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

Re: Article on retained cuds of the hammer ...

Expand Messages
  • JAG68007
    Thanks Mike. Now that I m a subscriber to CW, I ll look into that article.
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 1 12:00 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Mike. Now that I'm a subscriber to CW, I'll look into that article.

      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Jody.
      >
      > An article on inverted die installation appeared in the February 15, 2010 issue of Coin World. It apparently has not been placed in the public domain but is accessible through the Coin World digital archives. That requires a subscription, though.
      >
      > I also wrote something on it for CONECA, but I'd have to find out where it's lurking on the web.
      >
      > Since the middle of 2005, all modern issues (business strikes at any rate) have been struck with the obverse die acting as the anvil die. That said, I can't completely eliminate the possibility of the Mint occasionally dragging an old press out of moth balls to use on a temporary basis.
      >
      > Many proofs are still struck with the standard orientation, with the obverse die functioning as the hammer die.
      >
      > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "JAG68007" <jallengomez@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
      > > > Inverted die installation for modern issues didn't start until 1992 and that was in the Denver Mint. I have no evidence of inverted dies in Philadelphia until 1996. Use of the obverse die as the anvil die didn't become common until 1998. Inverted die installation became the predominant setup in 2002 and full conversion to this setup was complete by the middle of 2005.
      > > >
      > >
      > > Mike,
      > >
      > > I've been following along here for quite some time, but this is my first post. Do you maybe have one of your articles you can point me in the direction of in order to further elucidate the matter of Inverted die installation? Or my specific question would be concerning the installation. When you say that it became fully converted in 2005, does that mean that all modern issues utilize the "heads" die as the anvil die?
      > >
      > > Thank you,
      > >
      > > Jody
      > >
      >
    • Mike Diamond
      Here s the other article I mentioned: http://conecaonline.org/content/InvertStrikesDiamond.html
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 3 12:05 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Here's the other article I mentioned:

        http://conecaonline.org/content/InvertStrikesDiamond.html

        --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "JAG68007" <jallengomez@...> wrote:
        >
        > Thanks Mike. Now that I'm a subscriber to CW, I'll look into that article.
        >
        > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi Jody.
        > >
        > > An article on inverted die installation appeared in the February 15, 2010 issue of Coin World. It apparently has not been placed in the public domain but is accessible through the Coin World digital archives. That requires a subscription, though.
        > >
        > > I also wrote something on it for CONECA, but I'd have to find out where it's lurking on the web.
        > >
        > > Since the middle of 2005, all modern issues (business strikes at any rate) have been struck with the obverse die acting as the anvil die. That said, I can't completely eliminate the possibility of the Mint occasionally dragging an old press out of moth balls to use on a temporary basis.
        > >
        > > Many proofs are still struck with the standard orientation, with the obverse die functioning as the hammer die.
        > >
        > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "JAG68007" <jallengomez@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
        > > > > Inverted die installation for modern issues didn't start until 1992 and that was in the Denver Mint. I have no evidence of inverted dies in Philadelphia until 1996. Use of the obverse die as the anvil die didn't become common until 1998. Inverted die installation became the predominant setup in 2002 and full conversion to this setup was complete by the middle of 2005.
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > Mike,
        > > >
        > > > I've been following along here for quite some time, but this is my first post. Do you maybe have one of your articles you can point me in the direction of in order to further elucidate the matter of Inverted die installation? Or my specific question would be concerning the installation. When you say that it became fully converted in 2005, does that mean that all modern issues utilize the "heads" die as the anvil die?
        > > >
        > > > Thank you,
        > > >
        > > > Jody
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • Michael Evanchik
        im not exactly sure if theres is a difference. and I don t own them anymore. but I have had examples of Lincoln cent dies.some were very fat at the base and
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 4 7:32 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          im not exactly sure if theres is a difference. and I don't own them anymore. but I have had examples of Lincoln cent dies.some were very fat at the base and some more slim.ive had both obverses and reverses of each. when I first collected them, it was always the reverses that were the fat variety. but I eventually encountered both types.

          From: "innff@..." <innff@...>
          To: errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 8:37 AM
          Subject: Re: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Article on retained cuds of the hammer ...
           
          Mike,
                     I do agree with your theory on hammer die retained cuds; the die doesn't produce a magical glue to hold that small piece in place and must adhere to Newton's laws.
                     The only logical explanation that I can think of is that the obverse dies that do have retained cuds are actually anvil dies. Is it possible that the mint did make some obverse dies on reverse dies bodies?
                    Also, have we seen the same retained cud on two or more  coins? If so, this would bolster the fact that the obverse die was not the hammer die but in a different position that did not allow that piece of die to fall out.
                    There is one more scenario that I would contemplate. It would be possible for the die to break during contact with the planchet during the strike and have a retained cud being formed and held in place by the planchet itself. However, after the strike, that piece would fall away from the die leaving you with a cud.
           
          BJ
           
          In a message dated 6/30/2013 3:03:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mdia1@... writes:
           
          http://www.coinworld.com/Articles/viewarticle/mechanism-reality-of-retained-cuds-questioned

          The upshot of this analysis is that the vast majority of alleged retained cuds of the hammer die are nothing of the sort. I'm not entirely sure that any actually exist, although I do hold out the possibility for some extreme cases.

          Commments and critiques are welcome.

          In the next issue I trash the concept of "abrasion doubling".

          It's always useful to clear out theoretical clutter that hampers understanding of minting errors and the minting process.

        • Mike Diamond
          It wouldn t be surprising if the shapes and lengths of dies bearing the same denomination vary with press design. The anvil die should have the longer neck in
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 4 9:22 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            It wouldn't be surprising if the shapes and lengths of dies bearing the same denomination vary with press design. The anvil die should have the longer neck in most press designs in order to move up and down within the collar.

            --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, Michael Evanchik <ivan0000013@...> wrote:
            >
            > im not exactly sure if theres is a difference. and I don't own them anymore. but I have had examples of Lincoln cent dies.some were very fat at the base and some more slim.ive had both obverses and reverses of each. when I first collected them, it was always the reverses that were the fat variety. but I eventually encountered both types.
            >
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: "innff@..." <innff@...>
            > To: errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 8:37 AM
            > Subject: Re: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Article on retained cuds of the hammer ...
            >
            >  
            >
            > Mike,           I do agree
            > with your theory on hammer die retained cuds; the die doesn't produce a magical
            > glue to hold that small piece in place and must adhere to Newton's laws.
            >            The only
            > logical explanation that I can think of is that the obverse dies that do have
            > retained cuds are actually anvil dies. Is it possible that the mint did make
            > some obverse dies on reverse dies bodies?
            >           Also, have we seen
            > the same retained cud on two or more  coins? If so, this would bolster the
            > fact that the obverse die was not the hammer die but in a different
            > position that did not allow that piece of die to fall out.
            >           There is one
            > more scenario that I would contemplate. It would be possible for the die to
            > break during contact with the planchet during the strike and have a
            > retained cud being formed and held in place by the planchet itself. However,
            > after the strike, that piece would fall away from the die leaving you with a
            > cud.
            >
            > BJ
            >
            > In a message dated 6/30/2013 3:03:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
            > mdia1@... writes:
            >  
            > >http://www.coinworld.com/Articles/viewarticle/mechanism-reality-of-retained-cuds-questioned
            > >
            > >The
            > upshot of this analysis is that the vast majority of alleged retained cuds of
            > the hammer die are nothing of the sort. I'm not entirely sure that any
            > actually exist, although I do hold out the possibility for some extreme
            > cases.
            > >
            > >Commments and critiques are welcome.
            > >
            > >In the next issue I
            > trash the concept of "abrasion doubling".
            > >
            > >It's always useful to clear
            > out theoretical clutter that hampers understanding of minting errors and the
            > minting process.
            > >
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.