a fantastic lesson on sub-par high-point details and what actually may cause some of them.

LanceNewmanOCC

c/o mikebyers.com archives

i'll hold my opinion until i see what others have to say. VERY interesting to me to say the least.

Aspie_Rocco

Wow it almost looks like she has an actual fingernail! The details are amazing.

yosclimber

I'm seeing that if only half the planchet is under the die, it gets squeezed a lot more!

pursuitofliberty

The flow of metal is outward to the collar first, and then upward into the die recesses.

This is classic path of least resistance in practice ... where all things, at their natural state, will follow the path of least resistance

... which ... all jokes included and aside, works for water, air, solids, light, radiation ... and most people

CaptHenway

I too will hold my explanation until others have spoken.
.
I will say: “WOW!”

LanceNewmanOCC

makes ya wonder if the most effective way to make flans is for them to be parabolic (positive) just like the dies. from what i have seen the center of the die is higher (longer?) than the outer parts for a couple reasons at least. probably too difficult for the cost though.

although with advances in tempering and die materials etc, a lot more pressure can be applied while the dies last longer as well as a collar or other part for the edge w/o it/them breaking.

for some reason, long ago, i used to think that the stroke of the piston? that the die attaches to had a way of restricting how far down or up it could go and they had to find the sweet spot (causing a lot of variance in stirke quality) whereas die clashing shows this to not be true and that the dies have enough stroke length to go all the way down to touch. i can't say this is true for every era of coin striking.

while technically, yes the pressure of the die is probably the main reason for weak strikes, it is not the only reason. the presses that have the wheel motion, like a piston in an engine, will have NO choice but to either go all the way down based on the length of its parts (or not complete the cycle/turn) as well as the die and it is really the anvil dies height "setting (if it can be adjusted)" that will dictate the strike quality mostly. of course we have die compression, flan thickness, various metal compositions but in this instance, silver half flans aren't really all that hard by comparison to say clad coinage but they do have to last a LONG time which is really the biggest crux. cost effectiveness. OR do you think that enough die compression takes place that at some point full strikes are essentially impossible while the collar is in place?

then there are presses that go straight up and down with no wheel motion and it is these i believe that have the most variance in stroke length since there is no fixed motion like with a wheel and the pressure is significantly more subject to the presses settings and proper assembly/quality of the parts.

as a side-note, if anyone can effectively explain the physics of how dies can have clashing in the recessed parts of the dies (while in the press), please feel free. metal can and will bend/flex a bit but imo, not so much to allow for clashes on say, the neck from 2 dies that are likely to have that spot LOW on BOTH dies. cup your hands and try to get the middle parts to touch w/o making them nearly flat!!! - i still postulate that clashes can and also did take place in a prior part of the die/hub creation process.

perhaps most/all of you are already up to speed with all of this and i'm running to catch up (nor the first time lol).

i tried to find a gif of the slow rhino from jumani running to catch up to no avail. grrr

BuffaloIronTail

@Aspie_Rocco said:
Wow it almost looks like she has an actual fingernail! The details are amazing.

You know, your right.

I've NEVER seen that much hand detail, not even on a proof.

Pete

BuffaloIronTail

@LanceNewmanOCC

I can't explain it either. but it is a fact. Insider2 used to hammer that point.

I believe that if the recess is real shallow, it will happen.

Just look at Buffalo Nickels. That "stuff" on the neck is from a clash and comes from Black Diamonds mane.

Pete

LanceNewmanOCC

@BuffaloIronTail said:

.
time to get the kids play dough or the wives' cookie cutter molds? just the really shallow ones.

this is the excuse we've been looking for to get out the duct tape and hammers!

Nysoto

I agree with Yosclimber, same striking pressure with less than half the area = more PSI and a hammered off-center double strike.

There has always been a trade-off with strike quality and die life. Even with the early screw presses, I believe five different presses of varying sizes to get the right striking pressure for the die size. Too much PSI and the dies will not last as long.

ricko

That WLH is amazing.... I have not seen WLH errors .... I used to attend a lot of coin shows in the PNW, and do not recall seeing a single one. Great detail on the off center strike. Cheers, RickO

davewesen

I am not convinced the same set of dies made both strikes ... so how was it made?

LanceNewmanOCC

@davewesen said:
I am not convinced the same set of dies made both strikes ... so how was it made?

.
i'd be lying if i said i didn't have the same thought about many of the errors i've seen.

having something like this in-hand, one could scrutinize it to look for ANY similar pups to help verify/legitimize it and i would.

is there anything specific that jumps out at you?

the basic explanation for creation is that once it was getting "ejected" so the next flan could be struck, it didn't make it out all the way and either drop into a collection bin or hit some type of slide down onto a table. idk but given how many times i've seen assembly lines and the like and how many times things mess up, it isn't a far reach to believe it is possible for things like this to happen. NOW, i presume that once it messes up, flans kinda start flying everywhere? then a person(s) has to stop, clean up all the loose flans from the area, perhaps look for any "errors" that shouldn't leave the mint and get it started back up again, quickly and easily. perhaps watching a few to make sure everything will run smoothly again. maybe or maybe not slide one or two down into their sock or the bottom of their shoe and back to work? also it would be exceptionally easy to just put one/some under there and run a couple cycles real quick. its earth, anything can happen.

davewesen

on the obverse, the area under and to the left of the R in liberty looks different to me

FlyingAl

@davewesen This is not my area of study by any means but it seems very unlikely that the coin was struck, transferred by mechanical means to a bin, the dies were then changed, and the coin somehow struck again.

I can think of no possible way except for on purpose where an already struck coin (if the dies were changed it had to be already struck) could find its way into the planchet bins again and was then struck a second time, this time off center. I think @LanceNewmanOCC’s explanation is right.

The coin was struck, the mechanical ejection failed, and it was then struck again off center. The metal was spread thin and the lack of metal resulted in excellent details on the off center strike.

I hope this helps!

CaptHenway

I see ZERO reason to doubt the legitimacy of this error.

cladking

@LanceNewmanOCC said:
makes ya wonder if the most effective way to make flans is for them to be parabolic (positive) just like the dies. from what i have seen the center of the die is higher (longer?) than the outer parts for a couple reasons at least. probably too difficult for the cost though.

although with advances in tempering and die materials etc, a lot more pressure can be applied while the dies last longer as well as a collar or other part for the edge w/o it/them breaking.

for some reason, long ago, i used to think that the stroke of the piston? that the die attaches to had a way of restricting how far down or up it could go and they had to find the sweet spot (causing a lot of variance in stirke quality) whereas die clashing shows this to not be true and that the dies have enough stroke length to go all the way down to touch. i can't say this is true for every era of coin striking.

while technically, yes the pressure of the die is probably the main reason for weak strikes, it is not the only reason. the presses that have the wheel motion, like a piston in an engine, will have NO choice but to either go all the way down based on the length of its parts (or not complete the cycle/turn) as well as the die and it is really the anvil dies height "setting (if it can be adjusted)" that will dictate the strike quality mostly. of course we have die compression, flan thickness, various metal compositions but in this instance, silver half flans aren't really all that hard by comparison to say clad coinage but they do have to last a LONG time which is really the biggest crux. cost effectiveness. OR do you think that enough die compression takes place that at some point full strikes are essentially impossible while the collar is in place?

then there are presses that go straight up and down with no wheel motion and it is these i believe that have the most variance in stroke length since there is no fixed motion like with a wheel and the pressure is significantly more subject to the presses settings and proper assembly/quality of the parts.

as a side-note, if anyone can effectively explain the physics of how dies can have clashing in the recessed parts of the dies (while in the press), please feel free. metal can and will bend/flex a bit but imo, not so much to allow for clashes on say, the neck from 2 dies that are likely to have that spot LOW on BOTH dies. cup your hands and try to get the middle parts to touch w/o making them nearly flat!!! - i still postulate that clashes can and also did take place in a prior part of the die/hub creation process.

perhaps most/all of you are already up to speed with all of this and i'm running to catch up (nor the first time lol).

i tried to find a gif of the slow rhino from jumani running to catch up to no avail. grrr

I believe your model needs a little tweaking.

It sounds like you're picturing the anvil die being pulled away from the strike but it will move to the limits of its range and the back pressure from the coin long before there's any significant "pulling away". The turning wheel (or cam) barely lifts at all until after the strike. A better model is the die bouncing off of the strike.

In addition to die "pressure" and die condition which are the primary determinants of strike quality, I believe that ambient temperature might play a role. At the very least in my experience I've found that the temperature of metal being deformed sometimes plays a significant role in how easily or how much it is deformed. Two consecutive or nearly consecutive stokes of a die on planchets of essentially the same weight can have significant differences in strike.

In the real world everything is a factor.

davewesen

@FlyingAl said:
@davewesen This is not my area of study by any means but it seems very unlikely that the coin was struck, transferred by mechanical means to a bin, the dies were then changed, and the coin somehow struck again.

I can think of no possible way except for on purpose where an already struck coin (if the dies were changed it had to be already struck) could find its way into the planchet bins again and was then struck a second time, this time off center. I think @LanceNewmanOCC’s explanation is right.

The coin was struck, the mechanical ejection failed, and it was then struck again off center. The metal was spread thin and the lack of metal resulted in excellent details on the off center strike.

I hope this helps!

I have no doubt this coin was made by mint dies, I just question if it occurred as you described, with 2 consecutive strikes making this error. Of course lighting changes shadows and perceptions.

The olive branch, leaves and olives for the second strike do not have more detail, while the shoulder of lady Liberty does.

LanceNewmanOCC

@davewesen said:
The olive branch, leaves and olives for the second strike do not have more detail, while the shoulder of lady Liberty does.

.
i love the attention to detail but w/o the collar in place to give resistance to the metal ALL the way from k11 to k7, it literally can't have the pressure needed to push it up into those areas. the middle of the second strike, the metal has nowhere else to go but up really, just a little outward. the metal that would be up in the area of weakness on the second strike has been thinned out too much and you can see this by the slide marks of where the dies were squeezing/squishing the rest of the first struck part of the coin away. hope that came out right.

if you right click the image (open in new tab, copy/paste or d/l), i reuploaded it after i made the OP with a larger version BUT please do more of these.

nice presentation!

that is precisely what you have to do with numismatics. EVENTUALLY you uncover that someone else has missed and you make a bunch of money or a bunch or fame, or well have the respect of a few of us anyway.

FlyingAl

@davewesen Very interesting I do see your point. However, the differences are so minor I think it could just be the lighting.

Another explanation could be that the dies were slightly loose in the press and the off center strike changed the alignment very slightly. Just an idea, I don’t even know if this is possible.

emeraldATV

LanceNewmanOCC

@FlyingAl said:
@davewesen Very interesting I do see your point. However, the differences are so minor I think it could just be the lighting.

Another explanation could be that the dies were slightly loose in the press and the off center strike changed the alignment very slightly. Just an idea, I don’t even know if this is possible.

.
definitely. that is how we get MAD, amongst other things.