1995-P 10c Franklin Double Die ??

[AR15DCM]

Hi,

I checked this coin out with my loupe because the edges felt funny.  It is like the obverse is almost dished.  So I was checking it out and it appears as thought the die struck it twice.  I know it is hard to judge by a photo, but what do you think?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Your Roosevelt dime does not look like a doubled die to me.

[Six Mile Rick]

[SkyMan]

First off, welcome to the boards!!!  There's a lot of good info here. 

Since you ask what I think, I'd like to say that first you should learn the difference between a Franklin half dollar, minted from 1948 - 1963, and a Roosevelt dime, minted from 1946 to the present.  Second it does not appear to me to be a doubled die.

[MAULEMALL]

I see what you are saying ,(The inner part of the O of OF and the D I And M of DIME) but it could be Machine doubling. Hard to tell with the pics.

[Mohawk]

Hello and Welcome!

I do a lot with moderns, and I have to say that I do not see a doubled die there.  If anything, you have slight machine doubling on the reverse, which doesn't make the coin valuable.  Machine doubling is considered a form of post-minting damage.  However, it's always better to ask than to toss a potentially good coin back out into circulation.  A genuine doubled die has a distinct look.  It looks very different than machine doubling.  There's almost always some degree of spread between the elements on a doubled die while machine doubling looks like a flat shelf like projection. 

[MarkFeld]

16 minutes ago, Mohawk said:

Hello and Welcome!

I do a lot with moderns, and I have to say that I do not see a doubled die there.  If anything, you have slight machine doubling on the reverse, which doesn't make the coin valuable.  Machine doubling is considered a form of post-minting damage.  However, it's always better to ask than to toss a potentially good coin back out into circulation.  A genuine doubled die has a distinct look.  It looks very different than machine doubling.  There's almost always some degree of spread between the elements on a doubled die while machine doubling looks like a flat shelf like projection. 

How can machine doubling, which is part of the minting process, be considered "a form of post-muntage damage"?

[AR15DCM]

4 hours ago, SkyMan said:

First off, welcome to the boards!!!  There's a lot of good info here. 

Since you ask what I think, I'd like to say that first you should learn the difference between a Franklin half dollar, minted from 1948 - 1963, and a Roosevelt dime, minted from 1946 to the present.  Second it does not appear to me to be a doubled die.

Thanks for the welcome!

It's called old age.  I am not new to collecting.  I had the man's first name on da brain.

[AR15DCM]

1 hour ago, Mohawk said:

Hello and Welcome!

I do a lot with moderns, and I have to say that I do not see a doubled die there.  If anything, you have slight machine doubling on the reverse, which doesn't make the coin valuable.  Machine doubling is considered a form of post-minting damage.  However, it's always better to ask than to toss a potentially good coin back out into circulation.  A genuine doubled die has a distinct look.  It looks very different than machine doubling.  There's almost always some degree of spread between the elements on a doubled die while machine doubling looks like a flat shelf like projection. 

Well if you were to look at a double die that has been in circulation I would suspect the "flat shelf" would be worn and rounded.  Also, I was always under the impression that when the die strikes twice or more times on a planchet that has moved/rotated in place is a double die and does occur during the minting process?  

[AR15DCM]

4 hours ago, MAULEMALL said:

I see what you are saying ,(The inner part of the O of OF and the D I And M of DIME) but it could be Machine doubling. Hard to tell with the pics.

Yes that is some of it... also look at the 9 beside the five and on the reverse the rim from 10 O'clock to 4 O'clock and you'll notice the doubling of the rim.

[Mohawk]

2 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

How can machine doubling, which is part of the minting process, be considered "a form of post-muntage damage"?

Good point.  But I had many people refer to machine doubling as post minting damage when I was learning coins, and I guess it stuck with me.  However, this was back in 1999 and things change, and definitions change as well.  In retrospect and really thinking on it, I'd have to say I find your assessment to be more correct than my original statement on the issue.

[Just Bob]

22 hours ago, AR15DCM said:

Well if you were to look at a double die that has been in circulation I would suspect the "flat shelf" would be worn and rounded.  Also, I was always under the impression that when the die strikes twice or more times on a planchet that has moved/rotated in place is a double die and does occur during the minting process?  

I believe that is called a double strike. A true doubled (notice the "d" on the end) die is when the die it self receives a double image, or part of an image, when being formed by the hub. Circulation coins are only struck once in the current minting process, so machine doubling would be caused by the die   bouncing, or something similar, not by being struck multiple times.

 

[AR15DCM]

13 hours ago, Just Bob said:

I believe that is called a double strike. A true doubled (notice the "d" on the end) die is when the die it self receives a double image, or part of an image, when being formed by the hub. Circulation coins are only struck once in the current minting process, so machine doubling would be caused by the die   bouncing, or something similar, not by being struck multiple times.

 

Not trying to be picky, but you said something about the die bouncing... wouldn't that mean that the die struck twice?

[WoodenJefferson]

29 minutes ago, AR15DCM said:

Not trying to be picky, but you said something about the die bouncing... wouldn't that mean that the die struck twice?

Vibrations in the coin press causes the dies to minutely (think micro) to move randomly causing a 'shelf like' appearance to the elements of the design. The die moves rotationally clockwise or counter clockwise when retracting, so the actual strike is still only "one"

 

[AR15DCM]

2 minutes ago, WoodenJefferson said:

Vibrations in the coin press causes the dies to minutely (think micro) to move randomly causing a 'shelf like' appearance to the elements of the design. The die moves rotationally clockwise or counter clockwise when retracting, so the actual strike is still only "one"

 

Okay keeping that in mind, I could understand if one side has the resulting "shelf like" appearance, however, both sides show the shelf in some elements and it is evident on the rim.

[AR15DCM]

Just ran across this article pertaining to Roosevelt Dime Errors

The "off center strike" appears to be what I have when comparing this photo to the dime I have.

 

[WoodenJefferson]

Very good deductive reasoning...although the example of an 'off center' strike is more pronounced, your coin exhibits some of the same characteristics. Keep looking for errors in the wild, they are out there.

[Six Mile Rick]

As there are many of these still in circulation you would want to search for a better looking higher grade specimen. More than likely there are still plenty of new unopened rolls for this date.

[coinman1794]

On 1/10/2018 at 7:54 PM, AR15DCM said:

Hi,

I checked this coin out with my loupe because the edges felt funny.  It is like the obverse is almost dished.  So I was checking it out and it appears as thought the die struck it twice.  I know it is hard to judge by a photo, but what do you think?

 

 

This coin was struck through grease and has tiny pock marks and wavy distortions. It does not appear to be a Doubled Die. There may be some machine doubling damage on the reverse.