Die adjustment strikes.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just saw a couple of these listed at Teletrade and was puzzled as to why they are listed as an error. I mean, think about it, the planchet is used to set striking pressure and die clearance. There's really no error involved in the resulting ultra-weak strike. It looks exactly as it should.
Just a pet peeve I guess, but some of the designated errors just make no sense to me.
Just a pet peeve I guess, but some of the designated errors just make no sense to me.
0
Comments
<< <i>Keets, it was an error on the Mint's part the coin escaped into circulation. >>
If I only had a dollar for every VAM I have...err...nevermind...I do!!
My "Fun With 21D" Die State Collection - QX5 Pics Attached
-----
Proud Owner of
2 –DAMMIT BOY!!! ® Awards
i knew that was coming and i don't agree. i would suggest that these are probably smuggled out of the facilities by the workers or better yet, intentionally thrown into the hoppers. my 20++ years as a machinist tells me that when the Mint workers are aligning dies and setting clearance, they're in manual mode and feeding planchets in a slower process than actual coinage strikings. either way, there is no "error" involved in making the quasi-coin, so why screw around and call it an error.
<< <i>hey Pat i knew that was coming and i don't agree. i would suggest that these are probably smuggled out of the facilities by the workers or better yet, intentionally thrown into the hoppers. my 20++ years as a machinist tells me that when the Mint workers are aligning dies and setting clearance, they're in manual mode and feeding planchets in a slower process than actual coinage strikings. either way, there is no "error" involved in making the quasi-coin, so why screw around and call it an error. >>
Even if an errant Mint worker tossed the trial strike into the hopper out of laziness, on purpose, he didn't have the Mint's permission to do so.
If the Mint did not intend for the coin to enter commerce because it isn't up to the Mint's specs, it's in error thus making the coin an error.
As far as believing these are smuggled out of the Mint, that speculation only comes from on overactive imagination. There are simply too many of die trial coins to account for that feloneous act and the value is low compared to a worker loosing his job and facing criminal prosecution for doing so. The amount of coins found, year after year, in all denominations would also confirm, should the act be purposeful as you propose, it would require multiple workers- all at risk of loosing their livelihoods and careers- being involved.
Nope. I'll stick with the fact, out of millions and billions really, of coins struck, some errors simply make it out into the channels of commerce without any pre-planning on anyones part.
Of course, I also believe Oswald acted alone, so what do I know?
produced when a press is shut down and is stopping.
Almost any error you can name can come in a weakly struck version. Double strikes, triple strikes, quadruple strikes, off-center strikes, saddle strikes, misaligned die errors, indents, partial brockages, strike-throughs, etc. -- all have their weakly struck versions. You can find a weak strike followed immediately by a strong strike and vice versa. You can find double-struck coins with a weak strike from one striking chamber and a strong strike from an adjacent striking chamber. The combinations are endless. My studies of multi-error weak strikes indicate that most or all of them are caused by equipment malfunction during a press run. The weakness in the vast majority of specimens appears to be due to insufficient die approximation. One may therefore deduce that the vast majority of ordinary weak strikes arise from the same cause.
Persistence in the use of the terms "die trial" and "die adjustment strike" is an examples of willful ignorance, perhaps guided by the profit motive. People are more likely to fork over large amounts of money for a romantic escapee from a test run than a simple mechanical accident.
Here are three on-line articles that deal with weak strikes:
Article1
Article2
Article3
you've given me a cause to laugh, suggesting that the U.S. Mint and it's employees could be above corruption and beyond reproach!!!!
at least we agree on Oswald.
<< <i>my "overactive imagination" isn't about errors in general, but rather about this particular type of error, a die adjustment. also, i'd remind you about the Sac mules of a few years ago and the almost certainty that the Wisconsin Quarters were manipulated in some way. errors such as die clips, off-metals and off-center strikings which are certainly more common than this happen during the normal production cycle and are never seen by an in-Mint worker unless by pure chance. others such as this aren't a normal part of the production cycle, they only take place at certain very specific times when a worker would be well aware of what was happening between the dies on his press. the Mint has a long history of manipulated coinage being smuggled out for profit that continues due solely to the profit possible. i find it incomprehensible to think that there are no Mint workers who pay attention to what happens with the product they make and what profits are available. as far as placing a job at risk, i'd assume that as in all walks of life, money blinds and the risk is worth it, if only for the novelty of having the items. you've given me a cause to laugh, suggesting that the U.S. Mint and it's employees could be above corruption and beyond reproach!!!!
Straw man arguement. I never suggested this. Mine was laying the case of difficulty in smuggling out so many die trial errors (maximum exposure/liability) vs the reward in doing so (minimal).
Perhaps I read the title of your Thread to literal and you (now?) are talking about errors in general (including the Sac mules). You really need to tap me on the shoulder though when you're going to change the topic, so I can then keep up with your logic.
Edited to add: This is an interesting coin topic and is what I find most useful about this forum.
done in a very few heists or series of heists. Once someone figures a way to get
them out they'll usually continue the practice for a while.
Some ingenious methods have been used but my favorit were the ones smuggled
out in the crankcases of forklifts being sent out for maintenance. Most of these guys,
I believe, have operated until they got caught.
My research indicatest that the vast majority of weak strikes are simply the product of equipment malfunction and that they get out of the mint the same way any other error gets out -- in regular shipments to Federal Reserve Banks and counting rooms.
you make good points but never address the topic of the existence of "Die Trial" or Die Adjustment" strikes. does that mean it's your opinion that the Mint simply installs dies and starts striking planchets?? since you seem more knowledgeable about errors than the rest of us, what's your understanding of the process when a die pair is initially installed in a press?? are adjustment strikes made??
my experience in a related field tells me that logically there would have to be initial strikes to insure clearance. working at the speed that a modern coining press works at, i also doubt that there would be the prevelance of weak strikes that you allude to. that would pre-suppose on average an equal amount of over-strikes which would damage the equipment.
<< <i>hey errormaven
you make good points but never address the topic of the existence of "Die Trial" or Die Adjustment" strikes. does that mean it's your opinion that the Mint simply installs dies and starts striking planchets?? since you seem more knowledgeable about errors than the rest of us, what's your understanding of the process when a die pair is initially installed in a press?? are adjustment strikes made??. >>
Die trials do exist. I never denied that. All I'm saying is that it's unlikely that many make it out of the Mint. The vast majority of weak strikes are not die trials. They are simply the products of equipment malfunction. Any malfunction that prevents the dies from approximating normally will produce a weak strike. A die trial is identical in appearance to a weak strike that arises from a spontaneous malfunction. So how is it that I've determined that most weak strikes are simple accidents? Several lines of evidence support this view:
1. Weak strikes are far too abundant to represent rare escapees from test runs consigned to destruction.
2. Multi-error weak strikes are not what you'd get from gradual ratcheting up of striking pressure or gradual narrowing of die distance.
3. Instantaneous changes from weak-to-strong and strong-to-weak are not what you'd get from a gradual set-up process.
4. A weak strike in one striking chamber and a strong strike from an adjacent striking chamber is not what you'd get from a gradual set-up process.
5. Weak strikes are most abundant in those issues where the margin of error is very thin. Weakly struck dimes are the most abundant, and that makes sense. Dimes are very thin, and there only needs to be a slight increase in minimum die distance to produce a weak strike. Thick issues, like nickels and dollars, show fewer weak strikes, because there is a lot of slop built in. It takes a big increase in minimum die distance to produce a weakly struck nickel or dollar. This pattern is what you'd expect if spontaneous malfunction was the root cause of the weakness.
<< <i>my experience in a related field tells me that logically there would have to be initial strikes to insure clearance. working at the speed that a modern coining press works at, i also doubt that there would be the prevelance of weak strikes that you allude to. that would pre-suppose on average an equal amount of over-strikes which would damage the equipment. >>
The prevalance of weak strikes is due to the fact that the vast majority of specimens in the marketplace are not "die trials" but are simply the product of equipment malfunction. By overstrikes, do you mean clashed dies? Such accidents are rather common. Dies have to be adjusted so that, in the absence of a planchet, they approach each other closely without actually touching. If they fall out of adjustment so that the minimum distance is zero, you get a die clash in the event of a planchet misfeed. So yes, dies fall out of adjustment in both directions, either approximating too closely (in the case of die clash) or not closely enough (in the case of a weak strike).
-- Mike Diamond
1. Weak strikes are far too abundant to represent rare escapees from test runs consigned to destruction.
---i don't think what joeyuk pictured can be called a weak strike. perhaps you could quantify what you term as a weak strike.
2. Multi-error weak strikes are not what you'd get from gradual ratcheting up of striking pressure or gradual narrowing of die distance.
---??? i really don't think there's much gradual ratcheting up when setting the dies. tolerances are probably close, and experience would give a general idea of where to make the initial strike and how much to adjust to be back in production.
3. Instantaneous changes from weak-to-strong and strong-to-weak are not what you'd get from a gradual set-up process.
---again, you'd have to quantify weak. going from a normal strike to something even remotely close to what joeyuk pictured would be extreme to the point of probably not happening intermittently unless something major happened.
4. A weak strike in one striking chamber and a strong strike from an adjacent striking chamber is not what you'd get from a gradual set-up process.
----how would you know what coin came from where and what the relationship is between any two?? if the coins come into circulation in the fashion you describe it would be impossible to know. i also assume that each individual die pair is adjusted independent of any others.
5. Weak strikes are most abundant in those issues where the margin of error is very thin. Weakly struck dimes are the most abundant, and that makes sense. Dimes are very thin, and there only needs to be a slight increase in minimum die distance to produce a weak strike. Thick issues, like nickels and dollars, show fewer weak strikes, because there is a lot of slop built in. It takes a big increase in minimum die distance to produce a weakly struck nickel or dollar. This pattern is what you'd expect if spontaneous malfunction was the root cause of the weakness.
---again, you'd have to quantify weak stike. my experience shows me that weakly struck nickels and dollars are more the norm than the exception, at least with Ike Dollars and Jeffersons until the early 1990's. the root cause of weak strike as i define it is metal hardness and die fatigue which results in a high striking pressure. i would think that with those issues, at least, more clash would be seen due to an increase in pressure; i don't see that.
<< <i>hey Pat
i knew that was coming and i don't agree. i would suggest that these are probably smuggled out of the facilities by the workers or better yet, intentionally thrown into the hoppers. my 20++ years as a machinist tells me that when the Mint workers are aligning dies and setting clearance, they're in manual mode and feeding planchets in a slower process than actual coinage strikings. either way, there is no "error" involved in making the quasi-coin, so why screw around and call it an error. >>
You are so right! Lets re-write all of the error books and crack all of them slabs because of your insight!
<< <i>well, i guess it's OK to have opposing views. so here are mine underneath.
1. Weak strikes are far too abundant to represent rare escapees from test runs consigned to destruction.
---i don't think what joeyuk pictured can be called a weak strike. perhaps you could quantify what you term as a weak strike.. >>
I would indeed call joeyuk's coin a weak strike. For purposes of this and previous discussions, a "weak strike" is a VERY weak strike. These are coins that are usually and unjustifiably tagged with the labels"die trial" or "die adjustment strike". They are coins in which large areas of the design did not strike up at all. They are coins that lack reeding (in reeded issues) and that preserve the original proto-rim of the unstruck planchet. Naturally, weak strikes vary in severity from slight to extreme. To make matters simple, I was only referring to the extreme end of the continuum
<< <i> 2. Multi-error weak strikes are not what you'd get from gradual ratcheting up of striking pressure or gradual narrowing of die distance.
---??? i really don't think there's much gradual ratcheting up when setting the dies. tolerances are probably close, and experience would give a general idea of where to make the initial strike and how much to adjust to be back in production. >>
Everything I've read and heard regarding press set-up in older presses (the source of most weak strikes), speaks of a gradual process. If it was as fast as you suggest, then there'd be even fewer "die trials" in the marketplace.
<< <i>3. Instantaneous changes from weak-to-strong and strong-to-weak are not what you'd get from a gradual set-up process.
---again, you'd have to quantify weak. going from a normal strike to something even remotely close to what joeyuk pictured would be extreme to the point of probably not happening intermittently unless something major happened. >>
I am indeed speaking of a change from a very weak strike to a strong strike (and vice versa) in the brief moment separating two strikes. I've even seen a triple-struck quarter in which the first strike was strong, the second very weak ("die trial" stength) and the third once again strong. All strikes were die-struck on both faces and all were delivered by the same die pair.
<< <i>4. A weak strike in one striking chamber and a strong strike from an adjacent striking chamber is not what you'd get from a gradual set-up process.
----how would you know what coin came from where and what the relationship is between any two?? if the coins come into circulation in the fashion you describe it would be impossible to know. i also assume that each individual die pair is adjusted independent of any others.. >>
Dies in a dual and quad press work off the same cam and will be adjusted together. Coins that are spit out of such a press at high speed cannot be linked to any particular die pair by a mint technician. If there is weakness, then the entire press will be adjusted. When you have multiple strikes from different die pairs, the most logical and likely source of the additional strikes is an adjacent striking chamber.
<< <i>5. Weak strikes are most abundant in those issues where the margin of error is very thin. Weakly struck dimes are the most abundant, and that makes sense. Dimes are very thin, and there only needs to be a slight increase in minimum die distance to produce a weak strike. Thick issues, like nickels and dollars, show fewer weak strikes, because there is a lot of slop built in. It takes a big increase in minimum die distance to produce a weakly struck nickel or dollar. This pattern is what you'd expect if spontaneous malfunction was the root cause of the weakness.
---again, you'd have to quantify weak stike. my experience shows me that weakly struck nickels and dollars are more the norm than the exception, at least with Ike Dollars and Jeffersons until the early 1990's. the root cause of weak strike as i define it is metal hardness and die fatigue which results in a high striking pressure. i would think that with those issues, at least, more clash would be seen due to an increase in pressure; i don't see that. >>
I'm speaking of extremely weak strikes that are usually labeled as "die trials" and "die adjustment strikes". These are most common in dimes, next most common in cents, and then come quarters. Nickels come next followed by half dollars and then dollars. There is a nice correlation between coin thickness and the abundance of extremely weak strikes (a.k.a. "die trials").
We can simplify this whole discussion by returning to the original point. It is IMPOSSIBLE to identify either the proximate or the ultimate cause of a very weak strike. It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to identify a very weak strike as a "die trial". Doing so is simply an exercise in wishful thinking. The best one can do is simply apply a non-specific label of "weak strike". That covers every possible proximate and ultimate cause.
I encourage you to read the articles I linked to
<< <i>...puzzled as to why they are listed as an error. >>
Agreed! They should not be listed as errors.