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

Peculiar quad-strike

Expand Messages
  • Mike Diamond
    It was curiosity that drove me to spend a little more than I ordinarily would have for this coin. Quad strike
    Message 1 of 12 , May 12, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      It was curiosity that drove me to spend a little more than I ordinarily would have for this coin.

      Quad strike 

      http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBSA080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235

      First of all, it's clear to me that it is not a triple-strike but is instead a quadruple struck (after a fashion).  The first strike was normal.  The second strike was a "sandwich strike", uniface on both sides.  Sandwich strikes themselves are rather rare, but the reverse face of the strike is downright peculiar.  So little of the first strike is preserved (just the A of AMERICA), and the surface is unusually smooth.  It's just possible that it wasn't a planchet that underlay the coin.  It was perhaps something much harder.  What that could have been, and why that something would have the radius of curvature of a planchet isn't clear to me.  The final strike was a saddle strike.  The larger of the two tandem strikes was die-struck on both faces, and the smaller uniface on the obverse.  The reasons I think it is a saddle strike are that:

      1. The distance between the two strikes is about right.

      2. The parts of the reverse design are right for a head-to-head orientation.

      3. There is a slight pressure ridge just beyond the internal margin of the die-struck obverse.

       

       

    • Al C.
      Nice pickup! I saw that last night and almost bid on it myself, that is a very strange cent. It is a clear quad-strike but don t know why the seller called it
      Message 2 of 12 , May 12, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Nice pickup! I saw that last night and almost bid on
        it myself, that is a very strange cent. It is a clear
        quad-strike but don't know why the seller called it a
        triple strike.


        --- Mike Diamond <mdia1@...> wrote:

        >
        > It was curiosity that drove me to spend a little
        > more than I ordinarily
        > would have for this coin.
        >
        > Quad strike
        >
        <http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBS\
        > A080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235>
        >
        >
        http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBSA\
        > 080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235
        >
        <http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBS\
        > A080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235>
        >
        > First of all, it's clear to me that it is not a
        > triple-strike but is
        > instead a quadruple struck (after a fashion). The
        > first strike was
        > normal. The second strike was a "sandwich strike",
        > uniface on both
        > sides. Sandwich strikes themselves are rather rare,
        > but the reverse
        > face of the strike is downright peculiar. So little
        > of the first strike
        > is preserved (just the A of AMERICA), and the
        > surface is unusually
        > smooth. It's just possible that it wasn't a
        > planchet that underlay the
        > coin. It was perhaps something much harder. What
        > that could have been,
        > and why that something would have the radius of
        > curvature of a planchet
        > isn't clear to me. The final strike was a saddle
        > strike. The larger of
        > the two tandem strikes was die-struck on both faces,
        > and the smaller
        > uniface on the obverse. The reasons I think it is a
        > saddle strike are
        > that:
        >
        > 1. The distance between the two strikes is about
        > right.
        >
        > 2. The parts of the reverse design are right for a
        > head-to-head
        > orientation.
        >
        > 3. There is a slight pressure ridge just beyond the
        > internal margin of
        > the die-struck obverse.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Mike Diamond
        Some people don t consider a saddle strike a double strike, but I doubt that s why it was listed as a triple strike. Most likely the seller thought the
        Message 3 of 12 , May 12, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Some people don't consider a saddle strike a double strike, but I doubt
          that's why it was listed as a triple strike. Most likely the seller
          thought the smallest strike and the sandwich strike comprised a single
          strike. I don't blame him. It took me quite a while to figure out the
          sequence of strikes. I'm really keen to study the smooth featureless
          reverse of the second strike. Maybe it was a cent-sized solid steel
          washer or something of the sort. Stay tuned for more info...

          --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Al C."
          <bull102797@...> wrote:
          >
          > Nice pickup! I saw that last night and almost bid on
          > it myself, that is a very strange cent. It is a clear
          > quad-strike but don't know why the seller called it a
          > triple strike.
        • Mike Diamond
          With the coin in hand, I have little to add. The reverse face of the sandwich strike is as devoid of first-strike details as the auction photo shows. I don t
          Message 4 of 12 , May 19, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            With the coin in hand, I have little to add. The reverse face of the
            sandwich strike is as devoid of first-strike details as the auction
            photo shows. I don't see any recognizable letters -- just a vague
            suggestion near the internal border of this uniface strike. It's
            very strange. It has a smooth texture that is really not what you'd
            expect of a surface struck against a conventional planchet. I have
            no explanation beyond the wild guess I threw up earlier -- that it
            might have been a cent-sized solid washer. Beyond that I see that
            the larger of the two tandem strikes was delivered by a different die
            pair than the normal first strike. It also shows a small chain
            strike.

            --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
            <mdia1@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > It was curiosity that drove me to spend a little more than I
            ordinarily
            > would have for this coin.
            >
            > Quad strike
            > <http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?
            uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBS\
            > A080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235>
            >
            > http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?
            uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBSA\
            > 080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235
            > <http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?
            uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBS\
            > A080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235>
            >
            > First of all, it's clear to me that it is not a triple-strike but is
            > instead a quadruple struck (after a fashion). The first strike was
            > normal. The second strike was a "sandwich strike", uniface on both
            > sides. Sandwich strikes themselves are rather rare, but the reverse
            > face of the strike is downright peculiar. So little of the first
            strike
            > is preserved (just the A of AMERICA), and the surface is unusually
            > smooth. It's just possible that it wasn't a planchet that underlay
            the
            > coin. It was perhaps something much harder. What that could have
            been,
            > and why that something would have the radius of curvature of a
            planchet
            > isn't clear to me. The final strike was a saddle strike. The
            larger of
            > the two tandem strikes was die-struck on both faces, and the smaller
            > uniface on the obverse. The reasons I think it is a saddle strike
            are
            > that:
            >
            > 1. The distance between the two strikes is about right.
            >
            > 2. The parts of the reverse design are right for a head-to-head
            > orientation.
            >
            > 3. There is a slight pressure ridge just beyond the internal margin
            of
            > the die-struck obverse.
            >
          • Mike Diamond
            After additional study, I ve arrived at a radically different reconstruction of events. What I interpreted as a sandwich strike may be something else
            Message 5 of 12 , May 26, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              After additional study, I've arrived at a radically different
              reconstruction of events.

              What I interpreted as a "sandwich strike" may be something else
              entirely. The featureless reverse face of the "sandwich strike"
              shows fine parallel striations that are oriented perpendicular to the
              main part of the coin and the small, die-struck area at its tip.
              Instead it appears to be a huge "slide zone. This would explain the
              absence of any design in this area.

              If this is a slide zone, then this would make the coin a triple
              strike, with the last two strikes a tandem (saddle) strike. Now, the
              inner margin of the "sandwich" strike is too close to the larger off-
              center strike to be a conventional saddle strike. But everything
              else indicates a saddle strike. How can all this be reconciled?

              It may be that the two die pairs were out-of-sync. The die pair
              involved in what I now intepret as a uniface off-center strike
              arrived a little bit earlier than the other die pair. With the coin
              temporarily unrestrained by the opposite die, the coin "squirted out"
              from between the reverse die and the overlying planchet, creating the
              long slide zone on the reverse and the conventional uniface strike on
              the obverse. The impact of the neighboring die pair stopped the
              slide and permitted the saddle strike to complete itself.

              Another possibility is that this coin was struck with inverted dies
              (reverse die as hammer die). I've seen one saddle struck cent struck
              with inverted dies. The hammer die (or its die carriage) might have
              been loose and radically misaligned. When it struck the coin, the
              die may have simultaneously shifted laterally, re-establishing the
              normal distance from the opposite die and simultaneously creating the
              expanded slide zone.

              A third possibility is that the die positioning was normal and that
              it was the anvil die that was loose and misaligned (along with its
              collar). There are some Virginia quarters that show this.

              It's really hard to decide which of these wild scenarios is the
              correct one. My hunch is that the first scenario is more likely.

              In any event, I'm going to downgrade this to a triple strike, and
              change the sandwich strike to a uniface strike with an enormous slide
              zone.

              --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
              <mdia1@...> wrote:
              >
              > With the coin in hand, I have little to add. The reverse face of
              the
              > sandwich strike is as devoid of first-strike details as the auction
              > photo shows. I don't see any recognizable letters -- just a vague
              > suggestion near the internal border of this uniface strike. It's
              > very strange. It has a smooth texture that is really not what
              you'd
              > expect of a surface struck against a conventional planchet. I have
              > no explanation beyond the wild guess I threw up earlier -- that it
              > might have been a cent-sized solid washer. Beyond that I see that
              > the larger of the two tandem strikes was delivered by a different
              die
              > pair than the normal first strike. It also shows a small chain
              > strike.
              >
              > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
              > <mdia1@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > It was curiosity that drove me to spend a little more than I
              > ordinarily
              > > would have for this coin.
              > >
              > > Quad strike
              > > <http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?
              > uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBS\
              > > A080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235>
              > >
              > > First of all, it's clear to me that it is not a triple-strike but
              is
              > > instead a quadruple struck (after a fashion). The first strike
              was
              > > normal. The second strike was a "sandwich strike", uniface on
              both
              > > sides. Sandwich strikes themselves are rather rare, but the
              reverse
              > > face of the strike is downright peculiar. So little of the first
              > strike
              > > is preserved (just the A of AMERICA), and the surface is unusually
              > > smooth. It's just possible that it wasn't a planchet that
              underlay
              > the
              > > coin. It was perhaps something much harder. What that could
              have
              > been,
              > > and why that something would have the radius of curvature of a
              > planchet
              > > isn't clear to me. The final strike was a saddle strike. The
              > larger of
              > > the two tandem strikes was die-struck on both faces, and the
              smaller
              > > uniface on the obverse. The reasons I think it is a saddle
              strike
              > are
              > > that:
              > >
              > > 1. The distance between the two strikes is about right.
              > >
              > > 2. The parts of the reverse design are right for a head-to-head
              > > orientation.
              > >
              > > 3. There is a slight pressure ridge just beyond the internal
              margin
              > of
              > > the die-struck obverse.
              > >
              >
            • Mike Diamond
              Still thinking out loud here. I don t recall ever seeing a slide zone this broad in association with any uniface off-center strike. And the strike does not
              Message 6 of 12 , May 26, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Still thinking out loud here.

                I don't recall ever seeing a slide zone this broad in association
                with any uniface off-center strike. And the strike does not appear
                to have been that strong, at least at the initial impact. Only the
                very tip of this strike shows the expected elevated effective
                striking pressure.

                It's certainly a complicated error to try and figure out.

                --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                <mdia1@...> wrote:
                >
                > After additional study, I've arrived at a radically different
                > reconstruction of events.
                >
                > What I interpreted as a "sandwich strike" may be something else
                > entirely. The featureless reverse face of the "sandwich strike"
                > shows fine parallel striations that are oriented perpendicular to
                the
                > main part of the coin and the small, die-struck area at its tip.
                > Instead it appears to be a huge "slide zone. This would explain
                the
                > absence of any design in this area.
                >
                > If this is a slide zone, then this would make the coin a triple
                > strike, with the last two strikes a tandem (saddle) strike. Now,
                the
                > inner margin of the "sandwich" strike is too close to the larger
                off-
                > center strike to be a conventional saddle strike. But everything
                > else indicates a saddle strike. How can all this be reconciled?
                >
                > It may be that the two die pairs were out-of-sync. The die pair
                > involved in what I now intepret as a uniface off-center strike
                > arrived a little bit earlier than the other die pair. With the
                coin
                > temporarily unrestrained by the opposite die, the coin "squirted
                out"
                > from between the reverse die and the overlying planchet, creating
                the
                > long slide zone on the reverse and the conventional uniface strike
                on
                > the obverse. The impact of the neighboring die pair stopped the
                > slide and permitted the saddle strike to complete itself.
                >
                > Another possibility is that this coin was struck with inverted dies
                > (reverse die as hammer die). I've seen one saddle struck cent
                struck
                > with inverted dies. The hammer die (or its die carriage) might
                have
                > been loose and radically misaligned. When it struck the coin, the
                > die may have simultaneously shifted laterally, re-establishing the
                > normal distance from the opposite die and simultaneously creating
                the
                > expanded slide zone.
                >
                > A third possibility is that the die positioning was normal and that
                > it was the anvil die that was loose and misaligned (along with its
                > collar). There are some Virginia quarters that show this.
                >
                > It's really hard to decide which of these wild scenarios is the
                > correct one. My hunch is that the first scenario is more likely.
                >
                > In any event, I'm going to downgrade this to a triple strike, and
                > change the sandwich strike to a uniface strike with an enormous
                slide
                > zone.
                >
                > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                > <mdia1@> wrote:
                > >
                > > With the coin in hand, I have little to add. The reverse face of
                > the
                > > sandwich strike is as devoid of first-strike details as the
                auction
                > > photo shows. I don't see any recognizable letters -- just a
                vague
                > > suggestion near the internal border of this uniface strike. It's
                > > very strange. It has a smooth texture that is really not what
                > you'd
                > > expect of a surface struck against a conventional planchet. I
                have
                > > no explanation beyond the wild guess I threw up earlier -- that
                it
                > > might have been a cent-sized solid washer. Beyond that I see
                that
                > > the larger of the two tandem strikes was delivered by a different
                > die
                > > pair than the normal first strike. It also shows a small chain
                > > strike.
                > >
                > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike
                Diamond"
                > > <mdia1@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > It was curiosity that drove me to spend a little more than I
                > > ordinarily
                > > > would have for this coin.
                > > >
                > > > Quad strike
                > > > <http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?
                > > uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBS\
                > > > A080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235>
                > > >
                > > > First of all, it's clear to me that it is not a triple-strike
                but
                > is
                > > > instead a quadruple struck (after a fashion). The first strike
                > was
                > > > normal. The second strike was a "sandwich strike", uniface on
                > both
                > > > sides. Sandwich strikes themselves are rather rare, but the
                > reverse
                > > > face of the strike is downright peculiar. So little of the
                first
                > > strike
                > > > is preserved (just the A of AMERICA), and the surface is
                unusually
                > > > smooth. It's just possible that it wasn't a planchet that
                > underlay
                > > the
                > > > coin. It was perhaps something much harder. What that could
                > have
                > > been,
                > > > and why that something would have the radius of curvature of a
                > > planchet
                > > > isn't clear to me. The final strike was a saddle strike. The
                > > larger of
                > > > the two tandem strikes was die-struck on both faces, and the
                > smaller
                > > > uniface on the obverse. The reasons I think it is a saddle
                > strike
                > > are
                > > > that:
                > > >
                > > > 1. The distance between the two strikes is about right.
                > > >
                > > > 2. The parts of the reverse design are right for a head-to-head
                > > > orientation.
                > > >
                > > > 3. There is a slight pressure ridge just beyond the internal
                > margin
                > > of
                > > > the die-struck obverse.
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • Mike Diamond
                Actually, let me retract the last statement. Here s a uniface strike with an equally long slide zone:
                Message 7 of 12 , May 26, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Actually, let me retract the last statement. Here's a uniface strike
                  with an equally long slide zone:

                  http://cgi.ebay.com/NO-DATE-LINCOLN-60-OFF-CENTER-UNIFACE-STRECH-
                  STRIKE_W0QQitemZ230134511823QQihZ013QQcategoryZ524QQssPageNameZWDVWQQr
                  dZ1QQcmdZViewItem

                  But again, this one shows greatly increased striking pressure
                  throughout. Quite different from the modest increase in striking
                  pressure associated with the slide zone in my specimen.

                  --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                  <mdia1@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Still thinking out loud here.
                  >
                  > I don't recall ever seeing a slide zone this broad in association
                  > with any uniface off-center strike. And the strike does not appear
                  > to have been that strong, at least at the initial impact. Only the
                  > very tip of this strike shows the expected elevated effective
                  > striking pressure.
                  >
                  > It's certainly a complicated error to try and figure out.
                  >
                  > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                  > <mdia1@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > After additional study, I've arrived at a radically different
                  > > reconstruction of events.
                  > >
                  > > What I interpreted as a "sandwich strike" may be something else
                  > > entirely. The featureless reverse face of the "sandwich strike"
                  > > shows fine parallel striations that are oriented perpendicular to
                  > the
                  > > main part of the coin and the small, die-struck area at its tip.
                  > > Instead it appears to be a huge "slide zone. This would explain
                  > the
                  > > absence of any design in this area.
                  > >
                  > > If this is a slide zone, then this would make the coin a triple
                  > > strike, with the last two strikes a tandem (saddle) strike. Now,
                  > the
                  > > inner margin of the "sandwich" strike is too close to the larger
                  > off-
                  > > center strike to be a conventional saddle strike. But everything
                  > > else indicates a saddle strike. How can all this be reconciled?
                  > >
                  > > It may be that the two die pairs were out-of-sync. The die pair
                  > > involved in what I now intepret as a uniface off-center strike
                  > > arrived a little bit earlier than the other die pair. With the
                  > coin
                  > > temporarily unrestrained by the opposite die, the coin "squirted
                  > out"
                  > > from between the reverse die and the overlying planchet, creating
                  > the
                  > > long slide zone on the reverse and the conventional uniface
                  strike
                  > on
                  > > the obverse. The impact of the neighboring die pair stopped the
                  > > slide and permitted the saddle strike to complete itself.
                  > >
                  > > Another possibility is that this coin was struck with inverted
                  dies
                  > > (reverse die as hammer die). I've seen one saddle struck cent
                  > struck
                  > > with inverted dies. The hammer die (or its die carriage) might
                  > have
                  > > been loose and radically misaligned. When it struck the coin,
                  the
                  > > die may have simultaneously shifted laterally, re-establishing
                  the
                  > > normal distance from the opposite die and simultaneously creating
                  > the
                  > > expanded slide zone.
                  > >
                  > > A third possibility is that the die positioning was normal and
                  that
                  > > it was the anvil die that was loose and misaligned (along with
                  its
                  > > collar). There are some Virginia quarters that show this.
                  > >
                  > > It's really hard to decide which of these wild scenarios is the
                  > > correct one. My hunch is that the first scenario is more likely.
                  > >
                  > > In any event, I'm going to downgrade this to a triple strike, and
                  > > change the sandwich strike to a uniface strike with an enormous
                  > slide
                  > > zone.
                  > >
                  > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike
                  Diamond"
                  > > <mdia1@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > With the coin in hand, I have little to add. The reverse face
                  of
                  > > the
                  > > > sandwich strike is as devoid of first-strike details as the
                  > auction
                  > > > photo shows. I don't see any recognizable letters -- just a
                  > vague
                  > > > suggestion near the internal border of this uniface strike.
                  It's
                  > > > very strange. It has a smooth texture that is really not what
                  > > you'd
                  > > > expect of a surface struck against a conventional planchet. I
                  > have
                  > > > no explanation beyond the wild guess I threw up earlier -- that
                  > it
                  > > > might have been a cent-sized solid washer. Beyond that I see
                  > that
                  > > > the larger of the two tandem strikes was delivered by a
                  different
                  > > die
                  > > > pair than the normal first strike. It also shows a small chain
                  > > > strike.
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike
                  > Diamond"
                  > > > <mdia1@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > It was curiosity that drove me to spend a little more than I
                  > > > ordinarily
                  > > > > would have for this coin.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Quad strike
                  > > > > <http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?
                  > > > uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBS\
                  > > > > A080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235>
                  > > > >
                  > > > > First of all, it's clear to me that it is not a triple-strike
                  > but
                  > > is
                  > > > > instead a quadruple struck (after a fashion). The first
                  strike
                  > > was
                  > > > > normal. The second strike was a "sandwich strike", uniface
                  on
                  > > both
                  > > > > sides. Sandwich strikes themselves are rather rare, but the
                  > > reverse
                  > > > > face of the strike is downright peculiar. So little of the
                  > first
                  > > > strike
                  > > > > is preserved (just the A of AMERICA), and the surface is
                  > unusually
                  > > > > smooth. It's just possible that it wasn't a planchet that
                  > > underlay
                  > > > the
                  > > > > coin. It was perhaps something much harder. What that could
                  > > have
                  > > > been,
                  > > > > and why that something would have the radius of curvature of
                  a
                  > > > planchet
                  > > > > isn't clear to me. The final strike was a saddle strike.
                  The
                  > > > larger of
                  > > > > the two tandem strikes was die-struck on both faces, and the
                  > > smaller
                  > > > > uniface on the obverse. The reasons I think it is a saddle
                  > > strike
                  > > > are
                  > > > > that:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 1. The distance between the two strikes is about right.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 2. The parts of the reverse design are right for a head-to-
                  head
                  > > > > orientation.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 3. There is a slight pressure ridge just beyond the internal
                  > > margin
                  > > > of
                  > > > > the die-struck obverse.
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Jeff
                  (Uploaded 2 x Pic s to default folder) Of the uniface stretch strikes I have, this one sticks out to me. I am not certain, but I do believe on the second
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 26, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    (Uploaded 2 x Pic's to default folder)

                    Of the uniface stretch strikes I have, this one sticks out to me.

                    I am not certain, but I do believe on the second strike, due to the
                    uniface features on the reverse that are still present and not
                    completetly obliterated, the effective striking pressure was much
                    lower during the second strike.

                    I say this, because on other uniface stretches, all of the details
                    from the first strike are largely obliterated, seeming to have been
                    wiped clean.

                    Not sure this fits your theory, but figured it was worth throwing into
                    the discussion of stretch strikes and effective striking pressures
                    during the second strike.

                    Jeff


                    --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                    <mdia1@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Actually, let me retract the last statement. Here's a uniface strike
                    > with an equally long slide zone:
                    >
                    > http://cgi.ebay.com/NO-DATE-LINCOLN-60-OFF-CENTER-UNIFACE-STRECH-
                    > STRIKE_W0QQitemZ230134511823QQihZ013QQcategoryZ524QQssPageNameZWDVWQQr
                    > dZ1QQcmdZViewItem
                    >
                    > But again, this one shows greatly increased striking pressure
                    > throughout. Quite different from the modest increase in striking
                    > pressure associated with the slide zone in my specimen.
                    >
                    > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                    > <mdia1@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Still thinking out loud here.
                    > >
                    > > I don't recall ever seeing a slide zone this broad in association
                    > > with any uniface off-center strike. And the strike does not appear
                    > > to have been that strong, at least at the initial impact. Only the
                    > > very tip of this strike shows the expected elevated effective
                    > > striking pressure.
                    > >
                    > > It's certainly a complicated error to try and figure out.
                    > >
                    > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                    > > <mdia1@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > After additional study, I've arrived at a radically different
                    > > > reconstruction of events.
                    > > >
                    > > > What I interpreted as a "sandwich strike" may be something else
                    > > > entirely. The featureless reverse face of the "sandwich strike"
                    > > > shows fine parallel striations that are oriented perpendicular to
                    > > the
                    > > > main part of the coin and the small, die-struck area at its tip.
                    > > > Instead it appears to be a huge "slide zone. This would explain
                    > > the
                    > > > absence of any design in this area.
                    > > >
                    > > > If this is a slide zone, then this would make the coin a triple
                    > > > strike, with the last two strikes a tandem (saddle) strike. Now,
                    > > the
                    > > > inner margin of the "sandwich" strike is too close to the larger
                    > > off-
                    > > > center strike to be a conventional saddle strike. But everything
                    > > > else indicates a saddle strike. How can all this be reconciled?
                    > > >
                    > > > It may be that the two die pairs were out-of-sync. The die pair
                    > > > involved in what I now intepret as a uniface off-center strike
                    > > > arrived a little bit earlier than the other die pair. With the
                    > > coin
                    > > > temporarily unrestrained by the opposite die, the coin "squirted
                    > > out"
                    > > > from between the reverse die and the overlying planchet, creating
                    > > the
                    > > > long slide zone on the reverse and the conventional uniface
                    > strike
                    > > on
                    > > > the obverse. The impact of the neighboring die pair stopped the
                    > > > slide and permitted the saddle strike to complete itself.
                    > > >
                    > > > Another possibility is that this coin was struck with inverted
                    > dies
                    > > > (reverse die as hammer die). I've seen one saddle struck cent
                    > > struck
                    > > > with inverted dies. The hammer die (or its die carriage) might
                    > > have
                    > > > been loose and radically misaligned. When it struck the coin,
                    > the
                    > > > die may have simultaneously shifted laterally, re-establishing
                    > the
                    > > > normal distance from the opposite die and simultaneously creating
                    > > the
                    > > > expanded slide zone.
                    > > >
                    > > > A third possibility is that the die positioning was normal and
                    > that
                    > > > it was the anvil die that was loose and misaligned (along with
                    > its
                    > > > collar). There are some Virginia quarters that show this.
                    > > >
                    > > > It's really hard to decide which of these wild scenarios is the
                    > > > correct one. My hunch is that the first scenario is more likely.
                    > > >
                    > > > In any event, I'm going to downgrade this to a triple strike, and
                    > > > change the sandwich strike to a uniface strike with an enormous
                    > > slide
                    > > > zone.
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike
                    > Diamond"
                    > > > <mdia1@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > With the coin in hand, I have little to add. The reverse face
                    > of
                    > > > the
                    > > > > sandwich strike is as devoid of first-strike details as the
                    > > auction
                    > > > > photo shows. I don't see any recognizable letters -- just a
                    > > vague
                    > > > > suggestion near the internal border of this uniface strike.
                    > It's
                    > > > > very strange. It has a smooth texture that is really not what
                    > > > you'd
                    > > > > expect of a surface struck against a conventional planchet. I
                    > > have
                    > > > > no explanation beyond the wild guess I threw up earlier -- that
                    > > it
                    > > > > might have been a cent-sized solid washer. Beyond that I see
                    > > that
                    > > > > the larger of the two tandem strikes was delivered by a
                    > different
                    > > > die
                    > > > > pair than the normal first strike. It also shows a small chain
                    > > > > strike.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike
                    > > Diamond"
                    > > > > <mdia1@> wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > It was curiosity that drove me to spend a little more than I
                    > > > > ordinarily
                    > > > > > would have for this coin.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Quad strike
                    > > > > > <http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29392-2357-0?
                    > > > > uid=1893838&site=0&ver=EOIBS\
                    > > > > > A080805&lk=URL&Item=110123602235>
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > First of all, it's clear to me that it is not a triple-strike
                    > > but
                    > > > is
                    > > > > > instead a quadruple struck (after a fashion). The first
                    > strike
                    > > > was
                    > > > > > normal. The second strike was a "sandwich strike", uniface
                    > on
                    > > > both
                    > > > > > sides. Sandwich strikes themselves are rather rare, but the
                    > > > reverse
                    > > > > > face of the strike is downright peculiar. So little of the
                    > > first
                    > > > > strike
                    > > > > > is preserved (just the A of AMERICA), and the surface is
                    > > unusually
                    > > > > > smooth. It's just possible that it wasn't a planchet that
                    > > > underlay
                    > > > > the
                    > > > > > coin. It was perhaps something much harder. What that could
                    > > > have
                    > > > > been,
                    > > > > > and why that something would have the radius of curvature of
                    > a
                    > > > > planchet
                    > > > > > isn't clear to me. The final strike was a saddle strike.
                    > The
                    > > > > larger of
                    > > > > > the two tandem strikes was die-struck on both faces, and the
                    > > > smaller
                    > > > > > uniface on the obverse. The reasons I think it is a saddle
                    > > > strike
                    > > > > are
                    > > > > > that:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > 1. The distance between the two strikes is about right.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > 2. The parts of the reverse design are right for a head-to-
                    > head
                    > > > > > orientation.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > 3. There is a slight pressure ridge just beyond the internal
                    > > > margin
                    > > > > of
                    > > > > > the die-struck obverse.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Jeff
                    What I mean in-so-far as the uniface reverse of the second strike on the 1998 Lincoln posted in deafault folder, is that UNI of UNITED was taken well past the
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 26, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      What I mean in-so-far as the uniface reverse of the second strike on
                      the 1998 Lincoln posted in deafault folder, is that UNI of UNITED was
                      taken well past the slide zone. UNI was not obliterated which is to
                      say that on many of the stretch strikes I have examined, most often
                      times there are no such details present. Usually just the undulating
                      surface of a uniface strike is present, having had enough striking
                      pressure to obliterate the overstruck details of the first strike.


                      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff"
                      <jylitalo@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > (Uploaded 2 x Pic's to default folder)
                      >
                      > Of the uniface stretch strikes I have, this one sticks out to me.
                      >
                      > I am not certain, but I do believe on the second strike, due to the
                      > uniface features on the reverse that are still present and not
                      > completetly obliterated, the effective striking pressure was much
                      > lower during the second strike.
                      >
                      > I say this, because on other uniface stretches, all of the details
                      > from the first strike are largely obliterated, seeming to have been
                      > wiped clean.
                    • Mike Diamond
                      Your points are well-taken. I might be trying too hard to fit this coin into a known paradigm. Any slide zone as broad as that seen in the 2000-D should be
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 26, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Your points are well-taken. I might be trying too hard to fit this
                        coin into a known paradigm.

                        Any slide zone as broad as that seen in the 2000-D should be
                        associated with a massively expanded uniface surface (and
                        correspondingly expanded first-strike design) on the opposite face.
                        Yet the uniface obverse shows only modest expansion.

                        Any slide zone as broad as that seen in the 2000-D cent should be
                        very deeply impressed and quite sloping and concave in vertical cross-
                        section. Yet in this coin the "slide zone" is quite shallow and flat
                        (except where the apical strike has buckled it into a convex shape).

                        Perhaps the fine, parallel striations are not slide at all, but
                        reflect the texture of whatever was struck into this face. If that's
                        the case, then we're back to a quad strike. But what could have
                        obliterated the first-strike design so completely in conjunction with
                        a fairly shallow strike? I doubt even steel would have this magical
                        capability.

                        I guess I'm just going to have to file it in the suspense account
                        until such time as additional evidence comes to light to illuminate
                        this mystery.

                        --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff"
                        <jylitalo@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > What I mean in-so-far as the uniface reverse of the second strike on
                        > the 1998 Lincoln posted in deafault folder, is that UNI of UNITED
                        was
                        > taken well past the slide zone. UNI was not obliterated which is to
                        > say that on many of the stretch strikes I have examined, most often
                        > times there are no such details present. Usually just the
                        undulating
                        > surface of a uniface strike is present, having had enough striking
                        > pressure to obliterate the overstruck details of the first strike.
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff"
                        > <jylitalo@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > (Uploaded 2 x Pic's to default folder)
                        > >
                        > > Of the uniface stretch strikes I have, this one sticks out to me.
                        > >
                        > > I am not certain, but I do believe on the second strike, due to
                        the
                        > > uniface features on the reverse that are still present and not
                        > > completetly obliterated, the effective striking pressure was much
                        > > lower during the second strike.
                        > >
                        > > I say this, because on other uniface stretches, all of the details
                        > > from the first strike are largely obliterated, seeming to have
                        been
                        > > wiped clean.
                        >
                      • Jeff
                        Hummm,....I am not quite ready to let it go yet, but thats ok. I wish I could see the slide zone better on your 2000 D Lincoln that your talking about. I can
                        Message 11 of 12 , May 26, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hummm,....I am not quite ready to let it go yet, but thats ok.

                          I wish I could see the slide zone better on your 2000 D Lincoln that
                          your talking about. I can see the pic's in the closed auction OK, but
                          they don't don't look right to me.

                          On the obverse face where Lincoln is die-struck, is it possible that
                          it was indented first from the reverse face with a blank planchet that
                          caused it to expand without any detail remaining from the first
                          strike? An indent would explain the flatter, shallower that your
                          referring to on the reverse. I do see the modest expanded obverse
                          detail of Lincoln's shoulder just opposite the slide zone.

                          I mean, the picture is deceptive, am I am seeing that portion of
                          AMERICA in the slide zone on the reverse where things stretched but is
                          shallower and flatter than what you would normally expect?

                          I dunno. I am probably confusing myself now, but I can only see what
                          I can see.


                          --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                          <mdia1@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Your points are well-taken. I might be trying too hard to fit this
                          > coin into a known paradigm.
                          >
                          > Any slide zone as broad as that seen in the 2000-D should be
                          > associated with a massively expanded uniface surface (and
                          > correspondingly expanded first-strike design) on the opposite face.
                          > Yet the uniface obverse shows only modest expansion.
                          >
                          > Any slide zone as broad as that seen in the 2000-D cent should be
                          > very deeply impressed and quite sloping and concave in vertical cross-
                          > section. Yet in this coin the "slide zone" is quite shallow and flat
                          > (except where the apical strike has buckled it into a convex shape).
                          >
                          > Perhaps the fine, parallel striations are not slide at all, but
                          > reflect the texture of whatever was struck into this face. If that's
                          > the case, then we're back to a quad strike. But what could have
                          > obliterated the first-strike design so completely in conjunction with
                          > a fairly shallow strike? I doubt even steel would have this magical
                          > capability.
                          >
                          > I guess I'm just going to have to file it in the suspense account
                          > until such time as additional evidence comes to light to illuminate
                          > this mystery.
                          >
                          > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff"
                          > <jylitalo@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > What I mean in-so-far as the uniface reverse of the second strike on
                          > > the 1998 Lincoln posted in deafault folder, is that UNI of UNITED
                          > was
                          > > taken well past the slide zone. UNI was not obliterated which is to
                          > > say that on many of the stretch strikes I have examined, most often
                          > > times there are no such details present. Usually just the
                          > undulating
                          > > surface of a uniface strike is present, having had enough striking
                          > > pressure to obliterate the overstruck details of the first strike.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff"
                          > > <jylitalo@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > (Uploaded 2 x Pic's to default folder)
                          > > >
                          > > > Of the uniface stretch strikes I have, this one sticks out to me.
                          > > >
                          > > > I am not certain, but I do believe on the second strike, due to
                          > the
                          > > > uniface features on the reverse that are still present and not
                          > > > completetly obliterated, the effective striking pressure was much
                          > > > lower during the second strike.
                          > > >
                          > > > I say this, because on other uniface stretches, all of the details
                          > > > from the first strike are largely obliterated, seeming to have
                          > been
                          > > > wiped clean.
                          > >
                          >
                        • Mike Diamond
                          I ll take some more photos this weekend and post them here. ... but ... that ... is
                          Message 12 of 12 , May 26, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I'll take some more photos this weekend and post them here.

                            --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff"
                            <jylitalo@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Hummm,....I am not quite ready to let it go yet, but thats ok.
                            >
                            > I wish I could see the slide zone better on your 2000 D Lincoln that
                            > your talking about. I can see the pic's in the closed auction OK,
                            but
                            > they don't don't look right to me.
                            >
                            > On the obverse face where Lincoln is die-struck, is it possible that
                            > it was indented first from the reverse face with a blank planchet
                            that
                            > caused it to expand without any detail remaining from the first
                            > strike? An indent would explain the flatter, shallower that your
                            > referring to on the reverse. I do see the modest expanded obverse
                            > detail of Lincoln's shoulder just opposite the slide zone.
                            >
                            > I mean, the picture is deceptive, am I am seeing that portion of
                            > AMERICA in the slide zone on the reverse where things stretched but
                            is
                            > shallower and flatter than what you would normally expect?
                            >
                            > I dunno. I am probably confusing myself now, but I can only see what
                            > I can see.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.