Its hard to imagine that both dies were ACCIDENTALLY damaged in just the right spots to make it look natural. One MAYBE, but TWO? >>
I think this is the most compelling evidence that these were done intentionally. The odds that it happened twice on separate dies seem to be astronomical. >>
This is not evidence. It's an assertion. I, for one, do not find it hard to imagine that the damage was unintentional. It may well be some error in handling/processing produced the same sort of gouge in the the same spot.
OK, now I have actually watched the video. I accept that the damage occurred when the die was annealed but it is not clear to me that the high and low leaves were caused by the same object. Similar, yes, but I do not see conclusive evidence that they were one and the same. Moreover, I do not follow the jump from "object" to "circular tool" and "hammer blow." Why the leap from the inanimate to the intentional? Is there any reason why this could not have been caused by metal shavings or some such thing? As far as I can see from the video, the impacting object is merely similar, not the same.
<< <i>OK, now I have actually watched the video. I accept that the damage occurred when the die was annealed but it is not clear to me that the high and low leaves were caused by the same object. Similar, yes, but I do not see conclusive evidence that they were one and the same. Moreover, I do not follow the jump from "object" to "circular tool" and "hammer blow." Why the leap from the inanimate to the intentional? Is there any reason why this could not have been caused by metal shavings or some such thing? As far as I can see from the video, the impacting object is merely similar, not the same. >>
I believe that I was the first one to suggest that a circular tool, of unknown origin and purpose, caused the marks in the die. I still believe that to be true.
I accept as highly likely, to the point of virtual certainty, that the same circular tool caused the marks in both dies. This does not rule out the possibility that two identical circular tubes, of unknown origin and purpose, caused the marks.
The displacement of metal below the bottom of the "low leaf" is solid evidence that the end of the circular tube was impacted against the die in some manner. A hammer blow is a good, plausible cause of that impact. I do not believe that it has ever been proven. This goes back to the unknown purpose of the circular tube.
Metal shavings between a die and a coin blank would not indent the die. They would be pushed down into the much softer surface of the planchet.
I just hate to jump to conclusions. I remember back in the 1970's when somebody turned up a few Lincoln cents struck on nails. EVERYBODY jumped to the conclusion that they were deliberate fantasies. Then, within a year, one of the people in the error world got a tour of a Mint and saw a nail sitting on a coin press. He asked the press operator why it was there, and the press operator showed him how he used the nail down the slot in the side of a feeding tube to clear out jammed planchets. The struck nails may still have been deliberate fantasies, but there was a second explanation possible that we did not know about when the coin/nails first appeared.
I want FACTS!
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Are you still planning to publish a book on the Qtrs ?
I suspect in 2025 these will be looked upon with nostalga and then everyone will want to know the ancient histoy surrounding them. Maybe then there will be reason to publish a book. When I get "you were actually there when you could find them in change? WOW!" maybe there will be enough demand for a book.
For the record, I never found one in change.
I accept that the damage occurred when the die was annealed but it is not clear to me that the high and low leaves were caused by the same object. Similar, yes, but I do not see conclusive evidence that they were one and the same.
I hesitated a bit in the narration because I wanted to be clear where there was proof and not speculation. I believe I said it was likely that the same tool made both arcs. There is deformation, angle of impact, strength of impact, etc. to contend with. The overlays I made were fairly close.
Also, the reason I say it was done with a hammer blow and not in a press, is the sloping depth of the low leaf arcs. The second image of the measurements that I briefly showed had depth measurements which showed deeper depths nearer the corn. I didn't think it was a useful slide in the presentation, so I skipped over it.
<< <i>I can come up with any number of plausible scenarios where two dies are damaged in the same location by the same object which do not involve a rogue employee of the Denver Mint with a hammer and punch.
Please, list some here!
I am thinking of doing a "Answer the lingering questions video". This and the "Why did someone do it" question would be great. Frankly Sean, I do value your opinions, which is why I'd like to hear of ANY other plausible scenarios. I went over this with Mike Diamond two years ago and there was not one alternative scenario that came up that was plausible. >>
Sure, Rick. I'll start by admitting I know little about the operation where the dies are annealed, but I do have some atrophied knowledge of metallurgy and I do occasionally work in manufacturing environments, so I don't feel completely unqualified to offer an opinion.
I agree with the premise that the damage had to have happened very shortly after the annealing process, and that it looks like the same object impacted both dies. My feeling is that the damage occurred as the dies were being handled or stored after annealing. I'll list the possible cause along with the assumptions that you would have to make below:
- ASSUMING the dies were individually covered with something such as a hard injection molded plastic cap. The gate mark (the location where the plastic enters the mold) on such a cap is typically dead center on the underside of the top, and there is often a raised ring of plastic called "flash" where the plastic slightly overflows from the mold. Two caps from the same mold manufactured at the same time will have very similar amounts of flash. If the cap was applied too forcefully, or the die was too soft due to a flaw in the annealing process, the flash could dent the die.
- ASSUMING the dies were individually covered by a soft plastic cap, applied by hand and which could be difficult to apply. An inexperienced employee could hammer the cap down with a blow from something hard, and the object could pierce the soft cap and impact the die (the side of an adjustable wrench comes to mind). The conversation in my head (based on similar experiences) goes something like this:
Ralph: "Push those caps on the dies as soon as they come out, make sure you have them all the way down, they can be really tight." Joe: *tires of fighting with caps, grabs wrench, gives a cap two whacks, creates Low Leaf variety* Joe: "Hey Ralph, why not just whack them on like this?" *demonstrates by giving the next cap one harder whack, creates High Leaf variety* Ralph: "No no no! Those dies are soft, you'll damage them doing that."
- ASSUMING the dies are transported in a solid case with a tightly fitting lid. Damage to the lid (something like a loose bolt or rivet) comes into contact with the top of the die when the lid is closed. Every die in that one position in the case will be struck in the same way in the same location every time the lid is closed, with slight rotational differences.
My fundamental argument with the assumption of intent is that, while each die is unique, the manufacturing operation that creates them is highly uniform and repetitive. The fact that all three arcs (the two on the low leaf and the high leaf) appear to be made by the same object, to the same depth, in essentially the same location (with slight rotation between them on a round part), all lead me to the conclusion that it is a manufacturing defect. The human element in this situation is randomness, as even the most experienced machinist won't hit a punch with exactly the same force three times in a row.
Again, let me stress that you don't need intent to make this an interesting and highly collectible variety, and I don't mean this as a criticism of anyone who collects, markets or researches them. I mean this as a friendly discussion and debate, and I thank again Rick and Chris for bringing so much good research to the discussion.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"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
I guess, we first need to know if the cap idea you envision is actually what is done. Then, whether it is "plausible". Without going into the actual idea too deeply, I think if it is a random, repeatable mark made by error, it would happen other times and would be a source of concern for the handling of annealed dies. There would be a study on it and the problem would be corrected.
Since damage can easily occur to annealed dies, they are likely handled very carefully. If you drop one, it will probably dent an edge slightly if it lands the wrong way. The very fact that this is the only occurrence of these marks (except, possibly on the 2004-D Dime) makes it very difficult to blame it on a systemic problem with handling, don't you think?
Although no one brought up die clashes, I'll say a few words on the plausibility of that idea.
A few years ago, Billy Crawford published an idea that the marks were die clashes and orientated obverse dies so that Washington's wig lined up with the marks. Trouble was, the design wasn't reversed, as it would be on a clash and while the curve was similar to some parts of the obverse die, the cross sectional shape of the leaves didn't match the expected mark from a die clash at all. That one, despite lots of initial publicity was shot down by in an E-mail exchange with Ken Potter, myself, Mike Diamond, Tom DeLorey and Jose Cortez some two years ago.
Also, no one even mentioned that die clashes happen to heat-treated dies while they are in the press. These were definitly annealed dies when marked.
Hello Rick, You should just give it up. The best minds at the time of Christopher Columbus thought the word was flat. Today they just found out 3years ago that Pluto is not a planet. The pride of man kind will not allow the great minds of some of these men to admit that they are wrong. No matter what they are shown. We know that these coins where made at the mint. The mint has come out and said that 50,000 were made, That would make them a Key coin. Alan Herbert Mint Errors 7 th edition page 34 and 35 is one some should read. What of Q D Bower. PCGS has made there mark on them, NGC,Red Book and so on. The best we can do now is find the men with open minds and show them the truth. And as a jeweler Engraving is a series of gouges. And what of the new find of the Smoking Seated Liberty Quarter. There are many other coins that we can add to this list. I do have many Wi quarters. And i do believe they are a What a find.
Never give up the hunt! 25 inf 1/14 Gold Dragons ,never surrender, over come and adapt and hold at all cost!
I guess, we first need to know if the cap idea you envision is actually what is done. Then, whether it is "plausible". Without going into the actual idea too deeply, I think if it is a random, repeatable mark made by error, it would happen other times and would be a source of concern for the handling of annealed dies. There would be a study on it and the problem would be corrected.
Since damage can easily occur to annealed dies, they are likely handled very carefully. If you drop one, it will probably dent an edge slightly if it lands the wrong way. The very fact that this is the only occurrence of these marks (except, possibly on the 2004-D Dime) makes it very difficult to blame it on a systemic problem with handling, don't you think? >>
Thanks for the reply, Rick. As I said, I don't have any first-hand knowledge of how the dies are handled after annealing. I have seen hot-stamping dies which are stored with similar covers to prevent surface damage, which probably put the idea in my head. We're probably back to agreeing to disagree again. It did occur to me that the entire debate over these coins is neatly summarized by Heinlein's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity... but don't rule out malice.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"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
I love the 1857 "Smoker" Quarter! It is a misplaced digit (base of a 1), but I was going to bring that one up as an example of "the placement just can't be an accident". Of course it could be an accident (or coincidence), but the guy who did that one ain't talkin' either.
Thanks Rick for the most plausible and well thought through explanation that I have ever seen. The debate on how these were created will not go away until someone 'fesses up' at the mint. That may never happen due to potential reprisal/punishment.
As others have posted, if there was only one variety created, it would largely be passed off as a random die gouge. But the FACT is that there are two varieties - no more have been found. My gut tells me that someone intentionally created these varieties and then stopped. The odds of having two gouges in the same area that look like leaves are astronomical. Remember Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is usually the best.
I don't buy for one second the concept of damage caused by plastic covers on the dies. In my 25+ years of experience in metal forming, I have never witnessed soft plastic covers making that type of damage - even to annealed dies. Even if it were possible for the flash around the injection port to cause the damage, it ought to be centered on the die, not off to one side. Also, all of the caps I have used have the injection port centered on the top - away from the surface it is intended to protect. Anyway, I don't buy that explanation.
So until a mint employee 'fesses up' or a simpler plausible explanation is offered, I think Rick has presented the most reasonable answer.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
<< <i>We're probably back to agreeing to disagree again.
That's fine, but what exactly do you disagree with? >>
I believe they were made unintentionally, you believe they were made intentionally. As I said in my first post, I'm in lock-step with your how and when arguments, we just differ on why.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"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
Sean. Why? Because i can do it. Many years ago i took a gold coin and made a wax mold of it just to see if i could make a good copy of one. by the time i was done ,it was so good that, i took it to a coin show. Mi state Show. And it passed 80% of the dealers out there on floor. But i melted it and put it in the ring i now wear.
Look at the 1857 midnight worker. And the 2004 dime. Dont forget that.
Never give up the hunt! 25 inf 1/14 Gold Dragons ,never surrender, over come and adapt and hold at all cost!
<< <i>- ASSUMING the dies were individually covered with something such as a hard injection molded plastic cap. The gate mark (the location where the plastic enters the mold) on such a cap is typically dead center on the underside of the top, and there is often a raised ring of plastic called "flash" where the plastic slightly overflows from the mold. Two caps from the same mold manufactured at the same time will have very similar amounts of flash. If the cap was applied too forcefully, or the die was too soft due to a flaw in the annealing process, the flash could dent the die. >>
I don't feel like posting on these quarters anymore, but I must mention/ask something here. Some of these plastic die caps were on ebay a couple of years ago. I don't really remember what they look like, so does anyone have any photos to help us understand?
<< <i>Sean. Why? Because i can do it. Many years ago i took a gold coin and made a wax mold of it just to see if i could make a good copy of one. by the time i was done ,it was so good that, i took it to a coin show. Mi state Show. And it passed 80% of the dealers out there on floor. But i melted it and put it in the ring i now wear.
Look at the 1857 midnight worker. And the 2004 dime. Dont forget that. >>
Probably not a good idea to even post that you did that. The counterfeiting part. Even without the intention of using it for monetary gain I think its still a nono. The lost wax method is pretty easy to see for me but theres a lot of dealers that have very little experience with gold. Most dealers cant tell the difference between a type 1 and 2 1981 proof coin so why would they have the ability to see a lost wax gold coin done fairly well? I guess it just irks me that the other people in my industry dont continue to educate themselves, but then again my checkbook doesnt mind
Theres a dozen dealers here in Michigan that I consider very knowledgeable and only 3 I consider near unpickable. They can be picked on rare occasions but its not worth the effort. Of course I spend the most time at their tables.
<< <i>We're probably back to agreeing to disagree again.
That's fine, but what exactly do you disagree with? >>
I believe they were made unintentionally, you believe they were made intentionally. As I said in my first post, I'm in lock-step with your how and when arguments, we just differ on why.
Sean Reynolds >>
I believe that we do not KNOW how or why these were made, and that until we do know for sure we should not claim to.
Why do some people find objectivity so objectionable?
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I believe that we do not KNOW how or why these were made, and that until we do know for sure we should not claim to.
Why do some people find objectivity so objectionable?
>>
Of course you're right and it's a very reasonable position. I have very little doubt that your reasons are fully justified.
But sometimes the obvious intuitive answer really is the right one. While I don't really know that these were intentionally created as pranks this is the way the evidence points and it serves an excellent provisional assumption. Suffice to say the circumstantial evi- dence seems overwhelming. The mere facts that they were released together and appear to be artistic is proof enough for me until proven otherwise.
I don't have much reputation to protect though. I've been wrong before and probably will again.
Rick, thank you providing your two WI Quarter Videos on You Tube. There are many current and future numismatists that will learn and gain an interest in collecting because of your hard work and dedication !! I know that the WI events in AZ and TX early on need to be told as part of Numismatic History. And true, many could care less; but that is their loss. Rick, I commend you for staying the course !! Job well done !!
I believe that we do not KNOW how or why these were made, and that until we do know for sure we should not claim to.
Why do some people find objectivity so objectionable?
>>
Of course you're right and it's a very reasonable position. I have very little doubt that your reasons are fully justified.
But sometimes the obvious intuitive answer really is the right one. While I don't really know that these were intentionally created as pranks this is the way the evidence points and it serves an excellent provisional assumption. Suffice to say the circumstantial evi- dence seems overwhelming. The mere facts that they were released together and appear to be artistic is proof enough for me until proven otherwise.
I don't have much reputation to protect though. I've been wrong before and probably will again. >>
There is an old saying in Chicago journalism: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I posted this on another thread. I thought it would be useful here too.
------
By the way. How many Wisconsins you have left?
Not enough to care about too much one way or the other. When presented with an opportunity to buy some at attractive levels, I do still buy some. All the ones I bought early on, like these hoards I talk about, I sold shortly thereafter.
I have a set which I put on ebay, mainly to draw attention to my video. I really don't care if it sells. I just want as many people as possible to learn the truth and stop being taken in by half-truths, innuendo and false claims.
The reason I made the videos is because at the ANA Summer Seminar last week, I gave a talk to James Wiles' Modern Minting Class with basically the presentation on the first video (the how they were made video). I was amazed how no one read the Numismatist article or watched the presentation Chris and I gave two years ago. It was like new information to them! So much nonsense being believed - I felt I had failed to get the truth out.
The very fact that this is the only occurrence of these marks (except, possibly on the 2004-D Dime) makes it very difficult to blame it on a systemic problem with handling, don't you think?
>>
While I have no great wish to revisit a very stale and tiresome topic, it is a fact that these "extra leaves" are NOT the only large die dents to be accompanied by pressure ridges, i.e. they're not the only large die dents to have formed in an annealed (softened) die. Over the years I've sent Rick Snow pictures of several of these specimens, including a cent and a nickel. Ken Potter has also featured die dents formed in annealed dies on the CONECA website.
It is a fact that annealed dies do suffer impact damage. Whether the "extra leaves" are intentional damage or accidental, no one can say with any degree of certitude.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
The very fact that this is the only occurrence of these marks (except, possibly on the 2004-D Dime) makes it very difficult to blame it on a systemic problem with handling, don't you think?
>>
While I have no great wish to revisit a very stale and tiresome topic, it is a fact that these "extra leaves" are NOT the only large die dents to be accompanied by pressure ridges, i.e. they're not the only large die dents to have formed in an annealed (softened) die. Over the years I've sent Rick Snow pictures of several of these specimens, including a cent and a nickel. Ken Potter has also featured die dents formed in annealed dies on the CONECA website.
It is a fact that annealed dies do suffer impact damage. Whether the "extra leaves" are intentional damage or accidental, no one can say with any degree of certitude. >>
Look at the wonderful texturing on the 1804 "Spiked Chin" half cent, where the obverse die is believed to have struck against a steel screw that fell into the coining chamber. Certainly a popular and collectible "die gouge."
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I have nothing to offer on this thread other than its a pure joy to watch you folks chatter about this and it shows me that I really need to work on my objectivity and communication skills for responding to posts.
I think I'll start with using a few less exclamation marks!
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I have nothing to offer on this thread other than its a pure joy to watch you folks chatter about this and it shows me that I really need to work on my objectivity and communication skills for responding to posts.
I think I'll start with using a few less exclamation marks!
>>
interesting theory with some merit. The other camp has merit also though. I'll sit the fence on this one.
It is a fact that annealed dies do suffer impact damage. Whether the "extra leaves" are intentional damage or accidental, no one can say with any degree of certitude.
I'm no error or mint expert by any stretch. However, logic tells me that there are thousands of placements and orientation possibilities for the "extra leaves" on each the high and low leaf coin AND on each coins' other side . In other words, the odds of each die being damaged at just the precise location as to appear natural would be conservatively expressed as 1 to 1000 odds per side, or 1 in 2000 with both obv and rev as possibilities.
Now, a little simple math of two separate dies being accidentally damaged as to be precisely located as to appear natural, would mathematically be expressed as 2000 x 2000 odds. That equates to 1 in 4 Million. This mathematical equation could be expanded quite easily. After all, no other State Qtr has the tool damage.
The Mintage for the Wisconsin Denver Qtr is a reported 226,800,000. Assuming a 40k strikes per die would mean approx 5670 working dies were used. Obviously, the damage could have occurred on either of the 5670 dies with any of the dies being damaged in a location and placement other than where it would give a natural appearance. The mathematical equation would now be 4,000,000 x 5670. This would equate to 1 out of 22,680,000,000. That's 22.680 Billion odds. It can be expanded even further.
Both varieties were released at the same time. We know this because of them being in the same rolls, same distribution location. What are the odds that two of the working dies would be accidentally damaged one right after the other ? It would be the odds of 1 out of 5669 dies approx. Therefore the equation would be 22.680 Billion x 5669. This would be 1 out of 128,572,920,000,000. That's 1 in over 128 TRILLION possibilities. It can be expanded even further. Consider the odds of the presses being left alone running unattended while the mint employee took a break. It can be mathematically expressed by how many minutes that typically happens divided into how many minutes of the day it doesn't happen. This formula can be expanded mathematically with each " coincidental " occurrence that allowed the coins to be minted. Consider this only happened to two dies out of perhaps 300,000 dies used for the complete State Series ……… now do you begin to understand the term “astronomical “ odds ?????
Now, reconsider this statement. It is a fact that annealed dies do suffer impact damage. Whether the "extra leaves" are intentional damage or accidental, no one can say with any degree of certitude.
With odds in the Trillions, doesn’t a reasonable person come to the conclusion that the odds are far in favor of intentional die damage. Don't we as Humans accept countless of truths that hasn't been explained by an eye witness account. If 300 dead people are found on a mountainside with airplane parts thrown about, do we really need an eye witness to tell us it was a plane crash ? I could think of thousands of areas in Humans lives where a theory is accepted based upon substantial evidence. Can you imagine how dysfunctional the World would be if in every instance we took the stance that “I believe that we do not KNOW how or why these were made, and that until we do know for sure we should not claim to.” We would all be living in the dark ages waiting for some divine person to draw us a picture and swear they were there to see it all. Get real.
Sean, the president of CONECA reminds me of a bureaucrat. One that lets too many rules and details blind them to the trees in the forest. The Government went for years upon years denying that Agent Orange caused health problems and birth defects. All against non-refutable logic based upon real human experience. They argued the results of countless facts of illnesses simply because they couldn’t figure out the science that didn’t seem to be convincing enough to them. This is exactly the position that CONECA insists upon. I think we’ve all known individuals and organizations like them. Gee whiz, how hard is it to accept that it is far more likely it was done intentionally ?
My argument/assertions/equations could all be cleaned up …….. but surely the gist comes thru.
I reserve the right to edit this post. A little too much wine tonight to think completely clear.
Since diameter and density are normal, the default hypothesis should be that it was struck on a planchet punched out of rolled-thin stock. You sometimes get Jefferson nickels on rolled-thin planchets, and these can be as light as 2.9 grams. Strength of the strike varies. It depends on the minimum die clearance at the time of the strike, in combination with the thickness of the planchet.
------------------------- President of CONECA; Host: Error Coin Information Exchange (Yahoo:Groups); Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
It sounds like he accepts hypothesis ........ so what's so hard about accepting the logical default hypothesis of intentional die damage ??? Is this all about politics ?, because that's the only thing that makes sense to me right now.
<< <i>I think these coins are fun. The history is interesting also, If you disagree that is ok. I have not seen any videos from the other side but a lot of defensive posistioning, why is it such a big deal that they were made from a tool by a man in the mint? >>
My strongest objection has always been to people stating opinions about these coins as facts. Theories are fun. Facts are something else. Give me FACTS! TD >>
Fact: Creationism cannot be proved Fact: Evolution cannot be proved Fact: We still exist without knowing how/why.
Are you able to deal with these theories and make it throught the day?
As for the coins: you are going to have a hard time with this coin if you need a judge/jury.......even then, it will be circumstantial, and even the 'rogue' mint employee can perjure him/herself.
Accept that they exist, and that's all there is. Hey, if we didn't know how we ended up w/3 legged buffaloes, would they be looked at any differently?
<< <i>Theories are fun. Facts are something else. Give me FACTS! Like the theory of evolution! >>
I do not consider myself knowledgeable in biology, so I do not comment on it. I know coins. TD >>
Here's a piece of biological fact that you can take to the bank: never has a species changed into another species. Ask your friendly biologist.......never in the past has it happened. It's not possible to happen.
Darwin himself doubted his work on this and other issues.
PS: I have to use a loupe to see the High Leaf Wisconsin, but I still enjoy the coin. Same w/some of the extra finger 2009 Lincolns. Small errors are just as cool as big ones to me...
<< <i>I think these coins are fun. The history is interesting also, If you disagree that is ok. I have not seen any videos from the other side but a lot of defensive posistioning, why is it such a big deal that they were made from a tool by a man in the mint? >>
My strongest objection has always been to people stating opinions about these coins as facts. Theories are fun. Facts are something else. Give me FACTS! TD >>
Fact: Creationism cannot be proved Fact: Evolution cannot be proved Fact: We still exist without knowing how/why.
Are you able to deal with these theories and make it throught the day?
As for the coins: you are going to have a hard time with this coin if you need a judge/jury.......even then, it will be circumstantial, and even the 'rogue' mint employee can perjure him/herself.
Accept that they exist, and that's all there is. Hey, if we didn't know how we ended up w/3 legged buffaloes, would they be looked at any differently? >>
As an evolutionary biologist, I can state categorically that you are clueless concerning evolution. Evolution is an observable, demonstrable, and incontrovertible fact. It is supported by numerous lines of evidence:
1. We have numerous transitional fossils documenting the jump from one morphology to another. Tiktalik, the "fishapod" is a recent example. A transitional, otter-like seal has also recently been discovered. We have three Cretaceous snakes with hind limbs, Eocene manatees with four sturdy limbs, and running whales from Pakistan (Icthyolestes).
2. We have numerous transformation series documenting incremental change. An excellent example is the transition from reptilian to mammalian jaws and the transformation of the reptilian jaw elements to mammalian ear ossicles.
3. We have numerous direct transitions from one species to another and one genus to another. In the Eocene of Wyoming, we have the direct transition from the omomyid primate Tetonious to its descendent species Pseudotetonius. We also have successions of species arising from the adapid primate Cantius ralstoni.
4. Each animal phylum shares a body plan, indicative of common descent.
5. All life shares a common genetic code, indicative of common descent.
6. Life is arranged in a branching, hierarchical structure, whose organization can only come from common descent.
7. Related forms almost always share geographical proximity. The Galapagos finches are each other's closest relatives, and they're all confined to a small island chain.
8. The geological column shows a coherent succession of forms. In other words, you'll never find a Cambrian rabbit fossil.
9. We can see evolution in action. Under human predation pressure, we get the evolution of tuskless elephants, and silent rattlesnakes.
10. New species can evolve very quickly. A new species of apple maggot fly evolved in North America after the introduction of apples by Europeans. That took less than 200 years. A population of anole lizard deposited on a Carribean island diversified into three distinct, non-overlapping daughter populations in only 20 years.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
The use of Occam's Razor as an argument actually makes the "Mint Employee did it" argument more likely. It answers the question, "What is the simplest answer?".
A single, believeable, plausible, alternate cause has not been found.
<< <i>I dug up an old response Sean posted last year
Since diameter and density are normal, the default hypothesis should be that it was struck on a planchet punched out of rolled-thin stock. You sometimes get Jefferson nickels on rolled-thin planchets, and these can be as light as 2.9 grams. Strength of the strike varies. It depends on the minimum die clearance at the time of the strike, in combination with the thickness of the planchet.
------------------------- President of CONECA; Host: Error Coin Information Exchange (Yahoo:Groups); Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
It sounds like he accepts hypothesis ........ so what's so hard about accepting the logical default hypothesis of intentional die damage ??? Is this all about politics ?, because that's the only thing that makes sense to me right now. >>
Just to clarify, I'm not the president of CONECA, Mike Diamond is, and the quotes you have attributed to me belong to him.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"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
The use of Occam's Razor as an argument actually makes the "Mint Employee did it" argument more likely. It answers the question, "What is the simplest answer?".
A single, believeable, plausible, alternate cause has not been found. >>
Rick,
Maybe we should let Occam and Heinlein settle this with razors at dawn.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"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
The use of Occam's Razor as an argument actually makes the "Mint Employee did it" argument more likely. It answers the question, "What is the simplest answer?".
A single, believeable, plausible, alternate cause has not been found. >>
I think Occam's Razor is silent on this one. I might lean toward your scenario if it weren't for the fact that the "high leaf" is growing out of a cheese wheel. Shall we also assume that the mint employee responsible was vision-impaired and palsied?
It's always tempting to fill gaps in one's knowledge with myth and speculation. The scientific approach is one of suspended judgement.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
I think Occam's Razor is silent on this one. I might lean toward your scenario if it weren't for the fact that the "high leaf" is growing out of a cheese wheel. Shall we also assume that the mint employee responsible was vision-impaired and palsied?
It's always tempting to fill gaps in one's knowledge with myth and speculation. The scientific approach is one of suspended judgement. >>
I'd wager when the guy was cutting these dies he didn't expect so many art critics. This goes double in light of the fact that the WI quarter falls somewhat short of "high art". It's a little more like clip art.
The whole corn plant is behind the cheese wheel so it's a short segment of leaf that runs parallel to the stalk and hidden behind the wheel.
Obviously the placement isn't perfect but is still close enough to consider "artistic" in my opinion. The low leaf is much better. It would certainly be understandable if this work were done hurredly.
I think the study holds up soundly for the scientific part - the "what". As to the who-dunit part- the "who" and "why", you can't use scientific method. The "how" is pretty clear too, but we are lacking the object that made the marks. This does not leave large gaping holes in the argument - its just that the facts are not 100% knowable. We only have the coins to make the case. Again, the scientific analysis is sound. The conclusions match the observations and answer all the questions.
The only thing lacking is the person responsible giving a tell-all interview about how he/she did it.
It is kind of like proving evolution with links missing in the argument - it doesn't change the outcome, you just have to make your case from the available information.
<< <i> It is kind of like proving evolution with links missing in the argument - it doesn't change the outcome, you just have to make your case from the available information. >>
You and others make yourselves look ridiculous by insinuating that there is anything uncertain about evolution. It is an unassailable fact, and natural selection is one of the most robustly supported theories in science, on a par with the heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Your "theory" concerning the Wisconsin quarters doesn't measure up, since it is not testable. You only have a working hypothesis concerning its origin. And until better evidence comes along, it will stay a working hypothesis. The only thing that you and Chris Pilliod have managed to demonstrate is that the extra leaves represent die damage inflicted when the die was in a softened state.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
You and others make yourselves look ridiculous by insinuating that there is anything uncertain about evolution.
I think you grossly misinterpreted what I wrote. I was talking about how to prove something using something other than direct, first hand testimony. I have a great interest in keeping the discussion on topic and in a friendly manner, but
Your "theory" concerning the Wisconsin quarters doesn't measure up, since it is not testable.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It is testable and verifyable.
We are talking about two interesting die varieties that may or may not heve been deliberately created. We are not talking about health care or the economy or the war or any number of other seriously important topics.
This is supposed to be a hobby. Let's just chill out and enjoy it.
Please.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>You and others make yourselves look ridiculous by insinuating that there is anything uncertain about evolution.
I think you grossly misinterpreted what I wrote. I was talking about how to prove something using something other than direct, first hand testimony. You saying that I am looking ridiculous is quite an insult! I don't know who you think you are, Mike, but you are not the grand arbitrator! Nor are you the grand inquisitor! I have a great interest in keeping the discussion on topic and in a friendly manner, but you are crossing a line. Please edit you post.
Your "theory" concerning the Wisconsin quarters doesn't measure up, since it is not testable.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It is testable and verifyable. I will be happy to debate you into the ground like two years ago. I still have all our e-mails and posts including your e-mail where you said I was right. >>
If your reference to evolution concerned the indirect methods that sometimes have to be used in solving certain problems, then this is a perfectly valid observation. When you're dealing with a patchy fossil record, you have to rely on the comparative method. So our knowledge that whales are embedded within the artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates), with their probable closest living relatives being hippos, this is based on a careful study of numerous shared modifications, such as a double-pulley astragalus (ankle bone). The relationship is also supported by comparative genetics.
Back to coins. Your contention that the "extra leaves" are intentional damage is not testable or verifiable. It is merely a plausible scenario. Just because you can replicate the effect by pounding on a softened die with a punch doesn't mean it happened that way. Here's a long, curved die dent with a prominent pressure ridge on a Lincoln cent:
Now, are you going to insist that this, too, is intentional?
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
The Mintage for the Wisconsin Denver Qtr is a reported 226,800,000. Assuming a 40k strikes per die would mean approx 5670 working dies were used. Obviously, the damage could have occurred on either of the 5670 dies with any of the dies being damaged in a location and placement other than where it would give a natural appearance. The mathematical equation would now be 4,000,000 x 5670. This would equate to 1 out of 22,680,000,000. That's 22.680 Billion odds.
It can be expanded even further. Both varieties were released at the same time. We know this because of them being in the same rolls, same distribution location. What are the odds that two of the working dies would be accidentally damaged one right after the other ? It would be the odds of 1 out of 5669 dies approx. Therefore the equation would be 22.680 Billion x 5669. This would be 1 out of 128,572,920,000,000. That's 1 in over 128 TRILLION possibilities.
These statements just reaffirm my belief that people don't really understand odds.
The only way odds can be applied this way is if all possible events have equal probability. Manufacturing processes do not fit into that category.
You can't conclude anything by looking at something that may be entirely different. You certianly cannot knock down the WI Extra Leaf Quarters using the cent you posted as any kind of evidence. Pressure ridge or not, it looks to be pre-hubbing damage to the die, since it is distorted into the letters. You don't see that on the quarters.
<< <i>You can't conclude anything by looking at something that may be entirely different. You certianly cannot knock down the WI Extra Leaf Quarters using the cent you posted as any kind of evidence. Pressure ridge or not, it looks to be pre-hubbing damage to the die, since it is distorted into the letters. You don't see that on the quarters.
If it had been pre-hubbing damage, then the pressure ridge would have been flattened by the field portion of the hub. So the die dent clearly occured after hubbing but while the die was still soft. Same as the "extra leaves".
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
Its hard to imagine that both dies were ACCIDENTALLY damaged in just the right spots to make it look natural. One MAYBE, but TWO? >>
I think this is the most compelling evidence that these were done intentionally. The odds that it happened twice on separate dies seem to be astronomical. >>
This is not evidence. It's an assertion. I, for one, do not find it hard to imagine that the damage was unintentional. It may well be some error in handling/processing produced the same sort of gouge in the the same spot.
<< <i>OK, now I have actually watched the video. I accept that the damage occurred when the die was annealed but it is not clear to me that the high and low leaves were caused by the same object. Similar, yes, but I do not see conclusive evidence that they were one and the same. Moreover, I do not follow the jump from "object" to "circular tool" and "hammer blow." Why the leap from the inanimate to the intentional? Is there any reason why this could not have been caused by metal shavings or some such thing? As far as I can see from the video, the impacting object is merely similar, not the same. >>
I believe that I was the first one to suggest that a circular tool, of unknown origin and purpose, caused the marks in the die. I still believe that to be true.
I accept as highly likely, to the point of virtual certainty, that the same circular tool caused the marks in both dies. This does not rule out the possibility that two identical circular tubes, of unknown origin and purpose, caused the marks.
The displacement of metal below the bottom of the "low leaf" is solid evidence that the end of the circular tube was impacted against the die in some manner. A hammer blow is a good, plausible cause of that impact. I do not believe that it has ever been proven. This goes back to the unknown purpose of the circular tube.
Metal shavings between a die and a coin blank would not indent the die. They would be pushed down into the much softer surface of the planchet.
I just hate to jump to conclusions. I remember back in the 1970's when somebody turned up a few Lincoln cents struck on nails. EVERYBODY jumped to the conclusion that they were deliberate fantasies. Then, within a year, one of the people in the error world got a tour of a Mint and saw a nail sitting on a coin press. He asked the press operator why it was there, and the press operator showed him how he used the nail down the slot in the side of a feeding tube to clear out jammed planchets. The struck nails may still have been deliberate fantasies, but there was a second explanation possible that we did not know about when the coin/nails first appeared.
I want FACTS!
TD
I suspect in 2025 these will be looked upon with nostalga and then everyone will want to know the ancient histoy surrounding them. Maybe then there will be reason to publish a book. When I get "you were actually there when you could find them in change? WOW!" maybe there will be enough demand for a book.
For the record, I never found one in change.
I accept that the damage occurred when the die was annealed but it is not clear to me that the high and low leaves were caused by the same object. Similar, yes, but I do not see conclusive evidence that they were one and the same.
I hesitated a bit in the narration because I wanted to be clear where there was proof and not speculation. I believe I said it was likely that the same tool made both arcs. There is deformation, angle of impact, strength of impact, etc. to contend with. The overlays I made were fairly close.
Also, the reason I say it was done with a hammer blow and not in a press, is the sloping depth of the low leaf arcs. The second image of the measurements that I briefly showed had depth measurements which showed deeper depths nearer the corn. I didn't think it was a useful slide in the presentation, so I skipped over it.
<< <i>I can come up with any number of plausible scenarios where two dies are damaged in the same location by the same object which do not involve a rogue employee of the Denver Mint with a hammer and punch.
Please, list some here!
I am thinking of doing a "Answer the lingering questions video". This and the "Why did someone do it" question would be great. Frankly Sean, I do value your opinions, which is why I'd like to hear of ANY other plausible scenarios. I went over this with Mike Diamond two years ago and there was not one alternative scenario that came up that was plausible. >>
Sure, Rick. I'll start by admitting I know little about the operation where the dies are annealed, but I do have some atrophied knowledge of metallurgy and I do occasionally work in manufacturing environments, so I don't feel completely unqualified to offer an opinion.
I agree with the premise that the damage had to have happened very shortly after the annealing process, and that it looks like the same object impacted both dies. My feeling is that the damage occurred as the dies were being handled or stored after annealing. I'll list the possible cause along with the assumptions that you would have to make below:
- ASSUMING the dies were individually covered with something such as a hard injection molded plastic cap. The gate mark (the location where the plastic enters the mold) on such a cap is typically dead center on the underside of the top, and there is often a raised ring of plastic called "flash" where the plastic slightly overflows from the mold. Two caps from the same mold manufactured at the same time will have very similar amounts of flash. If the cap was applied too forcefully, or the die was too soft due to a flaw in the annealing process, the flash could dent the die.
- ASSUMING the dies were individually covered by a soft plastic cap, applied by hand and which could be difficult to apply. An inexperienced employee could hammer the cap down with a blow from something hard, and the object could pierce the soft cap and impact the die (the side of an adjustable wrench comes to mind). The conversation in my head (based on similar experiences) goes something like this:
Ralph: "Push those caps on the dies as soon as they come out, make sure you have them all the way down, they can be really tight."
Joe: *tires of fighting with caps, grabs wrench, gives a cap two whacks, creates Low Leaf variety*
Joe: "Hey Ralph, why not just whack them on like this?" *demonstrates by giving the next cap one harder whack, creates High Leaf variety*
Ralph: "No no no! Those dies are soft, you'll damage them doing that."
- ASSUMING the dies are transported in a solid case with a tightly fitting lid. Damage to the lid (something like a loose bolt or rivet) comes into contact with the top of the die when the lid is closed. Every die in that one position in the case will be struck in the same way in the same location every time the lid is closed, with slight rotational differences.
My fundamental argument with the assumption of intent is that, while each die is unique, the manufacturing operation that creates them is highly uniform and repetitive. The fact that all three arcs (the two on the low leaf and the high leaf) appear to be made by the same object, to the same depth, in essentially the same location (with slight rotation between them on a round part), all lead me to the conclusion that it is a manufacturing defect. The human element in this situation is randomness, as even the most experienced machinist won't hit a punch with exactly the same force three times in a row.
Again, let me stress that you don't need intent to make this an interesting and highly collectible variety, and I don't mean this as a criticism of anyone who collects, markets or researches them. I mean this as a friendly discussion and debate, and I thank again Rick and Chris for bringing so much good research to the discussion.
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
Interesting thoughts and discussions. I really don't care myself what caused the extra leafs, I just like them.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
I guess, we first need to know if the cap idea you envision is actually what is done. Then, whether it is "plausible". Without going into the actual idea too deeply, I think if it is a random, repeatable mark made by error, it would happen other times and would be a source of concern for the handling of annealed dies. There would be a study on it and the problem would be corrected.
Since damage can easily occur to annealed dies, they are likely handled very carefully. If you drop one, it will probably dent an edge slightly if it lands the wrong way. The very fact that this is the only occurrence of these marks (except, possibly on the 2004-D Dime) makes it very difficult to blame it on a systemic problem with handling, don't you think?
Although no one brought up die clashes, I'll say a few words on the plausibility of that idea.
A few years ago, Billy Crawford published an idea that the marks were die clashes and orientated obverse dies so that Washington's wig lined up with the marks. Trouble was, the design wasn't reversed, as it would be on a clash and while the curve was similar to some parts of the obverse die, the cross sectional shape of the leaves didn't match the expected mark from a die clash at all. That one, despite lots of initial publicity was shot down by in an E-mail exchange with Ken Potter, myself, Mike Diamond, Tom DeLorey and Jose Cortez some two years ago.
Also, no one even mentioned that die clashes happen to heat-treated dies while they are in the press. These were definitly annealed dies when marked.
You should just give it up.
The best minds at the time of Christopher Columbus thought the word was flat. Today they just found out 3years ago that Pluto
is not a planet.
The pride of man kind will not allow the great minds of some of these men to admit that they are wrong.
No matter what they are shown.
We know that these coins where made at the mint. The mint has come out and said that 50,000 were made, That would make them a Key coin.
Alan Herbert Mint Errors 7 th edition page 34 and 35 is one some should read.
What of Q D Bower.
PCGS has made there mark on them, NGC,Red Book and so on.
The best we can do now is find the men with open minds and show them the truth.
And as a jeweler Engraving is a series of gouges.
And what of the new find of the Smoking Seated Liberty Quarter.
There are many other coins that we can add to this list.
I do have many Wi quarters.
And i do believe they are a What a find.
25 inf 1/14 Gold Dragons ,never surrender, over come and adapt
and hold at all cost!
<< <i>Thanks Sean,
I guess, we first need to know if the cap idea you envision is actually what is done. Then, whether it is "plausible". Without going into the actual idea too deeply, I think if it is a random, repeatable mark made by error, it would happen other times and would be a source of concern for the handling of annealed dies. There would be a study on it and the problem would be corrected.
Since damage can easily occur to annealed dies, they are likely handled very carefully. If you drop one, it will probably dent an edge slightly if it lands the wrong way. The very fact that this is the only occurrence of these marks (except, possibly on the 2004-D Dime) makes it very difficult to blame it on a systemic problem with handling, don't you think? >>
Thanks for the reply, Rick. As I said, I don't have any first-hand knowledge of how the dies are handled after annealing. I have seen hot-stamping dies which are stored with similar covers to prevent surface damage, which probably put the idea in my head. We're probably back to agreeing to disagree again. It did occur to me that the entire debate over these coins is neatly summarized by Heinlein's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity... but don't rule out malice.
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
That's fine, but what exactly do you disagee with?
The debate on how these were created will not go away until someone 'fesses up' at the mint. That may never happen due to potential reprisal/punishment.
As others have posted, if there was only one variety created, it would largely be passed off as a random die gouge. But the FACT is that there are two varieties - no more have been found. My gut tells me that someone intentionally created these varieties and then stopped. The odds of having two gouges in the same area that look like leaves are astronomical. Remember Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is usually the best.
I don't buy for one second the concept of damage caused by plastic covers on the dies. In my 25+ years of experience in metal forming, I have never witnessed soft plastic covers making that type of damage - even to annealed dies. Even if it were possible for the flash around the injection port to cause the damage, it ought to be centered on the die, not off to one side. Also, all of the caps I have used have the injection port centered on the top - away from the surface it is intended to protect. Anyway, I don't buy that explanation.
So until a mint employee 'fesses up' or a simpler plausible explanation is offered, I think Rick has presented the most reasonable answer.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
check in on that one. They have known of that guy for years.
25 inf 1/14 Gold Dragons ,never surrender, over come and adapt
and hold at all cost!
<< <i>We're probably back to agreeing to disagree again.
That's fine, but what exactly do you disagree with? >>
I believe they were made unintentionally, you believe they were made intentionally. As I said in my first post, I'm in lock-step with your how and when arguments, we just differ on why.
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
Many years ago i took a gold coin and made a wax mold of it just to see if i could make a good copy of one.
by the time i was done ,it was so good that, i took it to a coin show. Mi state Show.
And it passed 80% of the dealers out there on floor.
But i melted it and put it in the ring i now wear.
Look at the 1857 midnight worker.
And the 2004 dime. Dont forget that.
25 inf 1/14 Gold Dragons ,never surrender, over come and adapt
and hold at all cost!
<< <i>- ASSUMING the dies were individually covered with something such as a hard injection molded plastic cap. The gate mark (the location where the plastic enters the mold) on such a cap is typically dead center on the underside of the top, and there is often a raised ring of plastic called "flash" where the plastic slightly overflows from the mold. Two caps from the same mold manufactured at the same time will have very similar amounts of flash. If the cap was applied too forcefully, or the die was too soft due to a flaw in the annealing process, the flash could dent the die. >>
I don't feel like posting on these quarters anymore, but I must mention/ask something here. Some of these plastic die caps were on ebay a couple of years ago. I don't really remember what they look like, so does anyone have any photos to help us understand?
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>Sean. Why? Because i can do it.
Many years ago i took a gold coin and made a wax mold of it just to see if i could make a good copy of one.
by the time i was done ,it was so good that, i took it to a coin show. Mi state Show.
And it passed 80% of the dealers out there on floor.
But i melted it and put it in the ring i now wear.
Look at the 1857 midnight worker.
And the 2004 dime. Dont forget that. >>
Probably not a good idea to even post that you did that. The counterfeiting part. Even without the intention of using it for monetary gain I think its still a nono. The lost wax method is pretty easy to see for me but theres a lot of dealers that have very little experience with gold. Most dealers cant tell the difference between a type 1 and 2 1981 proof coin so why would they have the ability to see a lost wax gold coin done fairly well? I guess it just irks me that the other people in my industry dont continue to educate themselves, but then again my checkbook doesnt mind
Theres a dozen dealers here in Michigan that I consider very knowledgeable and only 3 I consider near unpickable. They can be picked on rare occasions but its not worth the effort. Of course I spend the most time at their tables.
<< <i>
<< <i>We're probably back to agreeing to disagree again.
That's fine, but what exactly do you disagree with? >>
I believe they were made unintentionally, you believe they were made intentionally. As I said in my first post, I'm in lock-step with your how and when arguments, we just differ on why.
Sean Reynolds >>
I believe that we do not KNOW how or why these were made, and that until we do know for sure we should not claim to.
Why do some people find objectivity so objectionable?
TD
<< <i>
I believe that we do not KNOW how or why these were made, and that until we do know for sure we should not claim to.
Why do some people find objectivity so objectionable?
>>
Of course you're right and it's a very reasonable position. I have very little doubt that
your reasons are fully justified.
But sometimes the obvious intuitive answer really is the right one. While I don't really
know that these were intentionally created as pranks this is the way the evidence points
and it serves an excellent provisional assumption. Suffice to say the circumstantial evi-
dence seems overwhelming. The mere facts that they were released together and appear
to be artistic is proof enough for me until proven otherwise.
I don't have much reputation to protect though. I've been wrong before and probably will
again.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I believe that we do not KNOW how or why these were made, and that until we do know for sure we should not claim to.
Why do some people find objectivity so objectionable?
>>
Of course you're right and it's a very reasonable position. I have very little doubt that
your reasons are fully justified.
But sometimes the obvious intuitive answer really is the right one. While I don't really
know that these were intentionally created as pranks this is the way the evidence points
and it serves an excellent provisional assumption. Suffice to say the circumstantial evi-
dence seems overwhelming. The mere facts that they were released together and appear
to be artistic is proof enough for me until proven otherwise.
I don't have much reputation to protect though. I've been wrong before and probably will
again.
There is an old saying in Chicago journalism: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."
TD
------
By the way. How many Wisconsins you have left?
Not enough to care about too much one way or the other. When presented with an opportunity to buy some at attractive levels, I do still buy some. All the ones I bought early on, like these hoards I talk about, I sold shortly thereafter.
I have a set which I put on ebay, mainly to draw attention to my video. I really don't care if it sells. I just want as many people as possible to learn the truth and stop being taken in by half-truths, innuendo and false claims.
Ebay auction with Video link.
The reason I made the videos is because at the ANA Summer Seminar last week, I gave a talk to James Wiles' Modern Minting Class with basically the presentation on the first video (the how they were made video). I was amazed how no one read the Numismatist article or watched the presentation Chris and I gave two years ago. It was like new information to them! So much nonsense being believed - I felt I had failed to get the truth out.
I've never owned one but hope to eventually.
<< <i>Thanks Sean,
The very fact that this is the only occurrence of these marks (except, possibly on the 2004-D Dime) makes it very difficult to blame it on a systemic problem with handling, don't you think?
>>
While I have no great wish to revisit a very stale and tiresome topic, it is a fact that these "extra leaves" are NOT the only large die dents to be accompanied by pressure ridges, i.e. they're not the only large die dents to have formed in an annealed (softened) die. Over the years I've sent Rick Snow pictures of several of these specimens, including a cent and a nickel. Ken Potter has also featured die dents formed in annealed dies on the CONECA website.
It is a fact that annealed dies do suffer impact damage. Whether the "extra leaves" are intentional damage or accidental, no one can say with any degree of certitude.
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks Sean,
The very fact that this is the only occurrence of these marks (except, possibly on the 2004-D Dime) makes it very difficult to blame it on a systemic problem with handling, don't you think?
>>
While I have no great wish to revisit a very stale and tiresome topic, it is a fact that these "extra leaves" are NOT the only large die dents to be accompanied by pressure ridges, i.e. they're not the only large die dents to have formed in an annealed (softened) die. Over the years I've sent Rick Snow pictures of several of these specimens, including a cent and a nickel. Ken Potter has also featured die dents formed in annealed dies on the CONECA website.
It is a fact that annealed dies do suffer impact damage. Whether the "extra leaves" are intentional damage or accidental, no one can say with any degree of certitude. >>
Look at the wonderful texturing on the 1804 "Spiked Chin" half cent, where the obverse die is believed to have struck against a steel screw that fell into the coining chamber. Certainly a popular and collectible "die gouge."
TD
I think I'll start with using a few less exclamation marks!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I have nothing to offer on this thread other than its a pure joy to watch you folks chatter about this and it shows me that I really need to work on my objectivity and communication skills for responding to posts.
I think I'll start with using a few less exclamation marks!
interesting theory with some merit. The other camp has merit also though. I'll sit the fence on this one.
It is a fact that annealed dies do suffer impact damage. Whether the "extra leaves" are intentional damage or accidental, no one can say with any degree of certitude.
I'm no error or mint expert by any stretch. However, logic tells me that there are thousands of placements and orientation possibilities for the "extra leaves" on each the high and low leaf coin AND on each coins' other side . In other words, the odds of each die being damaged at just the precise location as to appear natural would be conservatively expressed as 1 to 1000 odds per side, or 1 in 2000 with both obv and rev as possibilities.
Now, a little simple math of two separate dies being accidentally damaged as to be precisely located as to appear natural, would mathematically be expressed as 2000 x 2000 odds. That equates to 1 in 4 Million. This mathematical equation could be expanded quite easily. After all, no other State Qtr has the tool damage.
The Mintage for the Wisconsin Denver Qtr is a reported 226,800,000. Assuming a 40k strikes per die would mean approx 5670 working dies were used. Obviously, the damage could have occurred on either of the 5670 dies with any of the dies being damaged in a location and placement other than where it would give a natural appearance. The mathematical equation would now be 4,000,000 x 5670. This would equate to 1 out of 22,680,000,000. That's 22.680 Billion odds. It can be expanded even further.
Both varieties were released at the same time. We know this because of them being in the same rolls, same distribution location. What are the odds that two of the working dies would be accidentally damaged one right after the other ? It would be the odds of 1 out of 5669 dies approx. Therefore the equation would be 22.680 Billion x 5669. This would be 1 out of 128,572,920,000,000. That's 1 in over 128 TRILLION possibilities. It can be expanded even further. Consider the odds of the presses being left alone running unattended while the mint employee took a break. It can be mathematically expressed by how many minutes that typically happens divided into how many minutes of the day it doesn't happen. This formula can be expanded mathematically with each " coincidental " occurrence that allowed the coins to be minted. Consider this only happened to two dies out of perhaps 300,000 dies used for the complete State Series ……… now do you begin to understand the term “astronomical “ odds ?????
Now, reconsider this statement.
It is a fact that annealed dies do suffer impact damage. Whether the "extra leaves" are intentional damage or accidental, no one can say with any degree of certitude.
With odds in the Trillions, doesn’t a reasonable person come to the conclusion that the odds are far in favor of intentional die damage. Don't we as Humans accept countless of truths that hasn't been explained by an eye witness account. If 300 dead people are found on a mountainside with airplane parts thrown about, do we really need an eye witness to tell us it was a plane crash ? I could think of thousands of areas in Humans lives where a theory is accepted based upon substantial evidence. Can you imagine how dysfunctional the World would be if in every instance we took the stance that “I believe that we do not KNOW how or why these were made, and that until we do know for sure we should not claim to.”
We would all be living in the dark ages waiting for some divine person to draw us a picture and swear they were there to see it all. Get real.
Sean, the president of CONECA reminds me of a bureaucrat. One that lets too many rules and details blind them to the trees in the forest.
The Government went for years upon years denying that Agent Orange caused health problems and birth defects. All against non-refutable logic based upon real human experience. They argued the results of countless facts of illnesses simply because they couldn’t figure out the science that didn’t seem to be convincing enough to them. This is exactly the position that CONECA insists upon. I think we’ve all known individuals and organizations like them. Gee whiz, how hard is it to accept that it is far more likely it was done intentionally ?
My argument/assertions/equations could all be cleaned up …….. but surely the gist comes thru.
I reserve the right to edit this post. A little too much wine tonight to think completely clear.
I dug up an old response Sean posted last year
Since diameter and density are normal, the default hypothesis should be that it was struck on a planchet punched out of rolled-thin stock. You sometimes get Jefferson nickels on rolled-thin planchets, and these can be as light as 2.9 grams. Strength of the strike varies. It depends on the minimum die clearance at the time of the strike, in combination with the thickness of the planchet.
-------------------------
President of CONECA; Host: Error Coin Information Exchange (Yahoo:Groups); Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
It sounds like he accepts hypothesis ........ so what's so hard about accepting the logical default hypothesis of intentional die damage ??? Is this all about politics ?, because that's the only thing that makes sense to me right now.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think these coins are fun. The history is interesting also, If you disagree that is ok. I have not seen any videos from the other side but a lot of defensive posistioning, why is it such a big deal that they were made from a tool by a man in the mint? >>
My strongest objection has always been to people stating opinions about these coins as facts. Theories are fun. Facts are something else. Give me FACTS! TD >>
Fact: Creationism cannot be proved
Fact: Evolution cannot be proved
Fact: We still exist without knowing how/why.
Are you able to deal with these theories and make it throught the day?
As for the coins: you are going to have a hard time with this coin if you need a judge/jury.......even then, it will be circumstantial, and even the 'rogue' mint employee can perjure him/herself.
Accept that they exist, and that's all there is. Hey, if we didn't know how we ended up w/3 legged buffaloes, would they be looked at any differently?
<< <i>
<< <i>Theories are fun. Facts are something else. Give me FACTS! Like the theory of evolution!
I do not consider myself knowledgeable in biology, so I do not comment on it. I know coins.
Here's a piece of biological fact that you can take to the bank: never has a species changed into another species. Ask your friendly biologist.......never in the past has it happened. It's not possible to happen.
Darwin himself doubted his work on this and other issues.
PS: I have to use a loupe to see the High Leaf Wisconsin, but I still enjoy the coin. Same w/some of the extra finger 2009 Lincolns. Small errors are just as cool as big ones to me...
There are so many gouges on coin dies that it's also possible for it to be random.
Extra leaf wheatie
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think these coins are fun. The history is interesting also, If you disagree that is ok. I have not seen any videos from the other side but a lot of defensive posistioning, why is it such a big deal that they were made from a tool by a man in the mint? >>
My strongest objection has always been to people stating opinions about these coins as facts. Theories are fun. Facts are something else. Give me FACTS! TD >>
Fact: Creationism cannot be proved
Fact: Evolution cannot be proved
Fact: We still exist without knowing how/why.
Are you able to deal with these theories and make it throught the day?
As for the coins: you are going to have a hard time with this coin if you need a judge/jury.......even then, it will be circumstantial, and even the 'rogue' mint employee can perjure him/herself.
Accept that they exist, and that's all there is. Hey, if we didn't know how we ended up w/3 legged buffaloes, would they be looked at any differently? >>
As an evolutionary biologist, I can state categorically that you are clueless concerning evolution. Evolution is an observable, demonstrable, and incontrovertible fact. It is supported by numerous lines of evidence:
1. We have numerous transitional fossils documenting the jump from one morphology to another. Tiktalik, the "fishapod" is a recent example. A transitional, otter-like seal has also recently been discovered. We have three Cretaceous snakes with hind limbs, Eocene manatees with four sturdy limbs, and running whales from Pakistan (Icthyolestes).
2. We have numerous transformation series documenting incremental change. An excellent example is the transition from reptilian to mammalian jaws and the transformation of the reptilian jaw elements to mammalian ear ossicles.
3. We have numerous direct transitions from one species to another and one genus to another. In the Eocene of Wyoming, we have the direct transition from the omomyid primate Tetonious to its descendent species Pseudotetonius. We also have successions of species arising from the adapid primate Cantius ralstoni.
4. Each animal phylum shares a body plan, indicative of common descent.
5. All life shares a common genetic code, indicative of common descent.
6. Life is arranged in a branching, hierarchical structure, whose organization can only come from common descent.
7. Related forms almost always share geographical proximity. The Galapagos finches are each other's closest relatives, and they're all confined to a small island chain.
8. The geological column shows a coherent succession of forms. In other words, you'll never find a Cambrian rabbit fossil.
9. We can see evolution in action. Under human predation pressure, we get the evolution of tuskless elephants, and silent rattlesnakes.
10. New species can evolve very quickly. A new species of apple maggot fly evolved in North America after the introduction of apples by Europeans. That took less than 200 years. A population of anole lizard deposited on a Carribean island diversified into three distinct, non-overlapping daughter populations in only 20 years.
The use of Occam's Razor as an argument actually makes the "Mint Employee did it" argument more likely. It answers the question, "What is the simplest answer?".
A single, believeable, plausible, alternate cause has not been found.
<< <i>I dug up an old response Sean posted last year
Since diameter and density are normal, the default hypothesis should be that it was struck on a planchet punched out of rolled-thin stock. You sometimes get Jefferson nickels on rolled-thin planchets, and these can be as light as 2.9 grams. Strength of the strike varies. It depends on the minimum die clearance at the time of the strike, in combination with the thickness of the planchet.
-------------------------
President of CONECA; Host: Error Coin Information Exchange (Yahoo:Groups); Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
It sounds like he accepts hypothesis ........ so what's so hard about accepting the logical default hypothesis of intentional die damage ??? Is this all about politics ?, because that's the only thing that makes sense to me right now. >>
Just to clarify, I'm not the president of CONECA, Mike Diamond is, and the quotes you have attributed to me belong to him.
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
<< <i>Occam's Razor
The use of Occam's Razor as an argument actually makes the "Mint Employee did it" argument more likely. It answers the question, "What is the simplest answer?".
A single, believeable, plausible, alternate cause has not been found. >>
Rick,
Maybe we should let Occam and Heinlein settle this with razors at dawn.
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
<< <i>Occam's Razor
The use of Occam's Razor as an argument actually makes the "Mint Employee did it" argument more likely. It answers the question, "What is the simplest answer?".
A single, believeable, plausible, alternate cause has not been found. >>
I think Occam's Razor is silent on this one. I might lean toward your scenario if it weren't for the fact that the "high leaf" is growing out of a cheese wheel. Shall we also assume that the mint employee responsible was vision-impaired and palsied?
It's always tempting to fill gaps in one's knowledge with myth and speculation. The scientific approach is one of suspended judgement.
<< <i>
I think Occam's Razor is silent on this one. I might lean toward your scenario if it weren't for the fact that the "high leaf" is growing out of a cheese wheel. Shall we also assume that the mint employee responsible was vision-impaired and palsied?
It's always tempting to fill gaps in one's knowledge with myth and speculation. The scientific approach is one of suspended judgement. >>
I'd wager when the guy was cutting these dies he didn't expect so many art critics. This
goes double in light of the fact that the WI quarter falls somewhat short of "high art". It's
a little more like clip art.
The whole corn plant is behind the cheese wheel so it's a short segment of leaf that runs
parallel to the stalk and hidden behind the wheel.
Obviously the placement isn't perfect but is still close enough to consider "artistic" in my
opinion. The low leaf is much better. It would certainly be understandable if this work were
done hurredly.
<< <i>
There is an old saying in Chicago journalism: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."
>>
I'm sure this was a long time ago.
My thinking is more along the lines of "trust and verify".
...and so far the initial theories have stood up quite well to verification.
I think the study holds up soundly for the scientific part - the "what". As to the who-dunit part- the "who" and "why", you can't use scientific method. The "how" is pretty clear too, but we are lacking the object that made the marks. This does not leave large gaping holes in the argument - its just that the facts are not 100% knowable. We only have the coins to make the case. Again, the scientific analysis is sound. The conclusions match the observations and answer all the questions.
The only thing lacking is the person responsible giving a tell-all interview about how he/she did it.
It is kind of like proving evolution with links missing in the argument - it doesn't change the outcome, you just have to make your case from the available information.
<< <i> It is kind of like proving evolution with links missing in the argument - it doesn't change the outcome, you just have to make your case from the available information. >>
You and others make yourselves look ridiculous by insinuating that there is anything uncertain about evolution. It is an unassailable fact, and natural selection is one of the most robustly supported theories in science, on a par with the heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Your "theory" concerning the Wisconsin quarters doesn't measure up, since it is not testable. You only have a working hypothesis concerning its origin. And until better evidence comes along, it will stay a working hypothesis. The only thing that you and Chris Pilliod have managed to demonstrate is that the extra leaves represent die damage inflicted when the die was in a softened state.
I think you grossly misinterpreted what I wrote. I was talking about how to prove something using something other than direct, first hand testimony.
Your "theory" concerning the Wisconsin quarters doesn't measure up, since it is not testable.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It is testable and verifyable.
We are talking about two interesting die varieties that may or may not heve been deliberately created. We are not talking about health care or the economy or the war or any number of other seriously important topics.
This is supposed to be a hobby. Let's just chill out and enjoy it.
Please.
TD
<< <i>You and others make yourselves look ridiculous by insinuating that there is anything uncertain about evolution.
I think you grossly misinterpreted what I wrote. I was talking about how to prove something using something other than direct, first hand testimony. You saying that I am looking ridiculous is quite an insult! I don't know who you think you are, Mike, but you are not the grand arbitrator! Nor are you the grand inquisitor! I have a great interest in keeping the discussion on topic and in a friendly manner, but you are crossing a line. Please edit you post.
Your "theory" concerning the Wisconsin quarters doesn't measure up, since it is not testable.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It is testable and verifyable. I will be happy to debate you into the ground like two years ago. I still have all our e-mails and posts including your e-mail where you said I was right. >>
If your reference to evolution concerned the indirect methods that sometimes have to be used in solving certain problems, then this is a perfectly valid observation. When you're dealing with a patchy fossil record, you have to rely on the comparative method. So our knowledge that whales are embedded within the artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates), with their probable closest living relatives being hippos, this is based on a careful study of numerous shared modifications, such as a double-pulley astragalus (ankle bone). The relationship is also supported by comparative genetics.
Back to coins. Your contention that the "extra leaves" are intentional damage is not testable or verifiable. It is merely a plausible scenario. Just because you can replicate the effect by pounding on a softened die with a punch doesn't mean it happened that way. Here's a long, curved die dent with a prominent pressure ridge on a Lincoln cent:
Now, are you going to insist that this, too, is intentional?
It can be expanded even further. Both varieties were released at the same time. We know this because of them being in the same rolls, same distribution location. What are the odds that two of the working dies would be accidentally damaged one right after the other ? It would be the odds of 1 out of 5669 dies approx. Therefore the equation would be 22.680 Billion x 5669. This would be 1 out of 128,572,920,000,000. That's 1 in over 128 TRILLION possibilities.
These statements just reaffirm my belief that people don't really understand odds.
The only way odds can be applied this way is if all possible events have equal probability. Manufacturing processes do not fit into that category.
My World Coin Type Set
Red Herring
<< <i>You can't conclude anything by looking at something that may be entirely different. You certianly cannot knock down the WI Extra Leaf Quarters using the cent you posted as any kind of evidence. Pressure ridge or not, it looks to be pre-hubbing damage to the die, since it is distorted into the letters. You don't see that on the quarters.
Red Herring >>
If it had been pre-hubbing damage, then the pressure ridge would have been flattened by the field portion of the hub. So the die dent clearly occured after hubbing but while the die was still soft. Same as the "extra leaves".