient measure. Dies left over from the previous year may simply have one or several digits repunched so that the die can be used in the current year. The relevant area of the die face is often abraded so that the prominence of the original date is reduced.
Overdates are closely related to re-punched dates. However, a re-punched date doesn’t involve the superimposition of one digit over a different digit. Repunched dates simply involve the repunching of the same digit or digits.
Overdates should not be confused with Class III doubled dies (design hub doubling). Although the outcome looks similar, the nature of the variety is entirely different.
Overdates ceased being a possibility for U.S. coins in 1909 when the mint began placing an engraved date on the master die.
The image below shows an 1892 Peruvian 1/2 dino, with a repunched 9 over an underlying 8.
This class of doubled die is probably the easiest to conceptualize and diagnose. It emerges from two separate hubbings. Prior to the second hubbing, the working hub or the working die rotates around its vertical axis (the axis that passes though the center of the hub/die face). Class I doubled dies are listed as showing a clockwise (CW) or counter-clockwise (CCW) rotation. The direction is determined by which hubbing is clearest and most complete. This is usually the second hubbing (which tends to be deepest). Exceptions do exist, however.
Doubling typically has a rounded appearance. When the hubbing impressions are extremely close, the doubled die may only be recognizable from notched serifs and corners, subtle separation lines, or extra thickness.
Below is an overlay diagram of a fictitious Class I doubled die that has a clockwise rotation similar to the King of Doubled Dies, the 1955P DDO-001. Notice how the spread is equal on all devices and increases the farther out you go from the center of the coin. DDO refers to a doubled die that affects the obverse face of a coin. DDR refers to a doubled die that affects the reverse face of a coin.
Below are photos of 1972P DDO-001, a Class I DDO with a strong CW spread on all outlying devices and parts of the jacket. A second hubbing typically eliminates interior parts of the design produced by the first hubbing. Therefore doubling is often only detectable in areas bordering the field. Here, only the outside elements of the portrait of Lincoln and the motto show doubling while the centrally-located details are lost to the second hubbing.
Hubbings are ordered from lightest to deepest, either CW or CCW. On the G of GOD you can see that the heavier of the duplicate letters (G-2) is located to the right (clockwise) of the lighter letter (G-1). It is likely that the heavier letter represents the second hubbing, but this cannot be proven.
Below you can see clear separation between the letters of TRUST. On the first few digits of the date, where design elements are more closely bunched (due to being closer to the center of the design), distinct notching can be seen at the upper and lower corners of numeral 1.
Below is a Class I doubled die on the reverse face of a 1964 cent ( 1964P DDR-001). It shows a counterclockwise (CCW) spread. Again there is clear separation, notching, and rounded doubling. The doubling is strongest in “STATES oF” due to the axis of rotation being located slightly south of center.
The next example is a DDR on a 1979 Israeli 25 agorot. The spread, best seen in the Hebrew letters located near k12, is elsewhere indicated by notches and subtle separation lines. As would be expected of any Class I doubled die, the doubling is weakest toward the center and strongest toward the perimeter of the coin.
Notching of corners and serifs reflects the presence of closely-spaced letters and numbers. Often there is a difference in height as well between the closely overlapping design elements. Below is a 1934-D quarter listed as DDO-001 that shows very obvious stepped notching in IN GOD WE TRUST. Subtle doubling, also in the form of notching, is evident on all the peripheral design elements. Detailed photos presented below depict notching in the E of LIBERTY, as well as the 3 of the date.
NOTCHES EXPLAINED:
If a die shows hub doubling and there is a rotational shift, the notches will be more apparent. The following illustrations show a hypothetical CCW rotation with Red being the first hubbing and Green the second. The green letters are also slightly south (or down) in relation to the red. While the spread is minor, the notches are obvious. Rounded portions of letters (like the o and S) show the development of a secondary, offset ellipse.
Now we will see a stronger CCW spread where there is very little degree of offset between the hubbings. The result is fewer notches overall, but where the design drops off, such as the serifs on the S or the top of the A, there will be
minor notching or splits. Below are some notching diagrams that will give you an idea of where Class I (and also Class V) hub doubling can produce notches.
Below are examples of Class I Doubled Dies on various Lincoln cents. 1941 DDO-001
1941 DDO-002
1936 DDO-001
1971 DDO-002
All doubled die illustrations are by Jason Cuvelier
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.
There is a large number of other Class II DDRs on the Lincoln cent from 1962 through 1964.
Here we can see a Jefferson nickel listed as 1962P DDR-015 (15-R-II-C) with a medium spread on the reverse that is visible on most devices. The doubling is more pronounced near the rim and gradually decreases as we navigate toward the center. Notice how light the spread becomes on FIVE and the beginning of MONTICELLO.
All doubled die illustrations are by Jason Cuvelier
Likely the easiest Doubled Die to explain yet the least common to have occurred. Class III Doubled Dies occur when after the first hubbing with one design another hubbing follows of a different design or a slightly altered design.
Below is an overlay diagram of a fictitious Class III Doubled Die that is similar to several Doubled Dies that occurred during 1960 when the Mint used two different Master Dies, the first bearing a small date, then another made later that year, bearing a larger date. You can see clear doubling in the date and then slight doubling in LIBERTY.
Doubling is sometimes the least dramatic characteristic observed, as in some cases with other denominations, such as on a Mercury Dime with a 1942 over a 194. Designated as 1942P DDO-001 (FS-10.7 [101] when, for whatever reason, a die after having been hubbed with a 1941 hub, was hubbed a second time with a hub having a 1942. There is some doubling in IGWT, but there is a very dramatic, naked eye obvious, overdate. It is important to note that all overdates after 1907 are Doubled Dies whereas previous overdates had dates punched into the die one on top
of the other.
Collectors of Lincoln cents should have an easy time understanding what would happen if a 1960 small date hub and a 1960 large date hub were both used to create a die. There are four cases of this happening, three on proofs and one business strike from Denver (which also has a nice RPM). Below is an approximation overlay of a small date over a large date with an example designated as 1960P DDO-002 (FS-102). The doubling is very obvious in the date, LIBERTY and parts of IGWT. At the bottom the small date is lavender while the large is green; the first shows a small over a large and the second shows a large over a small. They almost line up perfectly with DDO-002.
The 1960 Denver version is just as dramatic in the date but less so in LIBERTY. The small date almost looks as if it were placed on top of the large date. Listed as 1960D DDO-001 & RPM-100 and is illustrated below. John Wexler states (The Cherrypicker’s Guide to Rare Die Varieties, 4th edition, volume one, 2001) that in the “early days” any Doubled Die that “…did not fit the parameters of any of the other classes of doubling” were often erroneously designated as a Class III Doubled Die. Wexler also says that “[he] will not assign a Class III designation to a variety unless [he] has documented evidence that different designs were in use [that] year….”
Another curious set of examples comes from 1949 when, for reasons unknown, three dies were hubbed with a pointed topped 4 hub and then hubbed again with a blunt topped 4. They are listed as 1949S DDO-001, 002 &003 by CONECA. It has been hypothesized that the pointed hub is that from 1948 which was absent an 8 digit (or the 8 was removed). Below is DDO-002 and then an approximation overlay showing a pointed 4 (red) from 1948 undera blunt 4 (green) from 1949. They match up convincingly and suggest the likeliest, but not necessarily the only possible explanation. As a suggested reason for this (BJ Neff) proposed the possibility that the Mint was short on hubs and quickly altered an extra 1948. What isn’t answerable is why only three were hubbed once using this particular hub.
Next is an overdate Jefferson nickel, listed by CONECA as DDO-003 (3-O-II-C+III+V-CW) and in the CPG as FS-05-1943P-101 (28). Here we have a situation where a lighter hubbing of a ‘42 is partly concealed by a deeper hubbing of a ‘43. To clarify, below is a 1943 Jefferson overlaid with a 1942; the diagonal line matches part of the primary curve of the 2, while the little protruding point below the curve of the 3, matches the corner of the bottom of the 2.
Finally, a comparison illustration of the four known 1960 P & D Class III doubled dies.
On to CLASS IV
All doubled die illustrations are by Jason Cuvelier