Hubbing Dies for Ikes by Bill Sanders- Ch.29 "Big Book"


Lead Authors Bill Sanders and Rob Ezerman, with the Ike Group, Copyright 6 May 2010




You may find this chapter challenging, even discomforting.  It is a summary of some specific real-world die-shop processes that expand our understanding of how working dies would likely have been made in the Ike era, and offers an additional explanation for the creation of the “Families” (“Groups”) of similarly hub doubled Ikes.


The first four pages are an introduction to Bill’s Chapter.  Your choice whether you want to read through this brilliant (remember, I have a strange sense of humor) “introduction” or start on page 6. 




Coin catalogs reflect the organization and people behind the catalog and by definition catalogs are structured to impose a discipline that strives for self-sufficiency (“authority”).  Coin Catalogs may run out of steam, however, if new information and new discoveries can not be readily incorporated or if the system of organization leads to too many separately cataloged items or otherwise is not helpful to the end users.


Let’s look at the two current Ike Doubled Die catalogs.   Wexler, et al, have published two editions of their excellent “ARED” (it is an essential resource for anyone interested in doubled die Ikes), based on the model that any Ike with a different pattern of doubling, even if those differences were minor, deserved a unique catalog number.   Although the first examples cataloged were clustered on the basis of similarities, newly discovered doubled die Ikes were added chronologically, that is, in the order of their discovery.  Thus, new doubled die Ikes with patterns of doubling similar to an existing cataloged doubled die Ike were assigned the next available catalog number for that year and mint at the end of the list, scattering doubled die Ikes with similar patterns of doubling.  In addition, the catalog kept growing, especially the 71-S Silver Ikes, the sheer number becoming more of a burden than a guide for the average doubled die collector, for attributors, and probably for John Wexler as well.  Please don’t get us wrong:  we stand in awe of John Wexler, et al’s ARED.  We will continue to use his catalog as a wonderful resource of identifying individual doubled die Ikes.   


James Wiles’ uses a similar model for his equally excellent Ike book and continuing work on CONECA’s “VARIETY VISTA”.  Although the good Doctor employs a more rigorous approach to die pairings and die states, his Ike doubled die catalog is also organized chronologically so each new discovery or first reported doubled die Ike receives the next available number at the end of the list, at times adding complexity to a catalog that ideally should be providing simplicity and clarity.  Throw in the increasing abundance of new die parings and the ensuing complexity can somewhat overwhelm the average collector.


Both Ike books and VarietyVista are essential for the study of Ike doubled dies and each is internally consistent to a remarkable extent for these first systematic approaches to the doubled die Ikes.  While a few photos in ARED seem misplaced (a trivial problem) and Dr. Wiles’ book does not have a wealth of photographs, hopefully it won’t be too long before both authors come out with new editions or even new books.  Meanwhile, as we lean on VarietyVista and both books, we can all hope that eventually these two researchers and authors will once again join forces. 







Over the past few years the Ike Group has gradually published new thinking based on our observations of the Ike dollars themselves and based on new information brought to us by our own Bill Sanders.  Bill has continually confronted the other authors with die shop realities and thereby forced us to re-think some time-honored assumptions based on Mint-propagated, over-simplified accounts of dies and hubs in the Ike era.   


The current model of US Mint die manufacturing (Galvano > master hub > master die > working hub > working die > coin) is understandably simplified and static, that is to be expected since models tend to become self-sustaining, self-reinforcing and trend toward the simplistic until a log-jam of contrary facts and observations eventually ruptures the model and forces re-thinking and re-modeling.   Consider the defensive posturing of many of the classical physicists in the late nineteenth century as they righteously defending the existence of moving “ethers” in space to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.  Fresh thinking by Einstein and others eventually tore through those defensive efforts and soon physics was re-modeled to take into account a few (but growing) number of new real-world observations and salient thought experiments.


Like classical physics, Ike doubled die catalogs have reached a point where something has to give.  Here are some thoughts and suggestions from the authors:


1.       Families of similarly doubled dies could be identified by the presence of two or more doubled die Ikes that can be securely linked either by a remarkably similar (yet different) doubling pattern or by a shared working hub marker.

2.       We are not enthusiastic about John Wexler’s et al, purported intentions to define and name all such Families by a hypothetical progenitor up-line doubled working hub (and maybe even drop any reference to the existing individual doubled die listings?).  No offense intended, we just are not comfortable that all the Families are the result of a single postulated specific doubled working hub:  we have, for example, the alternative possibility outlined in this chapter, and beyond that, “we don’t know what we don’t know”.  So we suggest the classic catalogs of the individual doubled dies should not be abandoned, especially in the presence of the current Ike doubled die turbulence.

3.       We propose the easiest presentation of the spread of attributable doubling for a given Family is through “Bookend Photos” (copyright Rob Ezerman), one showing a doubled die in the Family with strong doubling while the other photos shows the Family member with the least strong but attributable doubling.

4.       We’d like to see all Family members already identified in Wexler and/or Wiles’ catalog continue to carry or at least reference those specific doubled die designations.   As we wrote earlier, throwing out the babies because the bath water has turned a bit murky seems unwise. 

5.       The slow and often tedious work of identifying all Family members which have their own unique variation of their Family’s doubling pattern and/or stable marker(s) should continue (go Tom!).

6.       An Internet-based or loose-leaf catalog organized by Families could allow adding new Family members to their Family’s section of the catalog, thereby clustering all the dies with similar doubling in the same location in the catalog, facilitating comparisons and generally making life easier for collectors and attributor.  The Catalog could include Mosaic Photos of the key devices that can illustrate the differences among the various apparent siblings.

7.       The “Bookend Photo” approach could also serve the known single-die doubled die Ikes (“known” at least until one or more “Siblings” turns up).  Here, Bookend Photos would display the strongest example and the weakest but still attributable example but now die state is the key variable.  Since the notches and high-lines that define most doubled die circulation Ikes fade rapidly with advancing die state, bookend photos could capture the “weakest” most washed-out notching that would allow attribution, along side a strong example.

8.       We are exploring using the dominant direction of notching in the Motto’s “IN” to give the collector three simple categories of doubling with which to visualize the Collectible doubled die Ikes.




The collector searching for Ike doubled dies and the attributor face many challenges, including:


-          It looks as though silver specimen Ikes were also struck twice, resulting in varying degrees of
“Displaced Second Strike Doubling” (DSSD), especially in 1972.  One marker for the presence of DSSD is perfect shelf formation (without metal otherwise being shoved around) on the S Mintmark and often on one or more (or all) numbers and other devices.  When the displacement is generous, one can see the same frosting pattern and details on the shelf as on the adjacent field, even when the shelf is quite thick, which may help separate DSSD from MDD (Machine Doubling Damage), also called “Strike Doubling”.

-          Dealing with the various changes due to advancing die state, knowing that only the first 2% of a CB die’s productive life will be in the Early Die States and thereafter progress deterioration occurs.

-          Ike proof dies in 1971 and probably through 1976 received repeated re-frosting and re-polishing treatments to sustain strong cameo contrast, and the silver specimen Ikes likely received repeated field polishing and re-frosting treatments to sustain their attractive frosting.  On both proof and specimen Ikes, subtle doubling, tripling and Class II “wrinkling” (Chapters 17 and 18) close to the field can be weakened or wiped out and high-lines weakened with these treatments. 

-          The vagaries of the hubbing processes from master die to working hub and from working hub to working die combined with the use of different hubbers during each stage of the hubbing presents a cornucopia of influences that leads to a spectrum of strength of doubling that explain why so few doubled die Ikes carry a distinctive, substantial pattern of doubling that allows formal attribution.  Likewise, many recorded “die markers” were not stable, leaving attributors with difficult decisions when they have a doubled die Ike consistent with a cataloged doubled die but without a specific recorded marker.  The vast majority of doubled die Ikes, and there are indeed many, fall off to “almost” attributable, to close but no cigar, to “Yeah it’s definitely doubled and in somewhat the pattern of DDO-xxx but not even close to attributable, to all degrees of doubling deemed “minor”, to insignificant doubling that’s just a nuisance because you still have to make sure you’re not missing something significant.  Estimates here are hazardous but we would guess you’ll find minor doubling in 10 to 20 % of silver Ikes (more like 50% if you use a microscope), perhaps 5% with doubling similar to cataloged doubled dies but not attributable, and around 1 to 2 percent with attributable doubling.  The “Big Dawgs” like the 71-S SP DDO-008 and -022 seem well under 0.1% of 71-S SP Peg Leg Ikes Ikes, perhaps because their spread was large enough to catch the eye of the press operators (who handled and inspected each struck proof Ike), resulting in the offending die being pulled and trashed.


To sum up, the vast majority of Ikes that show doubling will not be attributable.  Only a very small minority will be in sufficiently early die states and free from repeated die re-treatments for their pattern of doubling to be seen clearly and any markers securely identified.  The attributable doubled die Ikes can be thought of as one die coins:   for proofs, one die produced 2,500 Ikes, we’re told:  that is indeed a small percentage of the several millions produced each year.


Adding frustration to difficulties, the vagaries and uncertainties of attributing doubled die Ikes leads to many attributors working in “black boxes”, if only to isolate himself from the need to explain in detail every decision to often disappointed customers.  To make matters worse, the two existing Ike doubled die catalogs in book form have significant differences beyond their differing numbering systems, are unavoidably out of date, VarietyVista doesn’t have photographs, and chronologic cataloging strains our memories and further discourage the casual collector. 




The Ike Group and Bill in particular, for some time has proposed grouping doubled die Ikes based on their appearance, creating “Families” of similarly doubled die Ikes (we’ll use “Family” and “Group” interchangeably).    Each Group would be identified as such and can expand as new “Members” are brought to light.  By staying clustered, Family members (“siblings”) can more easily be compared, contrasted and reinforce each other.  Within each Family, any with significant doubling that would appeal to average collectors, can be identified as “Collectible”.  Whenever applicable, members of our Families (and doubled dies not part of a family) would be cross-referenced to their Wexler, Wiles and/or CherryPickers’ catalog numbers.


 Since doubled die research, grouping and cataloging efforts are still very much a work in progress, our main focus will be the “Collectible” doubled die Ikes.  We will not group by doubling Class or by any speculation as to the source of doubling.  Our focus is on the pattern of doubling we see on the Ikes themselves.  We believe the appearance of each collectible doubled die Ike is the bedrock upon which its classification should rest.


To the extent we will be building a catalog of doubled die Ikes, it will be based on the remarkable groundwork laid by Wiles and Wexler and we will resist abandoning either set of individual die numbers:  it simply makes no sense to throw out the babies just because the Ike doubled-die bath water has become murky.  All we have to do is make some common-sense corrections:


-          Our catalog’s main purpose will be to serve the collector by facilitating identification of our “Collectible” (DIVA) doubled die Ikes:  we will provide photos that show the typical pattern of doubling, any attribution-required stable markers, and “Bookend” photos that capture the “Range of Attribution”.   Our web site will provide access to photos of possible “look-a-likes” such as Family siblings and other somewhat similar doubled die Ikes.

-          We anticipate publishing abbreviated catalogs in Booklet form down the road. 

-          The authors believe the attribution and cataloging of Ike doubled dies should gradually move from black-box operations to fully transparent operations so our catalog would invite and depend on participation by interested collectors.

-          We hope that in time that ARED and Variety Vista can be merged. 


At present, The Ike Group is not enthusiastic about the current interest in explaining Families of Ikes with very similar doubling by means of hypothetical up-line doubled working hubs, and we do wonder how enthusiastic collectors will be at the prospect of “collecting” non-existing doubled working hubs when we are accustomed to collecting specific cataloged doubled die Ikes.  Our primary focus, therefore, will remain on the specific collectible doubled die Ikes themselves.


As you’ll read in the chapter that follows, you’ll see we are also entertaining the intriguing possibility that some families of similarly doubled Ikes might be explained by specific production variables in the hubbing of working dies, without needing to bring a hypothetical doubled working hub into the picture, production variables brought to our attention by, whom else, Bill Sanders.














Lead Author Bill Sanders, with the Ike Group, Copyright 6 May 2010





Hub-doubled 1971-S Eisenhower dollars have been challenging to understand and to catalog.  James Wiles and Wexler, et al, created the first catalogs based on individual examples that could be distinguished from each other, even if the differences were sometimes minor.

The present trend is to lump together similarly doubled-die Ikes and to catalog each grouping by a presumed up-line doubled working hub (or doubled master die), reducing the number of separately-cataloged 71-S Silver Ike doubled-die varieties, for example, from well over 100 to under twenty.

The Ike Group is exploring an alternative explanation for families of similarly doubled Ikes that does not require a common up-line doubled working hub.  This alternative mechanism falls out of the processes by which working dies were hubbed, and can also account for the presence of identical working hub markers on members of some Families of similarly doubled Ikes.




The Ike Group will continue to identify groups of Ikes with very similar patterns of doubling, which we call doubled-die "Families". Within these Families, we will continue to identify and document the most prominent doubled-die examples; particularly those we believe are "Collectible".  We do not feel compelled to catalog presumed up-line doubled working hubs, since their identification will always be theoretical, and we question the level of interest among collectors, especially those of us already invested in individual doubled-die Ikes.

"But", you say, "Didn't all the ‘families’ of Ikes with nearly identical doubling come from a single up-line doubled working hub?  That’s how the Mint works isn’t it—master hub to master die to working hub to working die?  So why not make up a catalog number for that presumed doubled working hub?"

If only hubs and dies were that simple.


Let’s look closely at how a few hubbing specifics could combine to create families of similar doubled-die Ikes:

·         Multiple hubbings with different working hubs

·         The hydraulic press

·         The "float"

·         Annealing working dies-to-be in groups

·         Blanking points for XY alignment

·         Rotational alignment  by eye

·         Annealing distortion possibly creating rotational doubling


Working dies were likely hubbed five times by working hubs to progressively "sink" the full image into the working dies.  The first several hubbings of a working die, which would move the most die steel and thus would put the most stress and wear on the working hub, were probably performed by a hub that was worn or that had been modified specifically for the first two or three hubbings (“rougher hubs” or “roughers”).  The last two hubbings were probably performed by the newest working hub in order to impart the sharpest possible image to the working die (“finishing hubs” or “finishers”).  Every commercial die shop in the country used this approach to extend the life of their working hubs and get the most out of them.


A slow hydraulic press was used for hubbing instead of a much faster coining-type mechanical press for many reasons including the massive force required and the slower speed to minimize work hardening.  Perhaps the most critical benefit of slow "squeezing"— and the one least known to collectors–was giving the working die time to self-align with the working hub, to "slide into position" for perfect alignment with the working hub.  Called “The Float", this critical mechanism required a tiny but significant amount of free play in the mounting of the working die being hubbed. Without the float, it would be nearly impossible to align the die and hub accurately enough to prevent relatively generous hub-doubling "spread" on virtually every die. 


Due to the "work hardening" induced by each partial hubbing, the in-process working die was annealed (re-softened) after each squeeze to prevent subsequent hubbings from damaging the die or hub.  Annealing was done in groups of roughly 24 dies with exacting attention to accurate and very gradual heating and cooling.  Even the best practices, however, would invariably result in measurable distortion in some of large Ike dies-in-process and minimal distortion in most.  Remember that all such operations require compromises between the ideal and the practical due to cost and time factors.  We think the Mint may have outsourced the annealing of Ike working dies to specialty shops because annealing dies this large is highly technical and difficult.  If annealing was not out-sourced, die distortion would have been a major nuisance.  Margolis and Weinberg (Reference #3, pages 88-89) write “…in one informal discussion with a Mint official, we were told that for all practical purposes, all large coins have some degree of minor dimensional distortion doubling in them”.  In any case, annealing would have been a lengthy process, with a one to three-week turn-around if outsourced, and 5 to 10 days if done in house. 


When re-hubbing the newly-annealed in-process working dies, the die workers probably pulled them one at a time in succession from their annealing basket after "setting-up" the operation each time a basket of annealed dies came back from their annealing heat treatment.





FIGURE 1      Both photos from the superb and irreplaceable “The Error Coin Encyclopedia", Fourth Edition, Arnold Margolis, NLG DEC, and Fred Weinberg, NLG, pages 81-82 (permission requested).


The Mint’s die shop would have used tool and die practices that were universally employed in die shops of the era, so what follows is probably very close to the Philadelphia Mint’s procedures. 


The hydraulic press would have been oriented vertically, with the working die placed in a holder, called the "nest", on the base of the press.  One simple holder is a hole drilled in a plate into which the working die is seated, that hole being slightly larger than the base of the die—perhaps 0.002" larger—providing the clearance for the "float" that is necessary for perfect hub-die alignment.  The working hub would have been secured in the moving arm of the press, called the "ram".


If such a base plate were used to hold the working die-to-be, it would have been placed on the base of the press with "banking points" to fix XY orientation, called "transitional XY positioning".  "Banking" refers quite literally to adjustable banks up against which the nest would be secured.  That mechanism could potentially introduce transitional (linear) doubling into a working die if the base is not located in XY orientation accurately enough for the float to fully correct alignment of working hub and in-process die images.  We are assuming that the working hub secured in the ram is fixed in place, although some small amount of free play in the ram is unavoidable, both rotational and transitional. 


In addition, for the second and subsequent squeezes, the working die had to be placed in the nest with the correct rotational orientation.  For 1971 production, this was probably done by eye, aided by penciled or inscribed lines on the working die and working hub, most likely starting with a scribed line on the die positioning fixture, which would be aligned with a characteristic on the face of the die.  As long as the float could correct the rotational alignment, it was not necessary to have perfect alignment. But if the die worker’s visual alignment was off by more than could be corrected by the float, rotational doubling would be created on the working die being hubbed.  Later advances included “lugs and slots” in both hub and die for accurate rotational alignment, but these were probably not used by the Philadelphia Mint’s die shop until production of the 1972 Ike dies (there is no mention of rotational doubling in Ike doubled die catalogs after 1971 other than the 72-D CB WDDR-001 (CH 14).


An important factor that could have interfered with the necessary float required to create perfect hub-die alignment was the state of the working die’s partial image.  By the fourth hubbing, its partial incuse image could have been somewhat distorted from annealing, and its existing partial "image" was likely created by a more worn, possibly-modified working hub than what is now in the ram.  Float could have been partially or totally impeded if the hub and die could not accurately "seat", resulting in hub and die jamming, thus producing a doubled die.  That potential systems error could conceivably be repeated from one die-in-process to the next and thus give us a mechanism for families of similarly-doubled working dies. 


Let’s use a specific thought experiment to maybe better understand how our alternative theory could have created working dies with very similar patterns of doubling in the absence of a doubled working hub.  Assume a group of five healthy, annealed 1971 working dies in-process are to receive their last hubbing from the same fresh not-doubled working hub, but this working hub has significant annealing distortion.  Each of the five nearly identical working dies in-process would be squeezed by this working hub whose annealing-distorted image could not seat perfectly into the dies being hubbed, resulting in an early “jam” that for each of the five dies could have resolved with similar rotation of one or the other or both, coupled with some degree of distorted hub doubling.


To continue this thought experiment, when lugs and slots were added to hubs and dies for 1972 working die production and thereafter, the only jam stress-relieving would have been through “distorted hub doubling”.  Thus we can account for both the oft-seen combined rotational and distorted hub doubling in the 1971-S Ikes and the more dramatic distorted hub doubling with no marked rotational doubling in the 1972 and later Ikes (other than the 72-D WDDR-001.



Bill points out that within microseconds of contact between working hub and working die in process, the compressive forces would be enormous so conjuring any rotation of the working die on its base thereafter is problematic (though I can’t give up that image totally).  Furthermore, rotational movement in the ram arm would have been limited but not impossible. 


And think of the possibilities of the “jam” leading to a small degree of rotation and even imposed “tilt” to the image being created on the working die, even if that die remained squarely on its base as the hubbing force turned the crystalline structure of the surface of the working die in-process into a somewhat plastic state (“cold forging”).. 


 if we can assume there was some room for rotational movement were hub met die or within the matrix of the working die being hubbed, how much rotation would be required to create the largest spreads we see in the Series?


The answer is not much. Let’s look at an example with one of the largest "spreads" one can find among doubled die Ikes, a star from the reverse of Tom Kalantzis’s magnificent 1971-S SP DDE-005 (used with permission) (FIGURE 2):




                         1971-S SP DDE-005      courtesy of Thomas Kalantzis


Figure 2     The spread in this star on Tom's proof Ike has a maximum displacement of approximately 0.002" (that's half the diameter of a human hair).  Since 1.0 degree of rotation corresponds to a movement of 0.017" one inch out from the pivot point on a 1.5 inch in diameter Ike, the 0.002" displacement corresponds to roughly 0.15 degrees of rotation around the center axis of the coin, about 1/2500 of a full rotationHowever dramatic the doubling, even the "biggest" Ike doubled dies have only tiny transitional or rotational displacements between hubbings or during a hubbing.




Alan Herbert and others have published a photo taken somewhere in the early 1980’s of a hub and die in a hubbing press in which the working die in-process is held fast in a fixed base while the working hub simple rests on the die, seated in proper alignment.  The blunt end of the ram arm is shown coming down on the base of the working hub, squeezing it into the seated die.  This hubbing set up would also allow for the rotational movement we suggest may cause rotational doubling with a similar pattern in a small series of dies being hubbed by the same annealing-distorted working hub. 


Now here’s a kicker:  our postulated alternative doubling mechanism in either hubbing scenario could convey the same hub markers to a family of similarly doubled working dies that others are using to document a postulated doubled up-line working hub! 




To summarize, unlike the die-set held in a relatively fixed position in a coin press, the nesting mechanism by which the working dies are hubbed is XY and rotationally oriented which could allow both transitional (linear) and rotational doubling.  In addition, there is a real possibility that


1.       The presumably-sharper working hub being used on the 4th and 5th squeezes might not align perfectly with the working die, because the working die’s previous hubbings were likely done with a worn or modified hub, which means the "float" might not have provided perfect alignment; and

2.       Annealings after previous hubbings might have distorted the working die’s face enough to prevent perfect alignment, creating generous numbers of differently-doubled working dies; and

3.       The families of similarly doubled working dies can be explained by the same annealing-distorted working hub being used in the final hubbing squeeze of a number of healthy in-process working dies, the hubbing “jam” in each case being resolved by nearly identical rotational and/or distorted hub doubling in the case of 1971 Ikes and similar distorted hub doubling in 1972 and later Ikes..


In other words, the float could have been defeated if the working hub and working die jammed a bit out of alignment.  The jam would create forces that could have partially resolved with rotational movement, most dramatically for Ike collectors during the last squeeze of 1971 working dies, creating rotationally doubled working dies with or without additional annealing distortion doubling.  If the working hub carried significant annealing distortion and it gave the final squeeze to a handful of healthy working dies in-process, these working dies could have received very similar doubling and carried whatever markers existed on the annealing-distorted working hub. 


The Ike Group makes no claim that the above account explains all the families of doubled die:  it may not explain any but the authors agree that Bill’s thinking deserved to be heard.  If nothing else, this account advances our effort to reconcile the real world of Ike-era tool and die shops with the features found on Ike dollars.  







The Mint’s hub and die records (photocopied in Chapters 36 and 37) which we studied to the point of some understanding after most of this chapter and the draft of the book as a whole was written, confirm many of the author’s observations and theories expressed throughout this book. For example, we have confirmation that the Ikes minted in 1971 and 1972 reflected on-going design changes and problem solving on the fly.  Also, while the basic high relief designs (including those found on the 1973 Ikes) had been laid down as early as 1970, the Mint clearly made use of “promotion” and “promotional hubbing”, i.e., hubbing in both directions to facilitate problem-solving design improvements that led eventually, almost inevitably, to the last-minute final 1971-72 low relief reverse design used on both 71 circulation and silver specimen Ikes and on most 72 circulation Ikes. 


As concerns this chapter, these records are interesting in that there is no mention of a single working hub or master die destroyed or kept for “reference” because of hub doubling. 


Perhaps hub doubling was handled as a production problem unrelated to design issues?  More likely, there simply was little attention paid to hub doubling other than occasional production improvements like adding keys and lugs to dies and hubs in 1972 to prevent rotational doubling.  After all, doubled die Ikes were “spendable”, their distortions basically not visible without concentrated study, and in the design chaos of 1970 through 1972, other problems like exploding 52100 steel dies and hubs were more compelling.





With various edits and revisions, the thinking in this Addendum has become incorporated into the body of this chapter.  Here is my brief first person account of this rapidly evolving deductive leap.


“As the first galley went to press (December 2010), before some of the language in this chapter had been conceived, I had a thought that stopped m  dead in my tracks:  “Is it possible that some or most rotational doubling we see in 71-S Silver Ikes occurred during the last squeeze?  Perhaps triggered by a hubbee’s annealing distortion, especially going into the final squeeze?    If hubber and hubbee jammed due to annealing distortion, could that hubbee and hubber rotate slightly on each other to “resolve” any rotational strains, resulting in rotational “doubling?  Maybe slight rocking forces could also occur, showing as off-center distortions and possibly localized doubling?”


“Maybe rotational doubling in 71 Ikes was not always the result of two separate squeezes with rotational mis-alignment but occurred during the last squeeze, a dynamic and active process that left the notches at an angle to the field and a “Coriolis Effect” pattern to the doubling?


“Maybe the seizure inducing “rotational doubling” we see on the 1955 Lincoln and on a few other cents and in other series, was static doubling from two separate rotationally mis-aligned squeezes, while the dynamic rotational doubling patterns we see on so many 71-S Ikes (and a few circulation Ikes) was  indeed dynamic doubling that occurred  during the squeeze?”



I promised Bill I wouldn’t extend this “mud-on-the-wall” addendum to ask if the same eight Classes of doubling which have been reported among hyper-modern “one-squeeze” hubbed working dies have relevance here?  If truly just one squeeze is being used, wouldn’t the observed eight classes have to have been created during that one squeeze?  


Bill, I’m sorry!       BILL!    Stop throwing Ikes at me!!”


Stay tuned