Need a little Help with Die States
Intueor
Posts: 310 ✭✭✭✭
This is not a trick question. I just need some opinions on Die states. Below are two images of a Franklin 1950-D FS-501 reverse with relatively equal strike characteristics. I am trying to learn about determining EDS, MDS, and LDS Die States. There are not a lot of resources to understand some of the nuances of identifying the Die States. I think Image A is an Early Die State and Image B is a Middle or Late Die State. I am focusing on the die scratches to the viewers left inside field of the Bell yoke and on the left surface of the Yoke. Please let me know what you think and briefly explain your thinking if you have the time.
Thanx I will be in & out the rest of the day so no rush but I will respond when I am available.
unus multorum
1
Comments
I'm not a pro and I actually don't know the variety, but I think image B is the earlier die state or the two. There seems to be some die polish lines on image A that aren't there in image B. Additionally, the surface of the coin in image B shows a nice "skin", or frosty looking texture which coin A appears to be lacking. I think that is an early die state property, someone correct me if I am wrong.
I could be wrong.
Collector, occasional seller
Hi @ChrisH821,
I see your point. You reasoned that: “There seems to be some die polish lines on Image A that aren't there in image B.” I was thinking just the reverse. I reasoned the die polishing lines on Image A would begin to fade with the die ware of Image B. Likewise, to your keen observation of the “skin”, in my reasoning this was due to the “flattening” or smoothing of the working dies incused surfaces also from ware. Thank you for your valuable input. Obviously, I have a lot more to learn on this subject.
Do they have the die scratch through R in Liberty? Variety Vista only has MDS listed
http://varietyvista.com/11 Franklin Halves/RPM Detail Pages/1950DRPM001.htm
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
@StrikeOutXXX
@Intueor
@ChrisH821
Forget the die scratches and look at the entire image. Assuming that both coins are mint state, IMO, the coin with the most design details should be the "fresher die."
If you agree, which has the most detail?
With the images as-is, I think A shows more/finer details, but certainly that could be the difference in a singular strike, minute planchet difference, or simply lighting drowning out things.
I was curious about the scratch as VV has it as a MDS diagnostic. If one has it and the other doesn’t, then we’re left to consider is the one without a stage A or stage C. Did they polish the dies and remove the scratch, so it won’t be present in stage C... or was it not present on the pristine die (stage A) and was scratched subsequently.
The polish lines by themselves don’t sway me as dies before they even strike a coin are usually polished, as are they if needed at various points during its use, so fresher exact polish lines although can many times tell the order of production relative to each other, would do nothing to distinguish EDS/MDS/LDS by themselves.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
@StrikeOutXXX
@Insider2
@ChrisH821
WOW, you guys are GOOD!
OK, here are the full images. For what it is worth, I think Image A and Image B have different obverse Working Dies. That was the whole purpose of my question. Image A obverse has the “Crack”, Image B obverse does not. I reason that if Image A reverse is EDS than Image B is the LDS with the Cracked obverse Working Die replaced. I have to go for a few hours….. This is killing me!
These are high resolution JPGs, Click on them to Zoom.
Image A
Image B
A is the early strike. IMO, both coins show no weakness at all, only design details worn off the die (due to use) that struck the coin in image B. Along with design details, and die wear, die breaks are important. Die polish lines are a little more difficult to use as each time the die is polished they change. If you only have one die state. Which is it? On which die state did the polishing take place.
I agree with you - again though, the lighting is coming at different angles on the 2 partial images provided, but going only with what I have, I circled the areas that I believe show better details on the top, and one place on the bottom I think is showing more wear. Add the similar die polish lines the OP pointed out to start with that do appear to match, yet somewhat reduced in image B, I am fairly confident A came first followed by B. I don't think there was a die-polish cycle in between A & B for the reverse die, as you said, the appearance of slightly lesser details I believe is simply due to use/wear.
The OP posted between us with two different Obverses. If we are both thinking picture A came first... with the die scratch obverse, then was swapped out with the new obverse (if picture B comes subsequent), I would conclude based on James Wiles examination that the Picture A die pair made it to MDS, I could extrapolate that out to 2 scenarios.
1) Picture B would have taken over at least at MDS, and likely continued into LDS
2) Picture A is likely the pair that was EDS and worked it's life into MDS.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
>
A is the earlier strike. It may still be a MDS, while B is a LDS. You don't necessarily need to compare dies to tell how much use the die has sustained, much as you don't have to see a younger face next to an older one to gauge how old either is.
The things that make A not look like an EDS is that the die polishing lines aren't crisply defined and the luster isn't really fine.
Obverse B looks like an EDS to me. The LDS trait of B is the radial "smearing" of the right edge of the bell shown in the original picture.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
@StrikeOutXXX
@Insider2
@ChrisH821
@messydesk
Sorry for the delayed response. As usual, an unexpected obligation lasted much longer than I expected.
If I understand the exchanges correctly, there is a consensus that the Image A REVERSE is at least a MDS while the Image B REVERSE is most likely a LDS. This reasoning is based on both images detailed observable die wear and, to a limited extent, the level of detail of the identical die polishing scratches in the relevant areas of the bell and legend.
If this reasoning holds then at some point during the FS-501 REVERSE die life, the “Cracked” OBVERSE die was replaced with a “Smooth” OBVERSE die. I think this is referred to a new (second?) die marriage.
This is the reason why I posted:
In researching 1950-D FS-501 Franklins, I came across this curious disparity in OBVERSE working dies. I concluded that if Image A REVERSE was an “earlier” die state paired with the “Cracked” OBVERSE than a new die marriage could be the only reasonable explanation for the “Smooth” OBVERSE to be paired with the same FS-501 REVERSE. Not being well schooled in determining levels of die states, I hit the resources only to find very little data on how to determine die states. Hence the post to consult and learn from the people who know their stuff.
While it may fall into most collector’s “who cares” category, I am fascinated to learn that, although there is only one working REVERSE die that created the FS-501, there are at least two OBVERSE working dies for the FS-501. The fact that the quality control at the coin press level of the Mint appeared not to be concerned with RPMs has always been a source of curiosity. Fortunately it has also been a “silver mine” for us variety geeks.
Thank you all and our host for helping me learn something new and very useful in my continuing research.
I think the conclusions are feasible based on the photos given. If those coins are yours, may want to contact James Wiles, John Wexler, and Bill Fivaz to examine and possibly update their records for the variety. They may not be aware of the two die pairings for the variety.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
Hi @strikeOutXXX,
Thank you for the follow up. The coins pictured are from the “Coinfacts” database. Specimens at that level are way above my paygrade. I spotted the “variety” while doing tangential research on the Franklin series. Since the PCGS number is on both images, the experts you mentioned hopefully could base a finding on the detailed images available in the Coinfacts database. I think PCGS variety specialists are already aware of this obverse working die variety since, even without the “Crack” die marker on the obverse of Image B, they correctly attributed the piece as a FS-501. For me, the post was a gratifying learning exercise to validate deductive reasoning based on the evidence of die state. I also wanted to alert other collectors to a previously undocumented potential “variety” that might be of some interest.
Thank you again for the benefit of your time and instrumental input.