obverse vs reverse
slipgate
Posts: 2,301 ✭✭
How come the reverse, on most coins, is often in much better condition that the obverse? I'm not just talking about circulated coins either. Many Morgans that I see look like MS67 reverses but MS64 obverses. I have also noted this in other series. Is it just me?
My Registry Sets! PCGS Registry
0
Comments
Dennis
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
coins because the dies press DOWN the planchet into the
reverse die, leaving a much nicer strike, and surface, in
most situations.
The metal must flow UP into the obverse die; yes, there
is the same tonnage of pressure used, but the metal
is forced down into the dies, as opposed to flowing up
into the dies.....
You don't see the effect that much on clad coins, and of
course since the mid-90's, many reverse dies are the upper
or hammer dies.
Also, since around 2001, most of the presses used in Phila.
and Denver are the Horizontal Schuler Dies.
The coins are alway placed face up. The reverse is always protected by the backing on the board.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>Especially on Barber 25/50 coinage. >>
I disagree with this. I honestly cannot remember seeing a Barber coin that was more worn on the obverse than on the reverse. They are notorious for having G or even VG obverses and AG or Fair reverses. Back in the day, it was required that a Barber coin have a full rim reverse to be a Good, but nowdays the reverse letters can wear into the rim a bit and still be a Good. People realized (or grade inflation, whatever) that full rim reverses are VGs.
i think fred nailed it
Wear starts at the highest points and works down. The collisions and sliding that affect wear
are virtually identical between the obverse and reverse. There can be some difference in the
way a specific obstacle being hit at a specific speed affects broad areas of design and the, ini-
tially, narrow rim on the reverse of most US coins but most wear is the result of sloughing of
metal from friction rather than shedding through collision. In other words the metal missing from
the obverse will equal the metal missing from the reverse.
Most US coins are shaped a little like a lens. The reverse is concave and protected by its rims.
This leaves the reverse design relatively unaffected while the coin "rides" on its obverse.
It's not true that there is a significant difference in the forces that shape the reverse and obverse.
The only difference is the weight of the coin itself which is tiny compared to coining forces and
applies only to vertical presses.
I think that the OP is discussing the fact that some coins have less abrasions or contact marks on the reverse than the obverse. This is very common and easily seen on Morgan dollars. I think cladking summed it up well when he wrote: "Most US coins are shaped a little like a lens. The reverse is concave and protected by its rims."
Regarding the fact that one side of a coin can be better struck than the other is not true. Pascal's principal in fluid dynamics states that a pressure applied to a liquid (molten coin planchet) in a container (the closed cylinder of the coining chamber -- obverse die, reverse die and collar) will be equally exerted to all points on that liquid. What is true is that some dies are cut in higher relief than others, thus giving the appearance of more detail, but this should not be confused with strike weakness or uneven wear.