<< <i>If it had been pre-hubbing damage, then the pressure ridge would have been flattened by the field portion of the hub.
I don't think that is a certainty, especially near the edge. Still, it differs enough that you can't say they are even similar. >>
Obviously they're different-looking. The die dent on the cent was clearly created by a different object. But so what? Die damage is endlessly variable.
The fact that the high leaf and low leaf were created by the same object is intriguing, and adds support to your hypothesis that they were intentionally inflicted. But the level of confidence is nowhere near what is necessary to assert that this is actually what happened.
As far as the minor distortion you observed in the letters of the cent is concerned, this has no significance. It's clear from the "extra leaf" quarters that distortion to surrounding metal is variable. After all, the "low leaf" has a pressure ridge while the "high leaf" doesn't. Using overly rigid criteria, you might well conclude that the high leaf was generated after the die was work-hardened. But this would be rather a stretch, don't you think? The die dent in the "double ear" dime also shows no pressure ridge.
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.
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. .
Huh !!! That's exactly the point I was making ...... all the possible events had complete equal probability if you believe the dies were accidentally damaged. It would have been just as probable for the "leaves" to have been up the cow's arse as on the stalk. I'm simply stating that the odds are in the Trillions that both "leaves" would have ended up on the stalk, and in such a location on the stalk as to appear ‘natural’.
edited to say: Just as likely the "leaves" would have ended in Liberties teeth on the PA qtr, or being fired out the barrel of the MA qtr, or sticking out of the Old Man of the Mountains nose on the NH qtr, or dividing texas in half on the TX qtr. They all had the same probability of acquiring 'leaves' if accidental ......... but it happened to NONE except additional leaves on a corn stalk, not once, but twice.
Can someone else explain to me why the odds aren’t' in the Trillions ? And why that alone doesn’t give credence to an intentional creation of the ‘leaves’. After all, without the 2nd consecutive die, I and most would just write if off as uncontrolled damage that randomly was on the stalk.
Why is it not plausible that the artist making the 2nd die consecutively did it to convince the public that they were done intentionally ? I guess he should've put his initials in the die, but little did he know at the time that someone would have a political axe to grind, lol
Huh !!! That's exactly the point I was making ...... all the possible events had complete equal probability if you believe the dies were accidentally damaged. It would have been just as probable for the "leaves" to have been up the cow's arse as on the stalk. I'm simply stating that the odds are in the Trillions that both "leaves" would have ended up on the stalk, and in such a location on the stalk as to appear ‘natural’.
Your use of odds for the location seem reasonable, and I have no issue with the "1 in 2000 chance". But, to say in a manufacturing process, that the odds of an issue showing up in the same place twice results is a "1 in 4 million chance" is not a correct assessment. Without the two events being completely orthogonal, it just doesn't work that way.
And, then you go on to use simple multipliers for all the other dies. Manufacturing errors tend to occur in lots or batches.
<< <i>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. >>
I think he's on the right track even if the numbers are suspect.
I agree that without knowing the exact cause that very meaningful numbers are difficult to obtain. For instance the object that damaged the die might have only been capable of causing damage from a low spot on the die. This would make these "designs" far less improbable.
It's also true that anything which damaged adjacent dies could result in the designs being released together since they could end up nin the same or in adjacent presses.
But it's still true that their existence in tandem and in being "artistic" is an ex- tremely strong argument in favor of intention.
With what we know now it is just a question of "what are the odds". I've be- lieved all along that the odds say these were made as a form of horseplay. The only other likely possibility is that the mint did them accidently on purpose; a sort of semi-official variety that involved numerous individuals. But an investi- gation would have turned up this cabal and didn't, which leaves horseplay as the most probable cause.
Very Interesting read! I'm all verklempt now. I've always been intrigued by the extra leaf variety. And I still am, whehter it was intentional or accidental.
"Please help us keep these boards professional and informative…. And fun." - DW --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
It occurs to me that with the USM being "Our" Gov't. organization and keep in mind all the $$ we pay them for collector coins, why isn't there a stand up Mint Rep. that can be "Pro Collector" and get the answers that we deserve to know from that organization such as a possible Denver Mint die shop rouge back in Nov.,2004. Mike White is a friendly USM spokesman but would never stand up and answer specifics about a particular US mint. Is having our own advocate at the USM too much to ask ??
Comments
If it had been pre-hubbing damage, then the pressure ridge would have been flattened by the field portion of the hub.
I don't think that is a certanty, especially near the edge. Still, it differs enough that you can't say they are even similar.
<< <i>If it had been pre-hubbing damage, then the pressure ridge would have been flattened by the field portion of the hub.
I don't think that is a certainty, especially near the edge. Still, it differs enough that you can't say they are even similar. >>
Obviously they're different-looking. The die dent on the cent was clearly created by a different object. But so what? Die damage is endlessly variable.
The fact that the high leaf and low leaf were created by the same object is intriguing, and adds support to your hypothesis that they were intentionally inflicted. But the level of confidence is nowhere near what is necessary to assert that this is actually what happened.
As far as the minor distortion you observed in the letters of the cent is concerned, this has no significance. It's clear from the "extra leaf" quarters that distortion to surrounding metal is variable. After all, the "low leaf" has a pressure ridge while the "high leaf" doesn't. Using overly rigid criteria, you might well conclude that the high leaf was generated after the die was work-hardened. But this would be rather a stretch, don't you think? The die dent in the "double ear" dime also shows no pressure ridge.
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. .
Huh !!! That's exactly the point I was making ...... all the possible events had complete equal probability if you believe the dies were accidentally damaged. It would have been just as probable for the "leaves" to have been up the cow's arse as on the stalk. I'm simply stating that the odds are in the Trillions that both "leaves" would have ended up on the stalk, and in such a location on the stalk as to appear ‘natural’.
edited to say: Just as likely the "leaves" would have ended in Liberties teeth on the PA qtr, or being fired out the barrel of the MA qtr, or sticking out of the Old Man of the Mountains nose on the NH qtr, or dividing texas in half on the TX qtr. They all had the same probability of acquiring 'leaves' if accidental ......... but it happened to NONE except additional leaves on a corn stalk, not once, but twice.
Can someone else explain to me why the odds aren’t' in the Trillions ? And why that alone doesn’t give credence to an intentional creation of the ‘leaves’. After all, without the 2nd consecutive die, I and most would just write if off as uncontrolled damage that randomly was on the stalk.
Why is it not plausible that the artist making the 2nd die consecutively did it to convince the public that they were done intentionally ?
I guess he should've put his initials in the die, but little did he know at the time that someone would have a political axe to grind, lol
Your use of odds for the location seem reasonable, and I have no issue with the "1 in 2000 chance". But, to say in a manufacturing process, that the odds of an issue showing up in the same place twice results is a "1 in 4 million chance" is not a correct assessment. Without the two events being completely orthogonal, it just doesn't work that way.
And, then you go on to use simple multipliers for all the other dies. Manufacturing errors tend to occur in lots or batches.
Edited for spelling
My World Coin Type Set
<< <i>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. >>
I think he's on the right track even if the numbers are suspect.
I agree that without knowing the exact cause that very meaningful numbers
are difficult to obtain. For instance the object that damaged the die might have
only been capable of causing damage from a low spot on the die. This would
make these "designs" far less improbable.
It's also true that anything which damaged adjacent dies could result in the
designs being released together since they could end up nin the same or in
adjacent presses.
But it's still true that their existence in tandem and in being "artistic" is an ex-
tremely strong argument in favor of intention.
With what we know now it is just a question of "what are the odds". I've be-
lieved all along that the odds say these were made as a form of horseplay. The
only other likely possibility is that the mint did them accidently on purpose; a
sort of semi-official variety that involved numerous individuals. But an investi-
gation would have turned up this cabal and didn't, which leaves horseplay as
the most probable cause.
Yes, I agree with that assessment.
My World Coin Type Set
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES