There are other ways to reach this conclusion. If the coin was
struck at a time where there was a 100% consistent die setup, and the
face struck by the anvil die is misaligned, then you can make the
reasonable assumption that it was the anvil die (or anvil die
assembly) that was misaligned.
Another line of evidence would be a broken collar large enough to
allow the anvil die to move sideways.
--- In email@example.com
, jeff ylitalo
> Yes, thanks.
> I don't know how it could ever be determined that the anvil die is
misaligned if one must always require collar scaring to prove it.
> There must be another way to determine when an anvil die is
misaligned without collar scaring, but I can't think of any.
> --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Mike Diamond <mdia1@...> wrote:
> From: Mike Diamond <mdia1@...>
> Subject: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: Anvil die
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Sunday, January 4, 2009, 6:49 PM
> I see no collar scar on either face. So the default hypothesis has
> to be that the obverse die was operating as the hammer die.
> --- In ed?>ge@ yahoogroups. com, "jylitalo"
> <jylitalo@ .> wrote:
> > (2 x pics uloaded to default folder)
> > Another example of the obverse face being misaligned on this 1996
> > paise, (the largest I've found on this series with the obverse
> > being horizontally misaligned).
> > I want there to be collar scaring on the obverse face for
> > die' misalignment example, but I can't be sure there is enough
> > of collar scaring to authentic it.
> > If not, I'll have to assume the obverse was struck by the hammer
> > (horizontally misaligned hammer die).
> > Thanks