Albert Einstein said ...
DieVarieties
Posts: 307
..., "The important thing is not to stop questioning."
Also ...
A derivative of Ockham's razor is, "Of two or more equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."
I would like to offer a presentation involving the 2004-D Wisconsin "High Leaf" and "Low Leaf" states quarters.
In this presentation I am attempting to offer no answers nor attempting to jump to any conclusions, but rather providing some observations that may offer possible "clues" to ponder. If you will permit me, a CSI (Coin Scene Investigation) to explore.
Below is a photo of the Wisconsin "High Leaf" states quarter. In this photo are arrows #1 and #2 pointing to where the "High Leaf" continues to extend into the primary leaf design on its low point (corresponding high point on the working die) as well as continues to extend slightly into the field and tapering off.
Next is a superimposed transparent overlay with the obverse of a states quarter that is flip-flopped (mirror image) and then inverted. The images came from the U.S. Mint.gov Web site. This would be simulation of what a "die clash" would look like. In this overlay I have pointed out in red where the back of Washington's wig curl falls in line where the "High Leaf" Wisconsin quarter is. We can even see just so slightly where the overlay would barely protrude outward into the field.
As correctly pointed out in another related post on this forum, this "High Leaf" we see on the Wisconsin quarter CAN NOT be a result from a "clashed die" type of error. Other parts of the design would be showing and they do not.
However, it is perplexing that the "High Leaf" quarter would align in the same type of curving radius and in the same area as we see in the overlay above? Some have expressed this is no more than just a coincidence. That anyone can manipulate images, move them around to different positions, and make something look like something. At this juncture, I can not disagree with that. It could very well be a mere coincidence -- OR -- could it be NOT an "answer," but rather -- a "clue?"
For the sake of discussion, lets just go on assumption that there is something going on here with this overlay "clue" comparison and its direct relationship with the "High Leaf" quarter. I'm not saying it is, but rather lets explore that, if it is a clue, then we should be able to test it.
How do we test further?
Lets now go to the 2004-D Wisconsin "Low Leaf" states quarter. Below is a photo of the "Low Leaf." In this photo are arrows #1 and #2 pointing to where the "Low Leaf" continues into the primary design and hitting its low points (corresponding high points on the working die) much like the "High Leaf" continued to extend into the primary leaf design and finally tapering off into the field. Also I have provided an arrow #3 that points to where the extension of the lower left curvature slightly breaks just before entering the block of cheese design edge.
If the assumption that the "High Leaf" and its direct overlay comparison is a "clue" and they are somehow related to each other -- then, would the "Low Leaf" overlay provide a "clue?" And if so, would they be related to each other as well?
Below is a transparent overlay now with the flip-flopped (mirror image) and inverted again -- but now also rotated approximately 90 degrees counter-clockwise. Again, we have an extreme mis-alignment of the dies which provides additional evidence, as we discussed before, this CAN NOT be from a "clashed die" type of error.
But -- in this overlay, now we see that, again, the same Washington's back of the wig curl is falling into the same curving radius as well as extending into the main stalk design like we see in the "Low Leaf" photo. Though it is hard to see, but if you blow up, the ending slight break we saw in the "Low Leaf" photo pointed out with arrow #3 is where it also breaks on the obverse design and begins to start the back of Washington's neck line.
Earlier it was mentioned that some believe that the "High Leaf" and its overlay relationship comparison of the two was just a mere "coincidence." Again -- I can't disagree with that statement at that particular juncture.
But -- now with the "Low Leaf" and its overlay relationship ... is this just also a mere "coincidence" too! Are both, the "High Leaf" and the "Low Leaf" and their relationships with each of their corresponding overlay -- are both just a mere coincidence?
Or ---
Is this another "clue?" A KEY question could be -- are the two related?
I'm asking you to ponder my presentation, a kick-the-tires discussion.
But more importantly, I'm asking you to "... not to stop questioning."
Also ...
A derivative of Ockham's razor is, "Of two or more equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."
I would like to offer a presentation involving the 2004-D Wisconsin "High Leaf" and "Low Leaf" states quarters.
In this presentation I am attempting to offer no answers nor attempting to jump to any conclusions, but rather providing some observations that may offer possible "clues" to ponder. If you will permit me, a CSI (Coin Scene Investigation) to explore.
Below is a photo of the Wisconsin "High Leaf" states quarter. In this photo are arrows #1 and #2 pointing to where the "High Leaf" continues to extend into the primary leaf design on its low point (corresponding high point on the working die) as well as continues to extend slightly into the field and tapering off.
Next is a superimposed transparent overlay with the obverse of a states quarter that is flip-flopped (mirror image) and then inverted. The images came from the U.S. Mint.gov Web site. This would be simulation of what a "die clash" would look like. In this overlay I have pointed out in red where the back of Washington's wig curl falls in line where the "High Leaf" Wisconsin quarter is. We can even see just so slightly where the overlay would barely protrude outward into the field.
As correctly pointed out in another related post on this forum, this "High Leaf" we see on the Wisconsin quarter CAN NOT be a result from a "clashed die" type of error. Other parts of the design would be showing and they do not.
However, it is perplexing that the "High Leaf" quarter would align in the same type of curving radius and in the same area as we see in the overlay above? Some have expressed this is no more than just a coincidence. That anyone can manipulate images, move them around to different positions, and make something look like something. At this juncture, I can not disagree with that. It could very well be a mere coincidence -- OR -- could it be NOT an "answer," but rather -- a "clue?"
For the sake of discussion, lets just go on assumption that there is something going on here with this overlay "clue" comparison and its direct relationship with the "High Leaf" quarter. I'm not saying it is, but rather lets explore that, if it is a clue, then we should be able to test it.
How do we test further?
Lets now go to the 2004-D Wisconsin "Low Leaf" states quarter. Below is a photo of the "Low Leaf." In this photo are arrows #1 and #2 pointing to where the "Low Leaf" continues into the primary design and hitting its low points (corresponding high points on the working die) much like the "High Leaf" continued to extend into the primary leaf design and finally tapering off into the field. Also I have provided an arrow #3 that points to where the extension of the lower left curvature slightly breaks just before entering the block of cheese design edge.
If the assumption that the "High Leaf" and its direct overlay comparison is a "clue" and they are somehow related to each other -- then, would the "Low Leaf" overlay provide a "clue?" And if so, would they be related to each other as well?
Below is a transparent overlay now with the flip-flopped (mirror image) and inverted again -- but now also rotated approximately 90 degrees counter-clockwise. Again, we have an extreme mis-alignment of the dies which provides additional evidence, as we discussed before, this CAN NOT be from a "clashed die" type of error.
But -- in this overlay, now we see that, again, the same Washington's back of the wig curl is falling into the same curving radius as well as extending into the main stalk design like we see in the "Low Leaf" photo. Though it is hard to see, but if you blow up, the ending slight break we saw in the "Low Leaf" photo pointed out with arrow #3 is where it also breaks on the obverse design and begins to start the back of Washington's neck line.
Earlier it was mentioned that some believe that the "High Leaf" and its overlay relationship comparison of the two was just a mere "coincidence." Again -- I can't disagree with that statement at that particular juncture.
But -- now with the "Low Leaf" and its overlay relationship ... is this just also a mere "coincidence" too! Are both, the "High Leaf" and the "Low Leaf" and their relationships with each of their corresponding overlay -- are both just a mere coincidence?
Or ---
Is this another "clue?" A KEY question could be -- are the two related?
I'm asking you to ponder my presentation, a kick-the-tires discussion.
But more importantly, I'm asking you to "... not to stop questioning."
0
Comments
I have no more questions
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>So where are the other clash marks? >>
I mentioned twice in my presentation they are not a result of a die clash.