Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Diamond's article: One-sided Doubling From Direct Die Contact

Expand Messages
  • Jeff
    Nice - Very interesting and informative!
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Nice - Very interesting and informative!

      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
      <mdia1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Jeff, do check out the two stutter strike nickels in this article.
      > Although the ultimate cause is different from your Indian 5 rupees, the
      > proximate cause is the same -- premature contact with the descending
      > hammer die at one pole.
      >
      > http://minterrornews.com/news-1-30-07-doubling.html
      >
    • Jeff
      (Uploaded to Default Folder x 3 Pic s) Perhaps this one fits the bill. Although only appearing on initial glance to be mis-aligned, I find this 1995 dated 5
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 10, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        (Uploaded to Default Folder x 3 Pic's)

        Perhaps this one fits the bill.

        Although only appearing on initial glance to be mis-aligned, I find
        this 1995 dated 5 Rupee having Separate denticle designs overlying one
        another on the reverse face. It is similar to the 1998 dated 5 Rupee
        indented coin also residing in the default folder which Mike D.
        identified as stutter struck stricken, but it is not nearly as offset
        in regard to the patterned denticles of the 1998 indented Rupee.

        Aside from the absence of an indent, or other obstruction intervening
        action during the strike, it appears the hammer die contacted this one
        twice. I see no smearing or sliding of the die from final contact to
        contradict otherwise. There are no other design details that are
        doubled on either face.

        It is interesting to note what may have been the contributing factor.
        Upon inspection of the the planchet edge, it is tapered, but just
        somewhat. The security edge is incomplete, which may have also aided
        in the planchet "tipping" upward to kiss the hammer die prematurely.

        In unstruck 5 Rupee planchets, the security edge definately upsets the
        rim considerably. I believe that in this small zone of incomplete
        edging, which is just adjacent to the unstruck area of the reverse
        rim, it allowed the planchet to tip prematurely and saw contact with
        the hammer die.







        --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
        <mdia1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Jeff, do check out the two stutter strike nickels in this article.
        > Although the ultimate cause is different from your Indian 5 rupees, the
        > proximate cause is the same -- premature contact with the descending
        > hammer die at one pole.
        >
        > http://minterrornews.com/news-1-30-07-doubling.html
        >
      • Mike Diamond
        I believe this is simply strike doubling (machine doubling). I realize these different forms of one-sided doubling can be difficult to distinguish, especially
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 10, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I believe this is simply strike doubling (machine doubling).

          I realize these different forms of one-sided doubling can be
          difficult to distinguish, especially when you're not dealing with a
          strong example.

          Also, none of the known preconditions for a stutter strike are
          present.

          --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff"
          <jylitalo@...> wrote:
          >
          > (Uploaded to Default Folder x 3 Pic's)
          >
          > Perhaps this one fits the bill.
          >
          > Although only appearing on initial glance to be mis-aligned, I find
          > this 1995 dated 5 Rupee having Separate denticle designs overlying
          one
          > another on the reverse face. It is similar to the 1998 dated 5
          Rupee
          > indented coin also residing in the default folder which Mike D.
          > identified as stutter struck stricken, but it is not nearly as
          offset
          > in regard to the patterned denticles of the 1998 indented Rupee.
          >
          > Aside from the absence of an indent, or other obstruction
          intervening
          > action during the strike, it appears the hammer die contacted this
          one
          > twice. I see no smearing or sliding of the die from final contact
          to
          > contradict otherwise. There are no other design details that are
          > doubled on either face.
          >
          > It is interesting to note what may have been the contributing
          factor.
          > Upon inspection of the the planchet edge, it is tapered, but just
          > somewhat. The security edge is incomplete, which may have also
          aided
          > in the planchet "tipping" upward to kiss the hammer die
          prematurely.
          >
          > In unstruck 5 Rupee planchets, the security edge definately upsets
          the
          > rim considerably. I believe that in this small zone of incomplete
          > edging, which is just adjacent to the unstruck area of the reverse
          > rim, it allowed the planchet to tip prematurely and saw contact with
          > the hammer die.
        • Jeff
          Ok then, I couldn t disagree about the strike doubling. If the two sets of denticles were offset just a bit more from one another, then it may have been more
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 10, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Ok then, I couldn't disagree about the strike doubling. If the two
            sets of denticles were offset just a bit more from one another, then
            it may have been more conclusive.

            I have one more possible candidate and will shoot it and load it up
            come the morning. (It has a good sized indent, so we shall see).


            --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
            <mdia1@...> wrote:
            >
            > I believe this is simply strike doubling (machine doubling).
            >
            > I realize these different forms of one-sided doubling can be
            > difficult to distinguish, especially when you're not dealing with a
            > strong example.
            >
            > Also, none of the known preconditions for a stutter strike are
            > present.
            >
            > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff"
            > <jylitalo@> wrote:
            > >
            > > (Uploaded to Default Folder x 3 Pic's)
            > >
            > > Perhaps this one fits the bill.
            > >
            > > Although only appearing on initial glance to be mis-aligned, I find
            > > this 1995 dated 5 Rupee having Separate denticle designs overlying
            > one
            > > another on the reverse face. It is similar to the 1998 dated 5
            > Rupee
            > > indented coin also residing in the default folder which Mike D.
            > > identified as stutter struck stricken, but it is not nearly as
            > offset
            > > in regard to the patterned denticles of the 1998 indented Rupee.
            > >
            > > Aside from the absence of an indent, or other obstruction
            > intervening
            > > action during the strike, it appears the hammer die contacted this
            > one
            > > twice. I see no smearing or sliding of the die from final contact
            > to
            > > contradict otherwise. There are no other design details that are
            > > doubled on either face.
            > >
            > > It is interesting to note what may have been the contributing
            > factor.
            > > Upon inspection of the the planchet edge, it is tapered, but just
            > > somewhat. The security edge is incomplete, which may have also
            > aided
            > > in the planchet "tipping" upward to kiss the hammer die
            > prematurely.
            > >
            > > In unstruck 5 Rupee planchets, the security edge definately upsets
            > the
            > > rim considerably. I believe that in this small zone of incomplete
            > > edging, which is just adjacent to the unstruck area of the reverse
            > > rim, it allowed the planchet to tip prematurely and saw contact with
            > > the hammer die.
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.