1970-S Am I seeing things or is there a DDO in here somewhere?

[hasfam]

This is one of those coins you set a side to come back to later. I'll be posting a couple of other questionable coins later as well. There was something about the thickness and shape of the motto and what appears to be a light spread most noticeable in GOD. Any opinions? Yay or Nay?

[mustbebob]

Those are some great pics. Unfortunately, I don't see anything that makes me believe this is a doubled die. Probably struck with worn dies.

[liveandievarieties]

NOOOOO!!!

That one is in my new discoveries pile that I'm sending to Bob after this weekend! Lol, no joke.

What's even funnier is that I showed it to Chugly and he said the same thing, that he'd found 2 of them a while back and planned on getting them attributed.

The long and the short of it is yes- I'm certain that's a doubled die. I don't see any separation either, but it's gotta be. I'm looking forward to other's views on the coin.

To be honest, I really, really like that die. In fact, I think it's my second favorite for the year only behind the #1.

[liveandievarieties]

Really Bob? I'm not disputing you, just a difference of perspective-

Would it help to have 3 or 4 examples from different sources to examine? I ask because when you've got the coin under your loupe, it just jumps out as significant, far beyond die erosion. I firmly believe there's some kind of die issue, most likely a poorly defined doubled die.

[mustbebob]

Wow....I am curious as to why you are sure this is a doubled die? It has no separation, no notching, and no class 6 distortion. I don't see anything that would enable me to attribute it as one either. Unless I am missing something obvious here guys, I can't see how this could be a doubled die.
Let's kinda change things around a bit. If you were an attributer, how would you list this one. What class? What other diagnostics would you use to list it? Just curious. I guess it is possible to be a mushy DD, but I would have to see an earlier example, them match any markers to positively conclude it is one.

[mustbebob]

Would it help to have 3 or 4 examples from different sources to examine?

It would Chris, but they would have to be the same die. As stated above, the ultimate determining factor would be an earlier die state example. Rocks pic looks like this is probably an MDS. How about yours? Same die state?

[liveandievarieties]

If a die were hubbed twice at exactly the same depth, very slightly offset, it would produce a coin that didn't have separation lines, no? What we see as separation is actually a difference in depth of the second hubbing, isn't it?

I certainly couldn't tell you how or what to classify it as- I'm a dealer of well known varieties and my area of study doesn't lie in attribution. But when I send you my example I'll include some average 70-Ss, this die stands out, it really does. Additionally, I think Rock's example is EMDS at latest, other than some very light polish lines the coin doesn't show much of any signs of extended use.

[liveandievarieties]

I'll touch base with Rock and see if we can match some markers.

[jcuve]

It could be a LDS doubled die, or just rather worn. It would have to have markers matching a previous entry though to be verifiable. It reminds me of 1970-D DDO-007 and 008. But there really isn't enough to attribute as a brand new die.

[mustbebob]

If a die were hubbed twice at exactly the same depth, very slightly offset, it would produce a coin that didn't have separation lines, no? What we see as separation is actually a difference in depth of the second hubbing, isn't it?

I see what you are saying here Chris. However, to classify it, it would have to show separation or distortion. I don't see how a difference in depth can be construed as doubling, only the difference in position relative to the axis.

The only other possibility that doesn't necessarily include a misalignment, would be a Class 3 (Design hub doubling). There is evidence of class 3's for this particular year (large and small date hubs), but I see no evidence on this coin that this is the case here.

Once again, I am open to suggestions/explanations. However, in order to be listed, it must currently fall into one of the classes used to identify doubled dies. I don't see any that apply here right now.

[hasfam]

I thought the GO was the most compelling part of this with what appears to be a seperation line on the NE side of the O. I also thought this might be a worn die causing any other sutble seperation on the devices to be blended in. Interesting conversation though. I'll be happy to add it to others if comparisons are needed.

[simonm]

I see something on the NE side of the O in GOD, but it may just be a contact mark giving the appearance of a separation line.

[jpl6332]

Really great pictures...what did you use to take those?

[jcuve]

I agree with Bob in that a class of hub doubling has to be evident in order to attribute any new coin as having been struck by a doubled die. You would pretty much have to have a notch or a separation line or two to classify as hub doubling specifically, or it would have to match something listed.

That said, play with the lighting angle Rock and see if another direction can tweak out a separation line somewhere.

[hasfam]

I agree with Bob in that a class of hub doubling has to be evident in order to attribute any new coin as having been struck by a doubled die. You would pretty much have to have a notch or a separation line or two to classify as hub doubling specifically, or it would have to match something listed.

That said, play with the lighting angle Rock and see if another direction can tweak out a separation line somewhere.

Look at the O in GOD Jason and my previous post.