DDO 1982 D small date

[CoinGod89]

[World Colonial]

I couldn't find an example of a 1982-D doubled die elsewhere to compare to your images but don't see any doubling in either image.  I have heard of numerous DDO Lincoln cents but other than the 1955, don't see why anyone would care because it isn't really noticeable.  Even the 1972 which is probably second best known from the Red Book doesn't have prominent doubling in any image I have seen. 

[LINCOLNMAN]

2 hours ago, World Colonial said:

I couldn't find an example of a 1982-D doubled die elsewhere to compare to your images but don't see any doubling in either image.  I have heard of numerous DDO Lincoln cents but other than the 1955, don't see why anyone would care because it isn't really noticeable.  Even the 1972 which is probably second best known from the Red Book doesn't have prominent doubling in any image I have seen. 

Agree totally except as to the 72, it's pretty noticeable IMO. Mint mistakes are not my thing in general tho. .

[World Colonial]

59 minutes ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

Agree totally except as to the 72, it's pretty noticeable IMO. Mint mistakes are not my thing in general tho. .

As I have no interest in this coinage, I have never attempted to inspect the '72 DDO even when I attended a coin show.  However, on one occasion I made a similar comment here and someone replied to the effect that there are several different versions of it.  By this I understood similar to the "weak" and "strong" versions of the 1922 "No D" cent and the 1911-D quarter eagle.  If this is correct, then it would be a lot more noticeable depending upon the specific coin.

My comment is also subject to definitions of "noticeable".  What many others would consider to be, I do not.  As examples, the numerous early large cent die varieties with different size dates and fractions listed in the Red Book are easy enough to see without magnification (or used to be when I was younger and my eye sight was better). 

On the other hand, there is a current article in Coin Week discussing the display of one of the two known 1861 Pacquet Reverse double eagles.  The article points out that 300,000 were minted yet only two survive. 

How did this happen?

The most logical explanation is that the difference is so minor that nobody even noticed it because they couldn't tell the difference between it and the "regular" issue.  And so it is with minor errors and die varieties which are also so numerous that hardly any collectors even know it exists.

[MarkFeld]

35 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

As I have no interest in this coinage, I have never attempted to inspect the '72 DDO even when I attended a coin show.  However, on one occasion I made a similar comment here and someone replied to the effect that there are several different versions of it.  By this I understood similar to the "weak" and "strong" versions of the 1922 "No D" cent and the 1911-D quarter eagle.  If this is correct, then it would be a lot more noticeable depending upon the specific coin.

My comment is also subject to definitions of "noticeable".  What many others would consider to be, I do not.  As examples, the numerous early large cent die varieties with different size dates and fractions listed in the Red Book are easy enough to see without magnification (or used to be when I was younger and my eye sight was better). 

On the other hand, there is a current article in Coin Week discussing the display of one of the two known 1861 Pacquet Reverse double eagles.  The article points out that 300,000 were minted yet only two survive. 

How did this happen?

The most logical explanation is that the difference is so minor that nobody even noticed it because they couldn't tell the difference between it and the "regular" issue.  And so it is with minor errors and die varieties which are also so numerous that hardly any collectors even know it exists.

Why not at least view images of coins (and their differences), before speculating about them? The Paquet reverse -see first coin- is easily distinguishable from the regular one. See if you can spot the difference. I believe that the very low population can be explained by meltings much more logically and easily than by "the difference is so minor that nobody even noticed it because they couldn't tell the difference between it and the "regular" issue."

 

 

 

As for the 1972 DDO cents - a  good number of them are quite conspicuous:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[coinman1794]

Regarding the 1972 Doubled Dies, there are several different ones, but only one is dramatic, widely collected, and recognized automatically on the insert, as Mark has shown above.

[coinman1794]

There is no evidence of die doubling on the 1982-D shown above.

[LINCOLNMAN]

Mark, thanks for showing both $20 reverses, had not seen that or bothered to do the same. Differences are very apparent when juxtaposed.

[World Colonial]

2 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Why not at least view images of coins (and their differences), before speculating about them? The Paquet reverse -see first coin- is easily distinguishable from the regular one. See if you can spot the difference. I believe that the very low population can be explained by meltings much more logically and easily than by "the difference is so minor that nobody even noticed it because they couldn't tell the difference between it and the "regular" issue."

 

 

 

As for the 1972 DDO cents - a  good number of them are quite conspicuous:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was not speculating.  I have looked at the two versions of the 1861 double eagle.  In your images, I can see the difference between the "O" in "OF", was aware of the difference in the lettering and still don't consider it noticeable unless someone is specifically looking for it.  This difference is completely trivial for such a supposedly prominent coin.  My recollection is that the coin was discovered in 1879 and if this is incorrect, years after 1861.  So apparently, whoever owned it prior to it's public disclosure didn't think anything of it either.

But to correct my prior post, the Coin Week article states that the 1861 mintage was three million.  It doesn't specify it for this coin.

As for the '72 DDO obverse cent pictured, it's a lot easier to notice than others I have seen to my recollection.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Not that it matters, but I am of the same school as Mark on this.

[MarkFeld]

17 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

I was not speculating.  I have looked at the two versions of the 1861 double eagle.  In your images, I can see the difference between the "O" in "OF", was aware of the difference in the lettering and still don't consider it noticeable unless someone is specifically looking for it.  This difference is completely trivial for such a supposedly prominent coin.  My recollection is that the coin was discovered in 1879 and if this is incorrect, years after 1861.  So apparently, whoever owned it prior to it's public disclosure didn't think anything of it either.

But to correct my prior post, the Coin Week article states that the 1861 mintage was three million.  It doesn't specify it for this coin.

As for the '72 DDO obverse cent pictured, it's a lot easier to notice than others I have seen to my recollection.

Regarding the Paquet - see, also, the placement of the upper stars, relative to the rays.

[WoodenJefferson]

2 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Regarding the Paquet - see, also, the placement of the upper stars, relative to the rays.

I also noted the entire motto, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was larger on the BU example.