Verification Of Terminolgy

[ikandiggit]

Recently, I had the opportunity to purchase a few booklets by Hans Zoell. Ist and 2nd editions and a few others.

I realize these are out-dated (1960's) but I just wanted to verify a couple of things. Looking at my pics below, I would say the doubling both dates and the leaves on the 1938 are machine/strike doubling. In the Zoell booklets, he refers to this as "re-cut dates" (or "re-cut" leaves, as the case may be). Is his reference outdated or is he talking about something entirely different?

[KurtS]

This is an interesting subject, as I recently discussed the 1940-41 Newfoundland re-engraved cents with a collector here. Judging by a few opinions, there seems to be confusion over the difference between a re-engraved/re-cut design and machine doubling. Because Chuck has been very helpful on this subject--we should know by now that one is simply damage, while the other is worked on the die, and transferred to the coin, resulting in a consistent position and offset.

As for your coins, I would first rule out MD and then go from there. As a comparison, the 1940 RE cent below looks different from MD in how the doubling is quite high to the overall relief of the devices, and obviously carefully worked into the design. If you look closely, you'll see details that could not be done by the shearing damage of a strike. Going by your photos, I would think the 1938 is MD, but I'm less sure about the 1939. I'd want to compare that one carefully to the markers for any re-cut cent of that date.

[Dick]

HI Kurt! I was just reading your post, and agree with your thinking. On the '38, yes it is MD. The larteral displacement is even, and in the same direction,over all. The '39, same thought, for the same reasoning. Why, or how would one nine, have re-cut markings, and not the other, if this be the case? the Coin shown with the "re-cut, it is obvious that it is NOT possible for MD to follow the curvatuere of the devices, as it seems in the photo. so it can ONLY be re-cut. Nor can it be referred to as "Longacre Doubling", for the same ereasoning.

[KurtS]

Dick,
Good points too! Comparing the two 9 digits, I thought RE might explain the second 9 because the first looks bolder, and an engraver sought to make them consistent? Of course, I have zero proof this happened, but the lack of doubling elsewhere makes me wonder.

[Dick]

Kurt, reading my last, gave me the impression that the re-cut nine, (1939), might be a MD. not the case. The more i read of my posts, the less i understand what i was trying to say, unless i read much more of the thread. a bit disconnected, NO?

[KurtS]

Dick--I think I got the gist, and you confirmed my thoughts too. While it might be MD, I'm not yet convinced. I don't think I'll know for certain by the pic.

[ikandiggit]

I've been sorting out a number of these dates out of my "hoard" (I just bought 24,000 Canadian cents ) and over the weekend, I check them to see if I can find a few more with the same/similar doubling. Maybe with a few more examples, it would help identify it.

Thanks guys!