FAT DEVICES and DOUBLING
1 1

10 posts in this topic

257 posts

I have a question that has been on my mind for quite awhile so I thought I would throw it out for discussion and clarification. I have been somewhat perplexed regarding a type of doubling. With that said, I am very well aware of all of the “non-real” doubling such as Mechanical Doubling (MD), Die Deterioration Doubling (DDD), etc...... True hub doubling has always seemed to, and rightfully so, come in the form of split serifs, notching and indentations. 
That brings me to my question, Fat, Thick, Distorted and Mis-shaped letters and numbers (devices) where there are none of the classic indicators of doubling as I outlined above. Where is “the line drawn” so to speak when trying to determine if this is true doubling. If these type of device variations are not considered doubling then I ask; what are they and how are they caused?  I understand that some of this may be caused by overused and worn out dies.  However, when you find a coin that does not exhibit die deterioration or over polishing and the devices are round, robust and sharply struck.... is this a true form of doubling?? Please see the pictures below for examples of what I am referring to. Any information is greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

2D2EE6B8-1769-49D0-96E2-698352FCEE2F.jpeg

F239774D-A065-4FEA-9805-9FA76451A11E.jpeg

C2F2D32B-F8E1-48D5-9D8C-3B4E2152C11D.jpeg

8145D87D-5B42-4830-B674-86BBB14D1009.jpeg

94EF0BDD-6924-48F0-B0A2-EAD69E29E0FF.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,075 posts

What year is that cent Greg? There are some years that all the coins have thick lettering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,639 posts

My first wife developed some fat devices. Another story for another time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
257 posts
3 hours ago, Greenstang said:

What year is that cent Greg? There are some years that all the coins have thick lettering.

You are absolutely correct that certain years have thick lettering, especially the late 70’s and early 80’s. This is actually a 1981 Philly but I didn’t want to say anything about the date as I’m not trying to say I’ve found a “first” as so many have in the past. Most all 1980-1982 Linc’s seem to have thick lettering. What I see on this one, unlike the other thousands..... of 81’s I’ve looked at, is inside the B and R of LIBERTY and then the O in GOD is really out of shape and very thick at the northeast position. WE looks to be very thick with a possible notch on the bottom of the W and several indents are visible on the E. I compared this cent to all of the PCGS photos and this one just looked different. Even though this is an 81’, I’m still wondering how the strike process produces these distortions. However, the problem here is that there is nothing out there to compare this cent to. Thanks Greenstang. 

Edited by Greg Bradford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,639 posts
40 minutes ago, Greg Bradford said:

You are absolutely correct that certain years have thick lettering, especially the late 70’s and early 80’s. This is actually a 1981 Philly but I didn’t want to say anything about the date as I’m not trying to say I’ve found a “first” as so many have in the past. Most all 1980-1982 Linc’s seem to have thick lettering. What I see on this one, unlike the other thousands..... of 81’s I’ve looked at, is inside the B and R of LIBERTY and then the O in GOD is really out of shape and very thick at the northeast position. WE looks to be very thick with a possible notch on the bottom of the W and several indents are visible on the E. I compared this cent to all of the PCGS photos and this one just looked different. Even though this is an 81’, I’m still wondering how the strike process produces these distortions other than it is caused by just a really deeply carved die. However, in your professional opinion, does this even resemble doubling???  The problem is obviously that there is nothing out there to compare it to. Thanks Greenstang. 

Don't give up easily on this one. And I usually am a critic of this kind of stuff. I noticed the misshapen O right away. This might be "real" even if it's not my cup o' tea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,621 posts

In making cents each year U.S. mints go through hundreds of hubs and great many master dies (used to make hubs). As a hub wears, the letters thicken to a point where the foreman of the Die Department condemns the hub. Just like dies, hubs wear, crack, develop defects or occasionally fall apart.

If you compare1968 cents with 1969 you'll see the product of a completely new master die for Lincoln cents.

Edited by RWB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
257 posts
1 hour ago, RWB said:

In making cents each year U.S. mints go through hundreds of hubs and great many master dies (used to make hubs). As a hub wears, the letters thicken to a point where the foreman of the Die Department condemns the hub. Just like dies, hubs wear, crack, develop defects or occasionally fall apart.

If you compare1968 cents with 1969 you'll see the product of a completely new master die for Lincoln cents.

Thank you RWB for your comment. I completely agree and understand about defective dies and hubs and throwing them out once they are considered defective. With respect, I’m not quite sure what you are referring to by comparing 68’ and 69’ cents with this coin. Each year, obviously due to a new date, calls for the creation of another hammer die. Whether or not they use the preceding year’s anvil die for subsequent years is something that I am  unfamiliar with unless it is a transitional year reverse design which would require a replacement. The pics I submitted I just thought were very odd due to the thickness and misshaped devices and then further taking the overall condition of this cent into consideration as well. As I stated earlier, I know there is not a comparable example of this year. I have seen numerous other year Lincoln’s that exhibit true and confirmed doubling by virtue of only thick and misshaped letters and/or numbers and nothing else (maybe a 1966 DDO if I’m thinking correctly, as an example) . I agree that worn out hubs could produce some confusion but I believe there would be other indicators associated with a dilapidated hub or die that are not present on this coin. Sorry to get so long winded and I hope what I explained makes sense... lol.  Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
257 posts

Here’s the entire coin. The obverse devices look to me to be pretty well struck and aside from some PMD it still has pretty good detail. The reverse looks to show signs of polishing but the obverse strike is pretty good and in my humble opinion it does not show any significant signs of die deterioration, breakage or damage.

D112F4B7-BCCA-46B4-9714-00D5C7EE335A.jpeg

735A9854-C9F4-439E-99B1-F4241D2C0AC3.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,621 posts
10 hours ago, Greg Bradford said:

If you compare1968 cents with 1969 you'll see the product of a completely new master die for Lincoln cents.

This is an example of extreme master die deterioration....mentioned to illustrate the concept, not the 1981 question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,511 posts

The 1982 Small Date cents represent a new hub to replace the deteriorated one with its Large Date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1