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

Re: Fascinating example of die failure

Expand Messages
  • Mike Diamond
    I briefly considered the possibility that the small off-center strike was delivered with the die face parallel to the planchet, and that the rest of the
    Message 1 of 39 , Aug 2, 2005
      I briefly considered the possibility that the small off-center strike
      was delivered with the die face parallel to the planchet, and that
      the rest of the planchet simply tipped up due to the enormous
      concentration of force in a small area. But a closer look falsified
      this alternative hypothesis. The coin is thinnest near the broken,
      zig-zaggy internal border, and gets thicker as you move toward the
      edge of the planchet. Also, the design fades out toward the edge of
      the planchet at the left corner of the strike. That would not be the
      case if the die face was parallel to the planchet.

      A scenario in which a loose die fragment was driven into the planchet
      makes the most sense to me. Both die faces seem to have been intact
      (the reverse die barely so) when the larger off-center strike was
      delivered. It seems less likely that a huge piece of the obverse die
      would break off, rather than the smaller piece containing "IN GOD
      WE". And again, the greatly tilted angle of the obverse die (or die
      fragment) during the production of the smaller off-center strike is
      seemingly incompatible with an intact die.

      Man, I love these complex forensic cases.

      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
      <mdia1@a...> wrote:
      > Now that I have this coin, it's proven to be even more interesting
      > than I first imagined.
      > The reverse face of the larger off-center strike was struck by a
      > badly shattered die. There are numerous intersecting die cracks.
      > Some show significant horizontal spread. Some show impressive
      > vertical diplacement. Essentially a network of large conventional
      > and large bi-level die cracks.
      > The smaller off-center strike, which was delivered by a broken die,
      > struck the planchet at an approximate 45 degree angle. A
      > tilted die error, if, in fact, this part of the die was intact.
      > was my original assumption, based on the photos. I now have my
      > doubts. I don't think this part of the die could have struck at
      > angle unless it had broken off. It may have been a floating die
      > fragment that was driven into the planchet by the intact part of
      > die. The fragment may have prevented the rest of the die from
      > contact, or the two dies may have been held apart for some other
      > reason. If this conjecture is correct, then it's a wild sort
      > of "invisible strike" error.
      > Both die faces show multiple faint clash marks and a diffuse sort
      > die damage that affects virtually every area. The die damage could
      > be due to a tremendous number of staggered clashes, or it may be
      > to collisions with the feeder finger.
      > The last peculiar feature is the texture of the reverse face of the
      > smaller off-center strike. It's not a typical uniface surface.
      > not the texture left from contact with a planchet. The surface has
      > fine, raised, closely-spaced curved lines that are arranged in two
      > intersecting groups. I'm not sure what this dime was struck
      > during the smaller off-center strike. Possibly the feeder finger.
      > I'm now pretty sure that both off-center strikes were delivered by
      > the same busted-up die pair.
      > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
      > <mdia1@a...> wrote:
      > > This coin seemed to have slipped beneath the radar (lucky for me):
      > >
      > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8319835943
      > >
      > > The reverse die involved in the larger off-center strike was a
      > > shattered die. The obverse die involved in the smaller off-
      > > strike was a badly broken die. Only a small stump of the die
      > > remained.
      > >
      > > It's impossible to say if the same die pair was involved in both
      > > strikes, as there is no part of the design that overlaps. I
      > suspect
      > > that two different die pairs were involved, as there seems to be
      > too
      > > much of the obverse design present on the larger strike. It's
      > > possible, however, that much of the obverse die broke off between
      > the
      > > larger and smaller strikes (assuming that is the proper sequence).
      > >
      > > In either case, it's a massive case of die failure and a
      > cool
      > > error, if you're into that sort of thing.
    • byersnc
      Your right, Mike D. It s triple struck! Mike Byers http://mikebyers.com ... shape ... by ... there
      Message 39 of 39 , Oct 23, 2005
        Your right, Mike D. It's triple struck!

        Mike Byers

        --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, mdia1@a...
        > "At least there is no debate that it is double struck"
        > Actually, I see three clear strikes.
        > In a message dated 10/23/05 1:46:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
        > no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
        > Ok...a hole that didn't go all the way through. As far as the
        > prior to and after being double struck...who knows. I was going
        > what the experts told me...but what do they know??? At least
        > is no debate that it is double struck, of French origin, and on
        > something from that time period. But there is still the issue of
        > the roast beef on the reverse.
        > Mike Byers
        > http://mikebyers.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.