1942d ddo #2?

[grnwavdav]

I definitely think this is a DDO. You can see a portion of an extra L beneath the primary L. I am thinking this is DDO #2 but I cannot see the other doubling that should be next to the "I" of "IN" and "T"s of "TRUST". Circulation wear could be hiding these. The mintmark placement seems right. What do you guys think?

[grnwavdav]

Alright. Got the pictures up.

[jcuve]

I'm not sure. I don't think it is 1DO-002 - do any of the markers match up? If it was hub doubling, but not 002, you'd have to ask Bob if it was enough to get listed or not.

[mustbebob]

I agree that it does not appear to be 1DO-002. I would have to see it in person to make a determination.

[georoxx]

I do see that small bump to the south of the horizontal bar of the L, but that's all I see. If there's more to it, Bob will find it during an in-hand... might be hard to be certain on this one. Die gauge or deterioration could be a consideration.

On a related note, regarding whether or not it's "listable" (if it is determined to be a DD)... I'm curious, Bob. If we compare this doubled L type of DDO to, say, the memorial series double column type of DDR... is collector interest a consideration? The size of the anomaly seems to matter more on the memorial series doubled column-type DDR than it does for these doubled L-type DDs. (True or no?) I've seen some not listed because the doubling was too small. Same with eyelid-type DDs. (I get that. If every minor DD was listed, the effort to maintain the files and sites would be monumental.) Date doubling and ear doubling seem to be of particular interest to collectors. Do you find it easier to decide on listabilty for these?

I guess if I had to put my thought in question form, I'd ask, do the doubled L-type DDs get listed on the sheer existence of doubling alone, or does size matter?

(Eek, that sounds bad. )

-George

One more question: Is listability a new word? LOL

[mustbebob]

Some valid questions, but the answers can be a bit tricky. When I attribute a variety, I can not be sure of what the collector's interest will be on it. I also may list something today, and later on determine that it is too minor. I may also not list something today and determine later that it is listable. I normally take into consideration similar varieties (all years), what varieties are being found for that year, and how easy it would be for a variety collector to be able to see the anomalies during a routine search.
Now...I am not saying everything I have listed should be on the site. There are some varieties that will probably be removed over time. If you look at all the DDRs for FY 2009P, you can get an idea what I am talking about. I listed everything that came out that year, but many of them are really too minor to be there and some should be removed.
For the bar L cents I tend to list most of them because they are easy to see. Eyelids are in a protedted area of the coin, so they are normally visible even in circulated examples.
For the column bar DDRs for memorial cents, you are absolutely correct in that size DOES matter. Originally I had wanted to list them all, but there are so many (over 800) really minor bars, that we set a criteria of length as long as an arm or leg to be listed. In addition, I would handle doubled knees/feet etc on an individual basis.
Each club and attributer sets their own criteria. We will never have all of the same varieties listed which it why you should pick your favorite club and use their files to attribute your coins. I try to cross reference when I can, but it is a courtesy only.
If I missed anything, please let me know.

[georoxx]

<<If I missed anything, please let me know.>>

Yes, you missed something very important.

Is listability a new word?

-George

PS: Thanks for the explanations, Bob.

[coop]

It appears the die is in the VLDS range. Note the 2 in the date and other outside devices.

[mustbebob]

Is listability a new word?

If it wasn't a new word before...it is now

[willbrooks]

Is listability a new word?

-George

I would say it has a very low coefficient of listificationalism.