Pervasive Strike Doubling on 2019 Sac Proof Reverse
Intueor
Posts: 310 ✭✭✭✭
I initially posted these images on the link forums.collectors.com/discussion/1013770/2019-rocketship-19xgc-currently-unavailable#latest. However, it was suggested bumping to a separate thread. While MDD was the primary diagnosis, after thinking about it and studying the images, there may be another viable explanation. This anomaly may be Strike Doubling. There is no “shelving” on any of the doubled reverse devices and there is no apparent doubling on the obverse.
This issue is endemic to the Sac Proofs. Five of the six Rocketship sets examined have some degree of doubling. It not only exists on the Rocketship Sac but I just checked my clad Proof sets and the same anomaly appears on those Sac dollars. In the proof sets, doubling repeatedly occurs on the arm and designer initials. Since modern proofs are struck at least twice, this suggests a persistent mechanical flaw in the presses or a tolerance issue for the setting of the Sac Proof Reverse Working Dies. The spread of the doubling varies and suggests a loose reverse Working Die. If the persistence is over several thousand coins and multiple Working Dies, then tolerances for the die rim lugs, shaft, or locking collar may be the culprit.
Please, I am not suggesting this anomaly is a Doubled Die. What is clear is that Strike Doubling on laser etched Sac Proof Dollars is pervasive. Aside from being a serious quality control issue, there is a real need to examine exactly how laser etched Working Dies are made to understand this anomaly. Being a lazy Sunday afternoon, the purpose of this post is to engage dialog and opinions on this type of strike variance. While I do not personally agree, (no private agenda intended), Strike Doubling is not considered an error. In reality, considering the number of coins produced from a run on a single misaligned Working Die, the sheer numbers would not warrant any premium. However, it is a variant unique to multiple strikes in the production method of modern Proof coins. As such, it justifies further examination. If you get a minute, check your sets and post what you observe. Thanks.
Comments
What are you using for pics?
iPhone 7 mounted to the eyepiece of a stereomicroscope. Nikon style ring light and diffused, indirect 75w Revel incandescent. Note the settings on the phone screen. I use https://getpaint.net/index.html for a post shot photo editor. It is free, has lots of "Plugins" and has a medium learning curve.
Not very sophisticated but it works for me.
Wow that light ring and phone bracket are cool. I have a stereo scope like that. Where is the phone mount from?
Fantastic pics and Interesting thread also!
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Thanks. Here is the link. https://amazon.com/gp/product/B07BJ679BG/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I have no affiliation with Amazon or the seller.
Interesting post. Will check out my Sacs and compare. I wonder if the degree of shift is variable? Some more than others?
I also like your camera setup. My iPhone as taken the place of my copystand setup/DSLR for sheer simplicity and ease. At times, I simply lay it on a stack of books for a quick "tripod".
Yes, the degree of shift is variable. The one imaged above was the worst of the 12 I examined. That is what leads me to believe that it is a problem with the reverse Working Die seat. The Working Die Reverse is pivoting after the first strike. If it were MDD the "pebbling" of the laser etching would be "smeared". It is not. The etching "pebbles" are in perfect in-line tiny dots.
As to imaging, I do the same. I use a full-size camera for full shots of coins but the setup and lighting for a close-up is much easier with the stereomicroscope and the iPhone mount.
Well this is different.... Very interesting.... I will watch to see what our resident experts say about this. Excellent pictures and descriptions. Cheers, RickO
@Intueor Great HD pics and visual analysis of the Sac.
Found an interesting article posted by our forum’s host. The following stands out in reference to the laser technology that the Mint uses and how it changes proof coinage. There is also mention of RCM’s use of laser technology to add security features to their coins.
—————
Impaired Proofs
Phil Arnold - January 25, 2013
What a difference a decade makes. I've been photographing silver eagles since 2002, and there has been a clear and perceptible change in the quality of these coins. It's not a good change either, as I'm sure many of you collectors out there can attest.
Through the years various methods have been used to prepare proof coinage, from basic wood tools, to chemical etching, to lasers. The ultimate purpose of the proof remains the same: to produce a high-quality specimen of a coin for collectors. It's an expression of artistry and craftsmanship. Up until recently this has been a time consuming, costly process if a mint wanted to produce proof coinage on a large scale. Now the process has been altered in order to make proofs more quickly, and efficiently. However I think this efficiency has come at a steep cost in terms of overall quality of appearance.
Observe for yourself on these two American silver eagles. On the left we have a proof coin from 2002, the frosting on the devices prepared by the conventional grit blasting. The design is clearly defined and pronounced, and the frosting is bright and lustrous.
On the right is a 2012 silver eagle with laser frosting. There is less definition in the design, and it is flat and lusterless. Worst of all, Miss Liberty appears as though she has a terrible case of psoriasis. This is not an expression of craftsmanship, it just looks cheap.
Unfortunately this is becoming more common worldwide.
The US Mint seems to indicate that its laser technology is a proprietary one, so the fine details of it are difficult to pin down. However one can easily find literature on the laser technology used by foreign mints, mainly because the technology was supplied to them by a German-based company called FOBA.
FOBA's website lists the capabilities of its technology for the "Mint Industry". Not only is it responsible for the frosting on the coins, but it applies the use of lasers through much of the process of preparing the dies. FOMA also boasts the ability to include more security features on coins, such as laser engraving. The Royal Canadian Mint has, unsurprisingly, embraced this technology whole heartedly and placed these engravings on all new one and two dollar coins which includes a "tamper proof microscopic laser engraved virtual image" and "edge lettering, a microscopic mark and a reversible image into the coins as optical security features". The real news to me is the idea that the loonies and twoonies were so compromised that they even needed such security features to begin with. Will the general public even care about such security features on such a low denomination anyway?
A joint RCM and FOBA brochure I discovered online lists the benefits of this process. The most important point is "Significant savings when compared to the labor intensive process of frosting manually (traditional sandblasting)." I really can't fault the Royal Canadian Mint or any mint for wanting to reduce costs and save time. They are businesses after all. But the last point among the benefits is "Artistic texturing to elevate designs to new heights". I had to wince at that one. Maybe it's because this technology is still in its infancy, but I have yet to see anything produced by these lasers that elevates designs, let alone to takes them to new heights. Just the opposite in fact, just look at how reduced the relief of the 2012 silver eagle appears compared
We coin collectors are sticklers for quality. We demand the best. Sure, there's a big market for mass produced proof mint products, but I'm sure there must be room for a boutique market as well. I personally would be willing to pay more for a traditionally produced proof coin. Something hand-crafted, and not 100% reliant on computers and modern technology.
If we cannot clearly see designs on these new proof coins because the devices are so flat and pebbly, then are they not flawed? If they are not the best quality coins a mint can produce, then can they be called proofs?
These are more philosophical questions, rather than pure technical ones. But one thing's for sure; I'd rather Miss Liberty not look like she has lizard scales.
—————
https://www.pcgs.com/News/Impaired-Proof-Silver-Eagles
@Hemispherical
Thanks for the compliments.
I appreciate you providing the article on laser Proof technology. It makes clear that this technology may be of cost-benefit but clearly, has yet to be achieved aesthetic improvements. The Native American Dollar has a "Collector Only" purpose. Reason would dictate that an effort would be made to produce a superior quality product.