Wisconsin Extra Leaf Statehood Quarters
HIGHLOWLEAVES
Posts: 790 ✭✭✭
Are we getting down to only a few "High Grade" Wisconsin Extra Leaf Quarters being submitted to PCGS for professional grading now? The total population of these rare varieties went up a whooping "Four" coins last week . But look at the four coins that were graded : two MS 66 Low Leafs and one each "High and Low" MS 67 !! Any suggestions as to what is going on ?? Are collectors/dealers simply "fine tuning" their holdings? Resubmitting their best ?? The Chris Polliod's article discussing the origin of the Wisconsin High and Low Leaf Quarters will be published in the next month in the ANA's Numismatist Publication. After the article is well read and Chris and Rick Snow present their seminar explaining the beginnings of these rare coins at the Summer ANA Shoin August, things may start to move in price. If not, at least a solid foundation will have been established !!
Happy coin collecting !! Mark.
Happy coin collecting !! Mark.
Specialized Investments
0
Comments
Morgan, modern sets, circulated Kennedys, and Wisconsin error leaf quarter Collector
First (and only - so far) Official "You Suck" Award from Russ 2/9/07
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
BTW, I missed the editorial by Mike Diamond in CW. Could you repost here?
and its grade, then the error coin inside.
<< <i>all i notice is that people seem to care more about the plastic
and its grade, then the error coin inside. >>
<< <i>I just cannot get excited about these coins. The items referred to in the OP also seem to me to be the workings of a well-managed promotion. >>
I don't understand this line of thinking.
The mint investigated the origin of these coins and came up mostly empty handed.
It was discovered when they were made but how remains unanswered. If there were
any sort of conspiracy, even the smallest sort, they surely would have uncovered it.
It's most probable that a single individual or possibly a couple produced these as a
form of horseplay.
Say what you will about their efforts, they still strike me as quite artistic. It is a little
bit of a shame that a few thousand had sneaked into circulation before being discovered.
<< <i>I just cannot get excited about these coins. The items referred to in the OP also seem to me to be the workings of a well-managed promotion. >>
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i> According to the Cherrypickers Guide 4th edition Volume II, the WI Extra Leaf Quarters are less rare than 127 other Washington Quarter varieties, are tied with one variety, and are rarer than 3 other varieties. I find it difficult to get excited about the 128th and 129th rarest varieties within the Washington Quarter series. >>
Well, I'll have to admit I hard pressed to come up with more than a few of these 128 or 129 rarer Washington Quarter varieties, off the top of my head. Why? Because you don't hear about them much. And you can't see most of them with the unaided eye.
Consider other varieties that are far from "rare:" the 1909-S VDB Lincoln, the 3-legged Buff, the 1955 DDO Lincoln.... These obviously are well-known and eagerly sought-after because they are widely known and easily recognized.
As has often been stated and restated around here: there are LOTS of rare coins, but only a considerably smaller range of theme are that well known and in high demand.
I don't know if the sun will come up tomorrow morning, but I AM pretty sure these will remain popular and in demand over time.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
<< <i>
<< <i>I just cannot get excited about these coins. The items referred to in the OP also seem to me to be the workings of a well-managed promotion. >>
It is misleading to lump the statehood collectors in with regular Washington quarter collectors. Like it or not they are to a large extent different groups.
Mike Diamond, president of CONECA's letter to the editor was printed on Page 15 of the April 16, 2007 Coin World.
Rick, here is my type written copy of Mr. Diamond's letter in Coin World. Rick, have a great day !! Mark Smith.
THEORY UNCERTAIN
I need to throw some cold water on Chris Pilloid's assertion that the 2004-D Wisconsin quarter dollar "extra leaf" defects were intentional and were placed on the dies when the latter were in a softened state(Coin World, March 5).
Let me say at the outset that I agree with Chris and Tom DeLorey that the defects were produced by the impact of a circular or semicircular object. Beyond that, there are no certainties. Whether this object was a tool, machine part or piece of hardware cannot be determined.
Whether the damage was intentional or accidental cannot be determined. Exactly when the damage was inflicted cannot be determined. While the defects might have appeared before the dies received final tempering, there is no guarantee of this.
Even a hardened die is vulnerable to damage. Case in point is the 2000-D Jefferson 5-cent coin whose images are shown.
The coin shows a strong, slightly misaligned die clash produced at a time when the obverse die was shifted about a millimeter to the left. Strong clash marks by themselves show the potential of hardened dies to take an impression.
But even more compelling is the die damage located on the left side of the obverse and reverse face on the 2000-D 5-cent coin.
These raised, sharply defined, slightly curved ridges are the result of a hard object being caught between the two dies when they came together.
Whether the die damage occurred before, after or simultaneous with the clash cannot be determined.
For the record, this coin was purchased from Christian Merlo.
One other observation: I see in the magnified image of the "low leaf" quarter (top right of the original article) that fine striations in the field are interrupted by the two ridges.
If these striations represent metal lines, their interruption may indicate the the dents in the die were produced after the dies started striking coins.
I guess we're back to square one when it comes to these quarters.
Mike Diamond
President, CONECA
<< <i>After the article is well read and Chris and Rick Snow present their seminar explaining the beginnings of these rare coins at the Summer ANA Shoin August, things may start to move in price. If not, at least a solid foundation will have been established !! >>
I'm uncertain what is meant by : "may start to move in price." AND... "a solid foundation will have been established".
These are 3 yr old base metal coins untouchable for under a hundred bucks in Mint State.
I call that MOVEMENT and Establishment
P.S. My curiousity is "HOW MANY HOARDERS" are there ? and.... Who's gonna get the first PO-01
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I'm sorry, but I fail to see anything in Mike's argument that throws anything but BS on the Chris' assertation.
Trying to be open-minded, but first he's raising the bar of proof to actually having to be at the Mint (with a video camera would be nice too) to be able to make any claim about their cause.
Then he compares it to something it bears no resemblance to.
The striations he notes at the end are probably die polish lines. The extra leaves are sunk in the die, so the die lines of course would stop and continue on the other side.
It's important to have any article (Chris Pilliod's) peer reviewed, but it should be done with equal scientific thought, not by playing games with logic.
Morgan, modern sets, circulated Kennedys, and Wisconsin error leaf quarter Collector
First (and only - so far) Official "You Suck" Award from Russ 2/9/07
<< <i>I guess we're back to square one when it comes to these quarters.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see anything in Mike's argument that throws anything but BS on the Chris' assertation.
Trying to be open-minded, but first he's raising the bar of proof to actually having to be at the Mint (with a video camera would be nice too) to be able to make any claim about their cause.
Then he compares it to something it bears no resemblance to.
The striations he notes at the end are probably die polish lines. The extra leaves are sunk in the die, so the die lines of course would stop and continue on the other side.
It's important to have any article (Chris Pilliod's) peer reviewed, but it should be done with equal scientific thought, not by playing games with logic. >>
Part of the scientific method is to evaluate evidence using logic and critical analysis. Do you suggest we switch to illogical analysis? I did provide solid evidence that rebuts Chris' central contention that the extra leaves could only have been produced while the dies were in a softened state. Anybody familiar with die damage knows that dents much more severe than the "extra leaves" can be inflicted on a working die during a press run. The curved ridges on both faces of the 2000-D nickel are much longer and wider than the "extra leaves", although the relief seems a bit lower. So I don't feel that an exact match is necessary to prove my point.
As far as the microscopic striations being "die polish", this is a possibility. However, most polish lines are coarser and more widely spaced than what I see in the photo. However, I'll assume an attitude of suspended judgement toward the lines and their significance. I suspect their significance will remain ambiguous. By the way, I described them as possible "metal flow lines", not "metal lines".
Chris Pilliod was given the opportunity to respond to my objections, but failed to do so.
Right now, the only appropriate attitude to take toward the "extra leaf" quarters is one of suspended judgement concerning their nature and origin.
-- Mike Diamond
This implies Chris didn't use scientific analysis. To the contrary, he evaluated every possible option and came to a conclusion. He did not start out trying to prove his conclusion, the conclusion resulted from his testing. Chris is a metallurgist and die variety expert.
I did provide solid evidence that rebuts Chris' central contention that the extra leaves could only have been produced while the dies were in a softened state.
No, you didn't. You compared it to something totally different. It does not rebuke anything.
I find it interesting Coin World gave Chris the opportunity to respond to my letter, yet he failed to do so.
Provided he saw it. Anyway, I don't think he needs to respond. If you want so bad to disprove his findings do better research than he did and prove it beyond all doubt. A response is not necessary in my opinion.
Right now, the only appropriate attitude to take toward the "extra leaf" quarters is one of suspended judgement concerning their nature and origin.
I appreciate you challenging the article. But as an expert in die varieties, as Chris and I am as well, a meaningful and educational exchange can be made and something good can come out of it. Don't use flawed logic, Ad Hominem attacks or unbacked personal opinion.
Since die damage is endlessly variable in strength, extent, and pattern, demanding that any particular case of die damage precisely duplicate the "extra leaves" is illogical. Curved die dents (which even you agree are what the extra leaves constitute) occur on other coins (like the 2000-D nickel), although the exact size, shape, proportions, and amount of relief is variable.
I fail to see any evidence in my letter of ad hominem attacks, flawed logic, or unbacked personal opinion. If you could isolate such statements and present them, I would be grateful.
I basically have no opinion regarding the "extra leaf" quarters. I'm sitting on the fence, waiting for conclusive evidence regarding the nature and origin of these fascinating die dents.
<< <i>Part of the scientific method is to evaluate evidence using logic and critical analysis.
This implies Chris didn't use scientific analysis. To the contrary, he evaluated every possible option and came to a conclusion. He did not start out trying to prove his conclusion, the conclusion resulted from his testing. Chris is a metallurgist and die variety expert.
I did provide solid evidence that rebuts Chris' central contention that the extra leaves could only have been produced while the dies were in a softened state.
No, you didn't. You compared it to something totally different. It does not rebuke anything.
I find it interesting Coin World gave Chris the opportunity to respond to my letter, yet he failed to do so.
Provided he saw it. Anyway, I don't think he needs to respond. If you want so bad to disprove his findings do better research than he did and prove it beyond all doubt. A response is not necessary in my opinion.
I appreciate you challenging the article. But as an expert in die varieties, as Chris and I am as well, a meaningful and educational exchange can be made and something good can come out of it. Don't use flawed logic, Ad Hominem attacks or unbacked personal opinion. >>
I think he made sound objective observations.
Since die damage is endlessly variable in strength, extent, and pattern, demanding that any particular case of die damage precisely duplicate the "extra leaves" is illogical. Curved die dents (which even you agree are what the extra leaves constitute) occur on other coins (like the 2000-D nickel), although the exact size, shape, proportions, and amount of relief is variable.
He proved that the extra leaves could not have been made after the die was hardneded. No question about it. He also showed that it could not be done accidentially, and that it did not happen in the press during production.
I fail to see any evidence in my letter of ad hominem attacks, flawed logic, or unbacked personal opinion. If you could isolate such statements and present them, I would be grateful.
No Ad Hominem attacks, but it was meant as a warning to keep it on topic please.
I basically have no opinion regarding the "extra leaf" quarters. I'm sitting on the fence, waiting for conclusive evidence regarding the nature and origin of these fascinating die dents.
Mike, I am leaving to catch a plane right now, I will continue this next week, if you like. We should have a round table discussion at the CONECA meeting.
Rick Snow - CONECA attributor Flying Eagle and Indian cents.
A round table discussion is a good idea and one I've already suggested. In fact, we've allocated quite a bit of extra time in our two meetings in which such a discussion can be held. Since you're willing and able to be there, and since Chris will be there, it seems we have the basis for a fruitful discussion.
<< <i>Obviously, Chris' tests were inadequate. Numerous examples of dies severely damaged during a press run completely invalidate the conclusions drawn from his limited range of tests.
I think he made sound objective observations.
Since die damage is endlessly variable in strength, extent, and pattern, demanding that any particular case of die damage precisely duplicate the "extra leaves" is illogical. Curved die dents (which even you agree are what the extra leaves constitute) occur on other coins (like the 2000-D nickel), although the exact size, shape, proportions, and amount of relief is variable.
He proved that the extra leaves could not have been made after the die was hardneded. No question about it. He also showed that it could not be done accidentially, and that it did not happen in the press during production.
I fail to see any evidence in my letter of ad hominem attacks, flawed logic, or unbacked personal opinion. If you could isolate such statements and present them, I would be grateful.
No Ad Hominem attacks, but it was meant as a warning to keep it on topic please.
I basically have no opinion regarding the "extra leaf" quarters. I'm sitting on the fence, waiting for conclusive evidence regarding the nature and origin of these fascinating die dents.
Mike, I am leaving to catch a plane right now, I will continue this next week, if you like. We should have a round table discussion at the CONECA meeting.
Rick Snow - CONECA attributor Flying Eagle and Indian cents. >>
A question for you. There's no doubt a standard orientation for the dies in
the horizontal quad presses. I'd guess that the anvil die with the obverse
was straight up and down and the reverse die was opposite this. Can you
confirm or correct this and if not what's your best guess?
It might be easier to picture such coincidental die damage if the orientation
is such as to allow it. As is, I just find it extremely difficult for this to occur to
two dies on the same press by some fluke.
The close match between the two extra leaf defects is intriguing, but far from conclusive in establishing intent behind this error. After all, several cents with small, semicircular die gouges or die dents around Lincoln's statue have been discovered and no one has suggested that these were intentionally created.
At the end of this post I have included images of the 2000-D nickel with misaligned die clash and matching die dents.
<< <i>ErrorMaven;
A question for you. There's no doubt a standard orientation for the dies in
the horizontal quad presses. I'd guess that the anvil die with the obverse
was straight up and down and the reverse die was opposite this. Can you
confirm or correct this and if not what's your best guess?
It might be easier to picture such coincidental die damage if the orientation
is such as to allow it. As is, I just find it extremely difficult for this to occur to
two dies on the same press by some fluke. >>
Sincerely, Mark Smith. Have a great day collecting coins !!
<< <i>IMHO, the Ken Potters and Mike Diamonds and Arnie Margolis' of this world have done the State Quarter collectors a great service by being negative about the real origins of these rare variety collector coins as their views and sincere comments cast a dark shadow over the origin and value of these great collector coins. Thus, variety collectors are able to obtain these varieties are depressed levels. >>
The value of these varieties in the marketplace should have no bearing whatsoever on the debate over their origins. One of the biggest problems I had with the initial analysis of this variety two years ago was that the most vocal proponents of the "intentional alteration" theory were also the most leveraged and invested in the acceptance of the coin by the marketplace.
I put a lot more stock in the research and conclusions of Chris Pilliod and Mike Diamond, even though they are contradictory, because there is a disconnect between their opinions and their wallets. As long as the discourse can remain polite, I think their debate should be encouraged.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
My defiance in letting others degrade the variety is not from an economical standpoint, but as a variety expert. I would bow to a good argument in an instant.
Up until now I've only challenged Mike's logic. Here are some points that challange his arguments.
That said. The reason the Wisconsin Extra Leaf varieties are not made from debris struck between the dies (as is the reason for the 2000-D nickel Mike presented) is twofold:
1) The mark on the WI quarters does not follow the design elements into their depths. On the nickel, you see by the E in E PLURIBUS UNUM that the dent follows down into the E. This is because the debris that caused the mark flowed - it was squshed into the die slightly. It would be interesting to see SEM images of this area. The WI quarters do not have that flow. That is becase they were not "gouged" in the striking process where the dies are as hard a hammers, like the 2000-D nickel. They were "gouged" while they were soft.
2) There is no other damage seen on the WI quarter dies. The 2000-D is all messed up. There is clear evidence on both the obverse and reverse. On the WI quarters there is not only no other damage, but the mark does not appear to be random, especially in light of multiple dies with similar marks.
BTW: I had a great time at Disneyland with the family.
<< <i>
Up until now I've only challenged Mike's logic. Here are some points that challange his arguments.
That said. The reason the Wisconsin Extra Leaf varieties are not made from debris struck between the dies (as is the reason for the 2000-D nickel Mike presented) is twofold:
1) The mark on the WI quarters does not follow the design elements into their depths. On the nickel, you see by the E in E PLURIBUS UNUM that the dent follows down into the E. This is because the debris that caused the mark flowed - it was squshed into the die slightly. It would be interesting to see SEM images of this area. The WI quarters do not have that flow. That is becase they were not "gouged" in the striking process where the dies are as hard a hammers, like the 2000-D nickel. They were "gouged" while they were soft. >>
To the contrary, the "low leaf" does continue into the normal design on the right. There is also a slight pressure ridge present. These features are consistent with damage in either a soft or hardened state.
<< <i>2) There is no other damage seen on the WI quarter dies. The 2000-D is all messed up. There is clear evidence on both the obverse and reverse. On the WI quarters there is not only no other damage, but the mark does not appear to be random, especially in light of multiple dies with similar marks. >>
This is only one example of a curved die dent. There are others which do not show clash marks or other signs of die damage. Clash marks are not an inevitable -- nor even a common -- accompaniment of die dents and die gouges. Many examples of die damage are restricted to one face, presumably because the opposite face was shielded by a planchet or coin.
I agree that the presence of two very similar die dents on two different dies is intriguing. But does not constitute the proverbial smoking gun. After all, there are several recent Lincoln cents with nearly identical semicircular die gouges or die dents around Lincoln's statue on the reverse, and no one has suggested that these were intentionally inflicted.
I'm not condemning the extra leaf errors by any means. I find them quite interesting. I simply don't know who or what produced them, when they were produced, or whether their production was accidental or intentional. I've seen no persuasive evidence that would dislodge me from my perch on the proverbial fence.
Ken Potter takes a much harder line against these quarters.
http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/2004DWiscDieGouges.htm
No, there is a slight difference. On the WI quarter (Low leaf, at the right where it goes into the other leaf) it only impresses there because the design is shallow and it woud have otherwise made a mark to the same depth if it were raised field areas. On the 2000-D nickel the debris make a mark that contours the design. This slight difference (to those who are scratching your heads saying "So what") is between an object struck in the press (which has to be hard as a hardened die to make a mark) or something harder than the die which does not distort during the impression.
It answers the question: Was the mark(s) imparted while the die was soft (out of the press - in the die engraving room) or while it was hard (in the press during production)?
The "pressure ridge" is proof that the mark did not happen during the hubbing process. It is a very important item. It shows that the die, when struck with the object that made the "Extra Leaf" had room to expand upwards. If it were being hubbed, it would have nowhere to go. Remember a raised area on the die is a sunken area on the coin - and on the hub, if it was present there, but it is not.
Guess who's picture they used in the Red Book?
Ken Potter's!
It has something to do with contrast. But, I find it very ironic.
<< <i>To the contrary, the "low leaf" does continue into the normal design on the right. There is also a slight pressure ridge present. These features are consistent with damage in either a soft or hardened state.
<< <i>No, there is a slight difference. On the WI quarter (Low leaf, at the right where it goes into the other leaf) it only impresses there because the design is shallow and it woud have otherwise made a mark to the same depth if it were raised field areas. On the 2000-D nickel the debris make a mark that contours the design. This slight difference (to those who are scratching your heads saying "So what") is between an object struck in the press (which has to be hard as a hardened die to make a mark) or something harder than the die which does not distort during the impression. >>
Your seem to be supporting both sides of the argument. ANY die dent depresses the metal of the die face, illustrating the ability of a hardened die to permanently deform. The slight damage to the E on the reverse of the 2000-D nickel shows further evidence that deformation can take place in a hardened die. Also, according to your reasoning, a softened die would have a greater tendency to deform. So if the low leaf was impressed into the die face when the latter was in a softened state, then the ear of corn should have shown some deformation. I don't see the presence or absence of a pressure ridge as indicating anything. After all, the high leaf shows no pressure ridge.
<< <i>It answers the question: Was the mark(s) imparted while the die was soft (out of the press - in the die engraving room) or while it was hard (in the press during production)? >>
Nice photos!
<< <i>The "pressure ridge" is proof that the mark did not happen during the hubbing process. It is a very important item. It shows that the die, when struck with the object that made the "Extra Leaf" had rome to expand upwards. If it were being hubbed, it would have nowhere to go. Remember a raised area on the die is a sunken area on the coin - and on the hub, if it was present there, but it is not. >>
I never suggested that the damage was generated in the hubbing process (although some have). The fact that the high points of the design are intact and undistorted where the low leaf intersects them indicates that the die was finished when the "leaves" were impressed. Most die dents occur while the coinage press is in operation.
I'll try and clarify then.
On the 2000-D Nickel the object that made the mark was softer than the die. It only made a mark because there was nowhere else for the object to go.
On the WI Quarter the object that made the mark was harder than the die. The die was unhardened state. The object that made the mark was not deformed by being squished.
Conclusion: The 2000-D nickel was hardened and in the press when the marks were made. The WI Quarter was in its soft state prior to being hardened. It could not have been impressed during striking.
I never suggested that the damage was generated in the hubbing process
The pressure ridge does prove that the marks could not have been made during the hubbing process. The dies are in a soft state at that time.
Conclusion: There is a small window of opportunity between the hubbing and the hardening of the die where the marks were made on the dies.
Question: Give me the likely scenarios of how a die can be damaged during this period.
<< <i>Your seem to be supporting both sides of the argument.
I'll try and clarify then.
On the 2000-D Nickel the object that made the mark was softer than the die. It only made a mark because there was nowhere else for the object to go.
This makes no sense at all. If the object was softer than the die then it wouldn't have left any mark.
On the WI Quarter the object that made the mark was harder than the die. The die was unhardened state. The object that made the mark was not deformed by being squished.
I agree that the object was harder than the die. However, it's a stretch to argue that the die itself was in a softened state.
Conclusion: The 2000-D nickel was hardened and in the press when the marks were made. The WI Quarter was in its soft state prior to being hardened. It could not have been impressed during striking.
I don't see how you can draw the latter conclusion.
I never suggested that the damage was generated in the hubbing process
The pressure ridge does prove that the marks could not have been made during the hubbing process. The dies are in a soft state at that time.
I agree with the former statement. I see no evidence to support the latter statement.
Conclusion: There is a small window of opportunity between the hubbing and the hardening of the die where the marks were made on the dies.
I maintain that evidence is insufficient to draw this conclusion.
Question: Give me the likely scenarios of how a die can be damaged during this period. >>
It is incumbent upon those who would back a specific scenario to present convincing evidence of that scenario. I, on the other hand, am simply an agnostic regarding the nature and origin of the error. I freely admit that I don't know how the marks got there. But that's true of most die dents.
<< <i>I put a lot more stock in the research and conclusions of Chris Pilliod and Mike Diamond, even though they are contradictory, because there is a disconnect between their opinions and their wallets. >>
There are nay-sayers involved who may derive income from writing articles and making presentations about why these are not intentional. They may insist that nothing can ever be proven, and keep the debate going endlessly, secure in the knowledge that the mint will likely never settle the issue one way or the other. If it was a settled matter, the demand for the contrary articles and appearances would cease. They don't put food on the table by ending the debate but by continuing it ad nauseum. So it's possible that those in that camp actually do have "their wallets" involved.
Besides, putting an organization like CONECA into the "accidental, just a coincidence" camp like they have is a pretty tough position to back away from. The organization as a whole should be embarrassed.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Mike, you must be aware of grease strike-throughs. Although they are called grease strike-throughs, they can be caused by water on the planchet. How about lint strike-throughs, etc.
Besides, putting an organization like CONECA into the "accidental, just a coincidence" camp like they have is a pretty tough position to back away from. The organization as a whole should be embarrassed.
No, there should be no embarrassment. Mike, although President, is voicing his opinion, not CONECA's. CONECA does not have an official position (or shouldn't). It fosters discussion. I am a proud attributor for CONECA.
I agree that the object was harder than the die. However, it's a stretch to argue that the die itself was in a softened state.
No stretch at all. Chris did a test on a hardened die and a softened die (remember he is a metalurgist, so he knows about these things)
The hardened die did not accept any mark from a hammered object. The softened die aquired a mark that was nearly the same depth as the WI quarter marks.
I call that convincing proof.
Then you are backing out of the debate.
Debate won! Case closed!
Thanks Mike, It's been fun.
Edited to correct two spelling errors.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
James is a good friend and that does not sound like him. He's very inquisitive, especially where Washington Quarters are concerned!
opinions of others in CONECA were sufficient for him.
I hope my opinion holds some sway with him as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>I put a lot more stock in the research and conclusions of Chris Pilliod and Mike Diamond, even though they are contradictory, because there is a disconnect between their opinions and their wallets. >>
They don't put food on the table by ending the debate but by continuing it ad nauseum. So it's possible that those in that camp actually do have "their wallets" involved. >>
Pat, I've tried to cut you some slack, but that statement above is just delusional. If you're still mad at CONECA (and by extension, me, though I've resigned my position with them due to time constraints), please find a more productive way to vent it. I think this pot is sufficiently stirred.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
What is YOUR position?
BTW, It has been over 3 months since I sold a WI Extra Leaf Quarter. Yes, I have some, but I'm not selling them into a weak market. There IS always a disconnect between my business side and my attributor side.
<< <i>This makes no sense at all. If the object was softer than the die then it wouldn't have left any mark.
<<Mike, you must be aware of grease strike-throughs. Although they are called grease strike-throughs, they can be caused by water on the planchet. How about lint strike-throughs, etc.>>
You are comparing apples and oranges. The crud that accumulates on the die face does not damage the die face. It simply leaves an impression on the coin. The planchet is a lot softer than the die face. I'm not aware of any evidence that a working die can be damaged by material softer than the die metal.
However, I see your general point regarding softer materials leaving an impression on harder materials. This would certainly apply to some strike-through errors.
Concerning other points that have been raised:
1) I speak for myself, not CONECA.
2) I don't make a nickel from my writings.
3) Again, Chris did not come close to duplicating the forces generated in the striking chamber, so his results are inconclusive. Using a hammer is not the same thing as delivering a force of many tons per square inch.
Sure, you are right a lint strike-through will not leave a mark on the die. nor will most strike througs. But I would suspect that a Bolt strike-through would (for example). The metal is softer than the die, but it is hard enought to cause damage.
Again, Chris did not come close to duplicating the forces generated in the striking chamber, so his results are inconclusive. Using a hammer is not the same thing as delivering a force of many tons per square inch.
Is that necessary to prove that it could have been done in the engraving room? Actually, what is needed is to compare the best die damage examples you can show under the SEM. These would show what hardened die damage looks like. Then compare it with the WI quarter SEM images Chris made. There will be a big difference in the impressions. The hardened die damage will be sharp and the softened die damage images are rounded.
He tested the soft-die theory and it proved possible. I think testing the dies in a press of equal pressure as the Mint presses is setting too high a hurdle to prove the point. It may have to be kept as a thought experiment.
I agree that the soft die scenario is possible. It just hasn't been proven, in my opinion.
How would you prove it then?
<< <i>It just hasn't been proven, in my opinion.
How would you prove it then? >>
Find a way to gain access to a token or medal press from a private mint. Maybe Ken Potter could persuade his friends at the Royal Oak Mint to take a crack at duplicating the effect.
In the end it may be impossible to prove anything beyond the fact that these "extra leaves" are die dents. Uncertainty and ambiguity are part of life.
<< <i>
What is YOUR position?
>>
I think the marks were placed on the dies accidentally. I'm not a metallurgist, or a student of the minting process, or a variety attributor, but I subscribe to Occam's razor. Even if Chris' research pinpointed the stage of the die manufacturing process where the damage must have occured, I don't see where that infers any intent.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Edited to add: BTW Ocham's razor: All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.
I don't see where that infers any intent.
The intent is there as the best choice among the following:
Given that the Extra Leaves were marked after the hubbing process (proven) and prior to hardening (proven) then what could have happened to the dies? Remember the dies are handled like the Crown Jewels during this phase because they do not want any damage to occur. I don't think they would want to leave the dies in the softened state too long.
1) Someone dropped the two dies and they got a mark on both of them.
2) Something dropped on the dies and made a mark on both of them.
3) Someone took a small round tool and hammered the marks onto two different dies.
4) The ghost of John J. Ford came to the Denver Mint and created the marks as a joke. He also made sure that Bob Ford would discover them in Tucson.
5) your best choice....I can't think of any others.
My close inspection of two of these half dollars seems to indicate that the letters were not engraved at all. Instead, the outline of the letters seems to have been created by numerous blows from a small chisel or similar implement. The outline of each letter is created by a parallel arrangement of thin lines. I see no evidence of metal having gouged from the surface of the die. I see no grooves, striations, or scratches as may be seen on the 1953 proof cent with re-engraved lapel.
If the intials were produced by the tapping of a chisel (perhaps composed of tungsten carbide steel or other very hard alloy), then that would further undermine the notion that the extra leaf dies would have to have been in a softened state when they were damaged/modified.
I asked Chris if he could get some other types of dies errors - clashes, die gouges and "chiseled" dies to compare under the SEM. I think the size and depth of the WI Extra leaf is much, much greater than the AW monogram.
that would further undermine the notion
Nicely nuanced, but you have yet to undermine the WI Extra leaf variety to begin with.
<< <i>If the intials were produced by the tapping of a chisel (perhaps composed of tungsten carbide steel or other very hard alloy), then that would further undermine the notion that the extra leaf dies would have to have been in a softened state when they were damaged/modified.
I asked Chris if he could get some other types of dies errors - clashes, die gouges and "chiseled" dies to compare under the SEM. I think the size and depth of the WI Extra leaf is much, much greater than the AW monogram.
that would further undermine the notion
Nicely nuanced, but you have yet to undermine the WI Extra leaf variety to begin with. >>
That's your opinion. But the tests you have encouraged Chris to undertake should help.