Are doubled earlobes the new doubled eyelids?

[Gabe]

Since the most recent discovery of the 2006 doubled earlobe cent, two additional doubled earlobes have been found. Another one for 2006 and one from 2002. The 2 additional discoveries are very impressive doubled dies. Here is a link to some pictures (pictures are in 16 and page 17).

http://home.sc.rr.com/stereo3dgames/Die_Variety_News_Issue_8.pdf

Since the earlobe is within the center of the design, I think that we could start seeying a lot of these varieties surfacing. The new doubled earlobe discoveries are very impressive, and I'm positive that there must be more around.

[wavysteps2003]

Hi Gabe - I guess that you could make that comparision, however, we must keep in mind that the hubbing system that made these anomalies are different from each other; the doubled eye lid being made by multiple hubbing, the doubled ear lobe by single squeeze.

Now this next statement might make some heads turn, so read it carefully. The 1984 Lincoln cent with a doubled ear lobe MAY have been a single squeeze hubbed working die.

Let us take a look at two facts.

1. In 75 years of Lincoln cent production, there were no doubled ear lobes (1909 to 1983[except for one in 1941 that Ed brought up]). In 1984 a doubled ear lobe shows up, followed by 1997, 2002 and now 2 doubled ear lobes in 2006.

2. We are not to sure when the MINT began experimenting with the single squeeze hubbing. In their report of FY86, it states that they were further implementing the use of that system. What that means is that it was in place in FY85; could it have been used to make working dies in FY84? Who really knows except the MINT and they are quiet about such things.

Just an alternate line of thinking that has possibilities.

BJ Neff

[eagames]

What about:

1941 1DO-006 (coneca die 5) (FS-018.3)

http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1941&die_id=1941p1do006&die_state=mds

[wavysteps2003]

Good one Ed - Let us take a look at the differences though from this doubled die to those occurring in 1984, 1997, 2002 and 2006.

First of all, is there a difference? They are all class IV doubled dies.

The 1941 appears to be a weak first hubbing with a second much stronger hubbing. However, it does affect a wider area than the later doubled ear lobes.

While the later doubled ear lobes are stronger in apppearence than the 1941 (with the exception of the 1997) they affect less of an area, but leave a stronger secondary impression in that affected area.

It maybe that all these doubled ear lobes were created basically the same way. The 1941 by an early aborted first hubbing that left a weak impression and no keys to align the second hubbing. The 1984, 1997, 2002 and 2006 by an aborted hubbing and repositioning of the working die, more commonly seen in the single squeeze hubbing process or in fact, the 1984 could have been made the same way the 1941 was.

Well anyway, what I am trying to do to you folks is making you think out side the box for other possibilities that are pausible.

Thanks Ed for bring the 1941 up and I shall change the original post to reflect that fact.

BJ Neff

[Bob P]

Very interesting point of view BJ. While it certainly makes me think about the possibility that 1984 was a single squeeze, I really don't think so. I base this on a few things, most notably that there are other doubled dies in 1984 that were obviously made using the multiple hubbing method (ie 1984P-1DO-002). In addition, the doubling on the 1984 doubled earlobe does indeed encompass a larger area such as the beard and bow tie. Although no one can say for sure because of the reasons you discussed (the mint's policy on discussing things), it would seem rather unlikely that the Mint would have experimented the single squeeze process with one particular die having such a glaring 'error' (the doubled earlobe), and that particular die making it through quality control and striking thousands of coins that made it into circulation. I am sure you know that once the single squeeze process was instituted, all of the dies were quality control checked rather more stringently than those of the subsequent years. I don't think anyone would have missed the doubled earlobe under those circumstances.
Either way, it definitely makes one think about the hubbing/striking processes in those transitional years. (which is what you were getting at in the first place). One other point I would like to make is that there are now several State Quarters that have doubled earlobes. Seems like Gabe's statement may have more merit than initially thought.
What I really hate is the fact that you made me think...and it's a weekend! I ain't supposed to do that!

By the way....I found my 4th 2006 doubled earlobe tonight!

[Gabe]

Bob P... you found your 4th doubled earlobe?! I have searched through thousands of 2006 cents have not found any.

I find the doubled earlobes very interesting, because of the massive spread between the two hubbins.

We should all be paying attention to all center design elements of all denominations. This area seems very suceptible to doubling, as we have seen.

[Dick]

Gabe, What Bob does not tell you, is that the mint sends all the cents to him for QC check, and then they get distributed from there. Or so it seems.
Dick

[wavysteps2003]

We will never be able to tell the difference between the doubled dies from single squeeze and multiple hubbing during the period of 1984? to 1996. Just another little thought though; in 1995 The Denver mint began making their own dies. Do you think that they installed multi hubbing presses in this new die shop only to have then replaced two years later? Or, if they did install the single squeeze press in Denver in 1995. If so, then the 1995D Lincoln cent doubled dies are a product of the single squeeze hubbing.

The one anomaly that we may be able to tell that came from the single squeeze hubbing exclusively is "trails / wavy steps".

Well anyway, I hope that this gets you all thinking about different alternatives to some of the "facts" that are floating around now-a-days.

BJ Neff

[eagames]

The 2007 DDO is very nice, looks almost similar to the big one from 2006 since it shows almost everplace on the coin. What class would this monster be, could it be a class 4?

Thats also neat that they found the 2002 earlobe, looks a bit like the close call BJ had in this thread:

http://www.coppercoins.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2868&highlight=2002