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

Screwy diagnosis

Expand Messages
  • Mike Diamond
    Here s a beaut from the old PCI: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&category=31373&item=3911202162 This is neither a die trial nor a brockage.
    Message 1 of 7 , May 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's a beaut from the old PCI:

      http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
      ViewItem&category=31373&item=3911202162

      This is neither a die trial nor a brockage. It's simply a cent
      struck on a split-before-strike planchet. The "brockage" is simply a
      ghost image of Lincoln's bust that usually develops when a thin
      planchet is struck. A strike on a thin planchet is almost always
      weak, since the thickness of the coin is close to the minimum die
      clearance and because there simply might not be enough metal to
      completely fill the opposing recesses of the dies. In this case,
      metal followed the path of least resistance and flowed/bulged into
      Lincoln's bust. At the same time it drew away from the reverse die,
      leaving a slightly hollowed simulacrum of Lincoln's bust.
    • Mike Diamond
      Is that the term that s generally applied to ghost images caused by a weak strike or a strike on a thin planchet? Do you know of a reference where the term is
      Message 2 of 7 , May 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Is that the term that's generally applied to ghost images caused by a
        weak strike or a strike on a thin planchet? Do you know of a
        reference where the term is used and defined? I vaguely recall
        having encountered it somewhere before.

        Thanks.

        --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "mrlindy2000"
        <adkinstone@e...> wrote:
        > Sounds like: Internal Metal Displacement Phenomena.
        >
        > I notice ebay sellers often consider this a error a brockage too.
        Instead of IMDP.
        >
        >.
      • Mike Diamond
        Well, I can t find IMDP in any of the standard references, which means little, as it could have been described elsewhere. Had I known about it, and had I been
        Message 3 of 7 , May 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, I can't find IMDP in any of the standard references, which
          means little, as it could have been described elsewhere.

          Had I known about it, and had I been able to track down where and how
          it's been used, I probably would have classified "extrusion strikes"
          as one of these IMD phenomena. Contrary to appearances, I hate
          establishing a new term when one already exists.

          If anybody else out there can direct me a to discussion of IMDP, I
          would be greatly appreciative.

          --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
          <mdia1@a...> wrote:
          > Is that the term that's generally applied to ghost images caused by
          a
          > weak strike or a strike on a thin planchet? Do you know of a
          > reference where the term is used and defined? I vaguely recall
          > having encountered it somewhere before.
          >
          > Thanks.
          >
          > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "mrlindy2000"
          > <adkinstone@e...> wrote:
          > > Sounds like: Internal Metal Displacement Phenomena.
          > >
          > > I notice ebay sellers often consider this a error a brockage too.
          > Instead of IMDP.
          > >
          > >.
        • Mike Diamond
          I found this definition on the CONECA website, in their glossary under Heavy Die Transfer : When a die nears the end of its usefulness, often it exhibits the
          Message 4 of 7 , May 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            I found this definition on the CONECA website, in their glossary
            under "Heavy Die Transfer":

            "When a die nears the end of its usefulness, often it exhibits the
            major central design of its opposing mate. This design is transferred
            from one die to the other through the striking of the coin metal.
            Alan Herbert gives this illustration: "The best example I can offer
            of this phenomenon is the toy which you've all seen which has five or
            six metal balls hanging in a row, touching each other. When you pull
            back the end ball and allow it to strike the row, it causes the ball
            at the far end to swing away from its neighbor. The same thing occurs
            with design transfer, the outline of the design being transferred
            from one die to the other." (Alan Herbert, Minting Varieties and
            Errors, fifth edition, New York: House of Collectibles, 1991, page
            158). This variety is fairly common on the early wheat cents. It is
            often called the "ghost of Lincoln." The technical term for this is
            IMPD (Internal Metal Displacement Phenomenon)."

            According to this definition, IMDP is a sub-category of die
            deterioration. I've used the term "progressive indirect design
            transfer" for this species of "ghost", which is much more precise
            than IMDP.

            So IMDP would not be used for the "ghost of Lincoln" that one sees on
            coins struck on thin or split planchets. As far as I know, there is
            no "technical" term for this species of ghost. So I guess "extrusion
            strikes" is safe for now, as it doesn't even pertain to ghost images.

            There are many, many causes for "ghost" images -- progressive
            indirect design transfer, weak strikes with attendent flow into major
            recesses, worn clash marks, accumulations of "grease", various kinds
            of surface film effects, etc.

            I do have a major, multi-part article planned to cover the myriad
            species of ghosts that one may encounter on coins. A number still
            don't make sense to me. It will be quite a while before that article
            appears, though.


            --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
            <mdia1@a...> wrote:
            > Well, I can't find IMDP in any of the standard references, which
            > means little, as it could have been described elsewhere.
            >
            > Had I known about it, and had I been able to track down where and
            how
            > it's been used, I probably would have classified "extrusion
            strikes"
            > as one of these IMD phenomena. Contrary to appearances, I hate
            > establishing a new term when one already exists.
            >
            > If anybody else out there can direct me a to discussion of IMDP, I
            > would be greatly appreciative.
          • Mike Diamond
            I won t use the term heavy design transfer because it is imprecise and because there is no such thing as light design transfer . As long as it s
            Message 5 of 7 , May 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I won't use the term "heavy design transfer" because it is imprecise
              and because there is no such thing as "light design transfer". As
              long as it's detectable, it's classed as "heavy design transfer".
              One should NEVER include an adjective that refers to size or strength
              in a term of classification UNLESS all examples satisfy the
              requirements of that adjective. That applies to crummy terms
              like "major die break". Many "major" die breaks are trivial in
              size. I'll stick with "progressive indirect design transfer", which
              is quite precise and which incorporates no adjective that refers to
              size or strength.

              As far as Internal Metal Displacement Phenomena is concerned, that
              term is equally ineffectual. It fails to provide any hint as to what
              it's referring to. It's just a wordy, pretentious, uninformative
              label.

              The hobby is burdened with many suboptimal terms, many of which are
              here to stay since they've been in use for so long.

              --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
              <mdia1@a...> wrote:
              > I found this definition on the CONECA website, in their glossary
              > under "Heavy Die Transfer":
              >
              > "When a die nears the end of its usefulness, often it exhibits the
              > major central design of its opposing mate. This design is
              transferred
              > from one die to the other through the striking of the coin metal.
              > Alan Herbert gives this illustration: "The best example I can offer
              > of this phenomenon is the toy which you've all seen which has five
              or
              > six metal balls hanging in a row, touching each other. When you
              pull
              > back the end ball and allow it to strike the row, it causes the
              ball
              > at the far end to swing away from its neighbor. The same thing
              occurs
              > with design transfer, the outline of the design being transferred
              > from one die to the other." (Alan Herbert, Minting Varieties and
              > Errors, fifth edition, New York: House of Collectibles, 1991, page
              > 158). This variety is fairly common on the early wheat cents. It is
              > often called the "ghost of Lincoln." The technical term for this is
              > IMPD (Internal Metal Displacement Phenomenon)."
              >
              > According to this definition, IMDP is a sub-category of die
              > deterioration. I've used the term "progressive indirect design
              > transfer" for this species of "ghost", which is much more precise
              > than IMDP.
              >
              > So IMDP would not be used for the "ghost of Lincoln" that one sees
              on
              > coins struck on thin or split planchets. As far as I know, there
              is
              > no "technical" term for this species of ghost. So I
              guess "extrusion
              > strikes" is safe for now, as it doesn't even pertain to ghost
              images.
              >
              > There are many, many causes for "ghost" images -- progressive
              > indirect design transfer, weak strikes with attendent flow into
              major
              > recesses, worn clash marks, accumulations of "grease", various
              kinds
              > of surface film effects, etc.
              >
              > I do have a major, multi-part article planned to cover the myriad
              > species of ghosts that one may encounter on coins. A number still
              > don't make sense to me. It will be quite a while before that
              article
              > appears, though.
            • Mike Diamond
              It s quite possible that IMDP is used in more than one context. If it has been applied to totally unrelated errors, then that would render its use
              Message 6 of 7 , May 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                It's quite possible that IMDP is used in more than one context. If
                it has been applied to totally unrelated errors, then that would
                render its use problematic. It sort of reminds me of what happened
                to the term "extra metal". This term was applied to so many
                different and unrelated errors (at least half a dozen) that it
                eventually sank beneath the weight of them and was expunged from the
                hobby lexicon. No loss, though. "Extra metal" was a lousy term in
                ALL its applications.

                There are indeed many flaws in Herbert's book, not the least being
                the unwieldy terminology and classification numbers. Some errors,
                like "jam strikes", and "inside die abrasion doubling" don't even
                exist. In the 6th edition, he transfers all the former planchet
                errors to the "striking errors" category. Makes no sense at all.

                And you're right that Spadone's book is the worst offender.



                --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "mrlindy2000"
                <adkinstone@e...> wrote:
                > A few years back I believe Pilliod wrote a Coneca article on IMDP.
                I hadn't read Herbert's definition concerning IMDP. I know my
                > earlier copy had numerous typos and wrong pix. Maybe his IMDP
                definition is a typo as it isn't what I read on the subject. I had a
                > freind locally years ago who cut his teeth on Herbert. It was
                amazing just how wrong the earlier edtion is if its your only error
                coin
                > reference. I got annoyed with all my error collector friend's
                mistatments and we, together sat through Herbert and I then realized
                > where all his incorrect error info came from.
                >
                > The most blatent offender is Spadone.
                >
                > So many altered errors pictured.
                >
                > Sandwich brockages that continue to plague ebay.
                >
                > Not by Spadone as he was deceived by contributors.
                >
                > Once in print though, its impossible to correct.
                >
                > Lindy
              • Mike Diamond
                In all fairness, I should emphasize that Alan Herbert s book is still the best general reference on error coins, IMHO. ... the ... IMDP. ... a ... realized
                Message 7 of 7 , May 6, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  In all fairness, I should emphasize that Alan Herbert's book is still
                  the best general reference on error coins, IMHO.

                  --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                  <mdia1@a...> wrote:
                  > It's quite possible that IMDP is used in more than one context. If
                  > it has been applied to totally unrelated errors, then that would
                  > render its use problematic. It sort of reminds me of what happened
                  > to the term "extra metal". This term was applied to so many
                  > different and unrelated errors (at least half a dozen) that it
                  > eventually sank beneath the weight of them and was expunged from
                  the
                  > hobby lexicon. No loss, though. "Extra metal" was a lousy term in
                  > ALL its applications.
                  >
                  > There are indeed many flaws in Herbert's book, not the least being
                  > the unwieldy terminology and classification numbers. Some errors,
                  > like "jam strikes", and "inside die abrasion doubling" don't even
                  > exist. In the 6th edition, he transfers all the former planchet
                  > errors to the "striking errors" category. Makes no sense at all.
                  >
                  > And you're right that Spadone's book is the worst offender.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "mrlindy2000"
                  > <adkinstone@e...> wrote:
                  > > A few years back I believe Pilliod wrote a Coneca article on
                  IMDP.
                  > I hadn't read Herbert's definition concerning IMDP. I know my
                  > > earlier copy had numerous typos and wrong pix. Maybe his IMDP
                  > definition is a typo as it isn't what I read on the subject. I had
                  a
                  > > freind locally years ago who cut his teeth on Herbert. It was
                  > amazing just how wrong the earlier edtion is if its your only error
                  > coin
                  > > reference. I got annoyed with all my error collector friend's
                  > mistatments and we, together sat through Herbert and I then
                  realized
                  > > where all his incorrect error info came from.
                  > >
                  > > The most blatent offender is Spadone.
                  > >
                  > > So many altered errors pictured.
                  > >
                  > > Sandwich brockages that continue to plague ebay.
                  > >
                  > > Not by Spadone as he was deceived by contributors.
                  > >
                  > > Once in print though, its impossible to correct.
                  > >
                  > > Lindy
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.