The sets were aquired over a number of years from different sources. I've had these before you started this thread so they weren't previously searched. I just bought a roll with 25 P coins & 25 D coins. Last time I bought one of these, I found 3 in 25 coins. I will check that in a couple of days when I get the roll.
I just received the 25 1996d cents from mint sets and there were 3 out of the 25 had the "wide S". Strange how there were 3 out of 25 and only 1 out of over 80 mint sets. Just random it appears. I now have 18 of the "wide s" coins.
Yes the T and E are thinner. The top of second S comes to a point instead of a regular end with serifs. We started calling it "Wide S" because first S is farther away from T because of letters being off.
Does anyone know what Graysheet is on these sets now? TIA
HH
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
Thank you for joining. It's a normal thing for me , through years of searching, to get overly excited about "small things". Near or far; some of us "see things" that appear abnormal and possibly grand in the scheme of things (coins). Then comes discovery and the rest of the story and the reality, which sometimes shatters so many beliefs and hopes. To discover ! (not necessarily for fame in the coin world), but the encouragement we see from others who also "search" for the fun and for the study. It (studying and analyzing them) gets disheartening sometimes while "searching coins". My eyes get tired and there's the business to run It's (separating wheat from chaff and collectible from "not worth the effort") still one of the great hobbies and strange mysteries. And the truth is that as a coin dealer and "roll searcher", it's a tough road eating humble pie, for me. Few people want to break into rolls and search coins or seriously look AT each coin in their proof or mint sets that sit there for years and years, where discoveries are waiting to be found.
So thank you variety guys everywhere (not just you, but all participating in the hobby) …. for the spice of life, with coins. That's where my "fun" is for me. In the camaraderie we have here (online, at shows, in the club circuit, at shops, or even You Tube, if we must ) … and throughout the coin world, for those who really like coins, this place can be brutally honest. So with that , welcome aboard.
This is typically a good position and well justified.
However, I still can't reconcile the fact that the bottom of the top of the "S" is further from the rim than on the regular coin. If it's merely light hubbing then the bottom of the top of the "S" MUST be the same distance or closer to the rim. If the top is further because it's not fully "fleshed out" this wouldn't cause the bottom of the upper part of the "S" to be further away.
Perhaps poor hubbing is the root cause but it can't be the only cause.
DCarr mentioned "lapping" which is another good guess but even in conjunction with weak hubbing it's inadequate to explain all the characteristics.
Certainly chance can explain how this unique looking die got paired with a unique looking obverse die. They just don't use that many dies for mint sets. There would have been only around thirty each obverse and reverse dies.
Ok, so I decided to follow up with this and I sent these coins to expert photographer Ray Parkhurst (rmpsrpms) for animated overlays. His excellent work gives us much clearer evidence of what is happening here. In the first 2 images, we can see that thinning at the tops is compromised from the north and south of the letters, and not just from one direction. This would be consistent with either of our 2 possibilities, over-polishing or incomplete hubbing. Furthermore, I think we can very plainly see that this is not a new design, since the size, shape, font, and spacing of the full portions of the letters all match up perfectly.
Now, in this last image, Ray did an inversion of the image so we are actually seeing what the dies would look like, rather than the coins. Here we have our “smoking gun” as Ray put it. With this incredible technique, we can see that the die near the rim on the coin with the thinned devices is clearly compromised compared to the “normal” die. So, it seems we must bring the idea of an over-polished die back into the picture here. This was my initial diagnosis, and I had since oscillated between the two possibilities. At any rate, I can't say for certain that what we are seeing couldn't also be a manifestation of an incompletely hubbed die, but in light of the new images, I think we are more likely seeing the result of over-polishing here. But I'm not sure that it really matters, since EITHER WAY it is clear this isn't a legitimate “variety” as we define the term in the numismatic community. Thank you Ray for sharing your amazing gift for the betterment of our understanding of numismatics.
Very interesting and very interesting photography.
The pictures might be even more interesting if the edge of the coin were the "fixed point" rather than the bottom of the "S". In the real world the die is a fixed diameter and each element is usually a fixed distance from it.
I'm also surprised how much the "S" in "E PLURIBUS" is moving relative to the "E". This shouldn't be optical effect because they are the same distance from the center of the lens.
The third picture seems to support you contention of polishing, but again the edge isn't fixed in this animation either.
The S of E PLURIBUS is moving relative to the E because the two coins were not perfectly matched for rotation. Unfortunately all the editing software I have won't allow a rotation adjustment of less than 1-degree, so this small amount of rotation can't be corrected. The S is moving only a few pixels vs the E.
For the "die view" rendering, I fixed the characteristics of the E as a reference. Fixing the die edge does not make sense because it is the edge that is changing due to the excess polishing.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Originally posted by: cladking Very interesting and very interesting photography.
The pictures might be even more interesting if the edge of the coin were the "fixed point" rather than the bottom of the "S". In the real world the die is a fixed diameter and each element is usually a fixed distance from it.
Thanks again.
There is no reason that the diameter of the die would be constant. The die edge may be polished as well as the die surface, so that the diameter many decrease slightly vs die use and maintenance.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
The S of E PLURIBUS is moving relative to the E because the two coins were not perfectly matched for rotation. Unfortunately all the editing software I have won't allow a rotation adjustment of less than 1-degree, so this small amount of rotation can't be corrected. The S is moving only a few pixels vs the E.
For the "die view" rendering, I fixed the characteristics of the E as a reference. Fixing the die edge does not make sense because it is the edge that is changing due to the excess polishing.
Yeah, thank you. I figured it out right after I posted.
I don't understand how the edge of the coin can be affected by polishing. Certainly the rim might be affected but how is the edge or the distance of elements from the edge affected?
I am referring to points not affected much by the suspected polishing like the bottom of the cross on the T on the left side.
Very interesting and very interesting photography.
The pictures might be even more interesting if the edge of the coin were the "fixed point" rather than the bottom of the "S". In the real world the die is a fixed diameter and each element is usually a fixed distance from it.
Thanks again.
There is no reason that the diameter of the die would be constant. The die edge may be polished as well as the die surface, so that the diameter many decrease slightly vs die use and maintenance.
Oh! I wasn't aware of this. This changes quite a bit about how I model the coining process. I never did feel very comfortable with my understanding of the variations in the rims.
Would the diameter of the die ever decrease as much as the apparent difference in distance? This apparent difference is almost as much as the width of the tops on the normal coin. How narrow can a die get and still be serviceable?
Originally posted by: cladking Very interesting and very interesting photography.
The pictures might be even more interesting if the edge of the coin were the "fixed point" rather than the bottom of the "S". In the real world the die is a fixed diameter and each element is usually a fixed distance from it.
Thanks again.
There is no reason that the diameter of the die would be constant. The die edge may be polished as well as the die surface, so that the diameter many decrease slightly vs die use and maintenance.
Oh! I wasn't aware of this. This changes quite a bit about how I model the coining process. I never did feel very comfortable with my understanding of the variations in the rims.
Would the diameter of the die ever decrease as much as the apparent difference in distance? This apparent difference is almost as much as the width of the tops on the normal coin. How narrow can a die get and still be serviceable?
I don't think the diameter can vary that much, but it could vary a little bit if a small touch-up is done to recreate the edge "bevel" after working on the surfaces. In the case of this die, there does NOT appear to have been any work done on the bevel as indicated by the TOP edge of the bevel remaining fixed. What you see is a change to the lower edge of the bevel due to the surface work that was done at the very edge of the die. This is most apparent on the first animation, as it holds all features constant (except for the small rotation) and as you can see the upper edge of the bevel is also constant. The lower edge moves, and the result is the bevel is narrower. In fact this means the die has actually gotten a little BIGGER if the surface of the field is taken as the reference!
I was not as careful as I should have been in lining-up the images in the second animation. I allowed both the top and bottom edge of the bevel to move, but we know the top edge does not move as evidenced by the first animation. I may re-do the second animation to better reflect what is going on.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Very interesting and very interesting photography.
The pictures might be even more interesting if the edge of the coin were the "fixed point" rather than the bottom of the "S". In the real world the die is a fixed diameter and each element is usually a fixed distance from it.
Thanks again.
Not if the die rim has been compromised, which I believe has been demonstrated.
What reason would necessitate the edge of a die to be polished?
Wouldn't the collar determine the diameter of a coin?
HH
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
Originally posted by: halfhunter Couple of questions . . .
What reason would necessitate the edge of a die to be polished? Wouldn't the collar determine the diameter of a coin?
HH
True, but the size of the impressed area of the coin depends on the diameter of the die face itself, which can vary as the surface is polished; on the depth of the bevel; and the strength of the strike. A weakly-struck coin has a smaller struck area because the bevel is not impressed as far. This is why neither the lower edge of the field (which varies with polishing) nor the upper edge of the field (which varies with strike and possibly bevel polishing) can be thought of as a fixed reference.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
I much better understand the nature of the way the rim is formed after these exchanges but I don't understand how the distance of a design element can vary from the edge of the coin which is defined by the collar. If the die gets smaller for any reason the rim gets wider so a design element can get closer to the rim but it can't get farther from the edge as I understand things. Of course if the die shifts to one side due to lesser diameter it could cause this but that's not what I'm seeing in these specimens.
The lettering is simply in a different place relative the edge of the coin and the opposite edge of the coin. Indeed, virtually the entire top of the letters lie entirely outside the place defined by the "regular" version. I don't understand how simple polishing, improper hubbing, and strike characteristics even in tandem can account for this difference.
I am impressed though and took note of the apparent die polishing in the oblique view of the letter tops.
I'd very much appreciate an explanation that I can follow.
I made a graphic to explain what's going on. Hopefully a picture makes more sense than my words did. From the pic, you can see how the edge of the "S" can move farther away from the coin edge, and also how the outer radius of the field can move closer to the coin edge, as the field is abraded through polishing OR if it was not completely hubbed. Both of these effects make the edge of the "S" look farther from the rim of the coin.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
I made a graphic to explain what's going on. Hopefully a picture makes more sense than my words did. From the pic, you can see how the edge of the "S" can move farther away from the coin edge, and also how the outer radius of the field can move closer to the coin edge, as the field is abraded through polishing OR if it was not completely hubbed. Both of these effects make the edge of the "S" look farther from the rim of the coin.
This I understand.
What I'm seeing is that virtually the entire top of the "S" is further from EDGE of the coin.
From your pictures I can see how this area has been polished and this polishing would cause the S to be further from the rim but not further from the edge. If you redid the overlays holding the edge of the coin as the reference point then you'd see almost no overlap at the top of the "S". This seems to me to imply that polishing is merely a contributer to the apparent differences.
I like your illustration cladking. Thanks for doing the work. The whole "die thing" is something that I find interesting. Thanks again.
Yes . . .I'm loving this too.
One more thought & question.
It's apparent that these mint set coins were struck especially for these sets. Looking at the hammered strikes I'm thinking that these coins were struck with higher die pressures than the normal business strikes.
If the die had been polished on the sides, and with increased die pressures, wouldn't this cause finning?
HH
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
I like your illustration cladking. Thanks for doing the work. The whole "die thing" is something that I find interesting. Thanks again.
Yes . . .I'm loving this too.
One more thought & question.
It's apparent that these mint set coins were struck especially for these sets. Looking at the hammered strikes I'm thinking that these coins were struck with higher die pressures than the normal business strikes.
If the die had been polished on the sides, and with increased die pressures, wouldn't this cause finning?
All the graphics are Rmpsrpms's. I've only posted a couple of pictures myself. Some of the better ones are WillBrooks'.
These coins really are special and it's easy to overlook if you haven't seen several of them. As I think I mentioned earlier I set aside about ten Gems to put in my safety deposit boxes and 30% were this "variety" (or whatever it is) but only 3% of issue is. It's vastly overrepresented in 1996-D Gems.
The extreme sharpness of strikes of mint set coins is very apparent on 1989-D cents. In the ten finest Gems for these about four will have the copper sheared right off the sides of the lettering in the word "United".
I can't imagine why people pay so little attention to mint set coins except most aren't aware that most of the finest coins made each year go intothis source. Of all the modern mint sets the 1996 is in many ways the most special of all.
I added some more annotations showing that the top of the S is farther from the edge of the coin.
The ENTIRE top of the "S" is at different distances from the edge. There is no overlap as your earlier animation suggests because the edge of the coin was not a fixed point.
The graphic above shows the top of the letter a fixed a distance from the edge but this isn't what the two different coins show.
I'm aware I'm repeating myself but the point isn't being addressed and I don't understand how any of the processes suggested so far can account for this difference. Am I wrong? I get out the calipers and see there is a large distance between ALL points of the S on one coin compared to the other.
I think it would be obvious what I mean if this same graphic were done with the edge of the coin above the "S" held as the fixed point. This is the location of the collar so no matter what happens to the die every part should be the same location from it.
Obviously the "S" would be moving if the edge were fixed. I don't see how any of the processes could account for such movement.
Here is a 1989 I came across with the same type of thinning from die polishing. As I said, it is not confined to any given year, and I have seen this in other years as well. I also saw an example in the coppercoins listings the other day, but now I forget where it was. I'll update if I find it again, as well as other coins as I come across them. If you search a lot of cents, you WILL see this from time to time on varying dates.
It looks like the appearance of the "S" being further from the edge may be a sort of optical illusion that doesn't stand up to measurement. If it really were further I have no doubt that it would be a variety.
As such strike and die characteristics can explain it adequately to me.
I appreciate everyone's effort. It's kind of a shame the coin only looks different but it has been an interesting learning experience. I had never really been able to model the way the rim and edge form in the strike.
It is not just an optical illusion! The tops of the outer letters are indeed farther from the rim (and nominal edge) of the coin, but _not_ because the coin is a die variety. They are farther due to the _condition_ of the die. Because the edge of the coin is not a fixed reference, since the die can misalign slightly in any direction during striking, using the edge as a reference is a mistake when trying to determine a die variety. Only those features of the coin that are created by the die itself can be used. Many die features can be changed due to die wear or maintenance, but the deepest features of the die are the least susceptible to these changes. These form the tallest features on the coin. For this coin, the best fixed reference is the highest, innermost edge of the rim. The tops of the letters get measurably farther from this fixed reference, while the outermost edge of the field gets measurably closer, when the field is either abraded or improperly hubbed. I made an update to the drawing to show this reference, see below.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Because the edge of the coin is not a fixed reference, since the die can misalign slightly in any direction during striking, using the edge as a reference is a mistake when trying to determine a die variety.
I neglected to mention that I had first determined that other design characteristics (specifically the "C" in "CENTS") were in their normal position relative the edge of the coin. Every design element is in a fixed position relative each other and the edge or it is a variety. This is a very common technique for quickly identifying differences in token dies where differences can be subtle and exceedingly common. Obviously the rim isn't a fixed point but the edge is anytime the coins are the same size.
It would be risky trying to malke this determination from a photo because of optical effects and paralax but it should work otherwise.
I neglected to mention that I had first determined that other design characteristics (specifically the "C" in "CENTS") were in their normal position relative the edge of the coin. Every design element is in a fixed position relative each other and the edge or it is a variety. This is a very common technique for quickly identifying differences in token dies where differences can be subtle and exceedingly common. Obviously the rim isn't a fixed point but the edge is anytime the coins are the same size.
It would be risky trying to malke this determination from a photo because of optical effects and paralax but it should work otherwise.
Except that, as I already stated numerous times, since the letters are not COMPLETE, they will obviously NOT be the same distance from the rim (or even the edge which can vary from coin to coin anyway depending on whether or not the planchette is centered during the strike). I do not see why this is so hard to understand. Heck, if they were completely abraded off the die, then they would have NO distance from the edge of the coin, right? They would not be there at all! While I admire your tenacity, I cannot in good conscience just sit by while you continue to call these a variety. They aren't. What do you have to say about the 1989 I posted above with the same anomaly? You made no mention of it. Well, guess what. I have ANOTHER one for you. This time, it is a 1986 with the exact same thinning of the letters toward the periphery. This time it is on the letters ONE. How many different dies and dates must I post before you accept this for what it truly is?
Originally posted by: cladkingObviously the rim isn't a fixed point but the edge is anytime the coins are the same size.
You have this backwards. The rim is fixed, but the edge is not. Simple evidence of this is an off-center strike. Any reference to position of features of the die should be made vs the rim.
Remember, when we talk "die variety", we make reference to die features.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
It looks like the appearance of the "S" being further from the edge may be a sort of optical illusion that doesn't stand up to measurement. If it really were further I have no doubt that it would be a variety.
As such strike and die characteristics can explain it adequately to me.
I appreciate everyone's effort. It's kind of a shame the coin only looks different but it has been an interesting learning experience. I had never really been able to model the way the rim and edge form in the strike.
Somehow it seems this post was misinterpreted.
I still like this thread though and hate to see any thread go bad so I have to post something.
While the coin only "looks" a whole lot different than other '96-D cents rather than actually being struck by different dies, I still do find the coin interesting based on appearances (and the learning it has provided).
One bit of learning was strongly reinforced; this is the best site on the net to discuss coins.
Comments
Don't the tops of the T and the E also look thinner?
Thanks,
Chris
At this time I have no expectations.
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
I checked out 103 more 1996 mint sets and found 3 "wide S" cent coins
Thanks for the info.
These cents are so pretty they just might catch on without expert approval.
I'll be watching for them. They're so easy to spot.
Thank you for joining. It's a normal thing for me , through years of searching, to get overly excited about "small things". Near or far; some of us "see things" that appear abnormal and possibly grand in the scheme of things (coins).
Then comes discovery and the rest of the story and the reality, which sometimes shatters so many beliefs and hopes. To discover ! (not necessarily for fame in the coin world), but the encouragement we see from others who also "search" for the fun and for the study.
It (studying and analyzing them) gets disheartening sometimes while "searching coins". My eyes get tired and there's the business to run It's (separating wheat from chaff and collectible from "not worth the effort") still one of the great hobbies and strange mysteries.
And the truth is that as a coin dealer and "roll searcher", it's a tough road eating humble pie, for me. Few people want to break into rolls and search coins or seriously look AT each coin in their proof or mint sets that sit there for years and years, where discoveries are waiting to be found.
So thank you variety guys everywhere (not just you, but all participating in the hobby) …. for the spice of life, with coins. That's where my "fun" is for me. In the camaraderie we have here (online, at shows, in the club circuit, at shops, or even You Tube, if we must ) … and throughout the coin world, for those who really like coins, this place can be brutally honest. So with that , welcome aboard.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Everything is exactly normal except for the thinness of the tops of the letters.
You may be right about the cause. I'm just familiar enough with all the factors to state much of anything with confidence.
However the bottom of the top of the "S" is further from the rim as well as the top. This couldn't be accounted for by only lighter hubbing;
No doubt in conjunction with unknown strike characteristics it could be adequate explanation.
I tend to prefer my theories simpler than this when possible.
Welcome aboard.
I agree with Chuck/Coppercoins. (As usual)
This is typically a good position and well justified.
However, I still can't reconcile the fact that the bottom of the top of the "S" is further from the rim than on the regular coin. If it's merely light hubbing then the bottom of the top of the "S" MUST be the same distance or closer to the rim. If the top is further because it's not fully "fleshed out" this wouldn't cause the bottom of the upper part of the "S" to be further away.
Perhaps poor hubbing is the root cause but it can't be the only cause.
DCarr mentioned "lapping" which is another good guess but even in conjunction with weak hubbing it's inadequate to explain all the characteristics.
Certainly chance can explain how this unique looking die got paired with a unique looking obverse die. They just don't use that many dies for mint sets. There would have been only around thirty each obverse and reverse dies.
Now, in this last image, Ray did an inversion of the image so we are actually seeing what the dies would look like, rather than the coins. Here we have our “smoking gun” as Ray put it. With this incredible technique, we can see that the die near the rim on the coin with the thinned devices is clearly compromised compared to the “normal” die. So, it seems we must bring the idea of an over-polished die back into the picture here. This was my initial diagnosis, and I had since oscillated between the two possibilities. At any rate, I can't say for certain that what we are seeing couldn't also be a manifestation of an incompletely hubbed die, but in light of the new images, I think we are more likely seeing the result of over-polishing here. But I'm not sure that it really matters, since EITHER WAY it is clear this isn't a legitimate “variety” as we define the term in the numismatic community. Thank you Ray for sharing your amazing gift for the betterment of our understanding of numismatics.
I very much enjoyed the study.
The pictures might be even more interesting if the edge of the coin were the "fixed point" rather than the bottom of the "S". In the real world the die is a fixed diameter and each element is usually a fixed distance from it.
Thanks again.
I'm also surprised how much the "S" in "E PLURIBUS" is moving relative to the "E". This shouldn't be optical effect because they are the same distance from the center of the lens.
The third picture seems to support you contention of polishing, but again the edge isn't fixed in this animation either.
For the "die view" rendering, I fixed the characteristics of the E as a reference. Fixing the die edge does not make sense because it is the edge that is changing due to the excess polishing.
http://macrocoins.com
Very interesting and very interesting photography.
The pictures might be even more interesting if the edge of the coin were the "fixed point" rather than the bottom of the "S". In the real world the die is a fixed diameter and each element is usually a fixed distance from it.
Thanks again.
There is no reason that the diameter of the die would be constant. The die edge may be polished as well as the die surface, so that the diameter many decrease slightly vs die use and maintenance.
http://macrocoins.com
The S of E PLURIBUS is moving relative to the E because the two coins were not perfectly matched for rotation. Unfortunately all the editing software I have won't allow a rotation adjustment of less than 1-degree, so this small amount of rotation can't be corrected. The S is moving only a few pixels vs the E.
For the "die view" rendering, I fixed the characteristics of the E as a reference. Fixing the die edge does not make sense because it is the edge that is changing due to the excess polishing.
Yeah, thank you. I figured it out right after I posted.
I don't understand how the edge of the coin can be affected by polishing. Certainly the rim might be affected but how is the edge or the distance of elements from the edge affected?
I am referring to points not affected much by the suspected polishing like the bottom of the cross on the T on the left side.
Very interesting and very interesting photography.
The pictures might be even more interesting if the edge of the coin were the "fixed point" rather than the bottom of the "S". In the real world the die is a fixed diameter and each element is usually a fixed distance from it.
Thanks again.
There is no reason that the diameter of the die would be constant. The die edge may be polished as well as the die surface, so that the diameter many decrease slightly vs die use and maintenance.
Oh! I wasn't aware of this. This changes quite a bit about how I model the coining process. I never did feel very comfortable with my understanding of the variations in the rims.
Would the diameter of the die ever decrease as much as the apparent difference in distance? This apparent difference is almost as much as the width of the tops on the normal coin. How narrow can a die get and still be serviceable?
Very interesting and very interesting photography.
The pictures might be even more interesting if the edge of the coin were the "fixed point" rather than the bottom of the "S". In the real world the die is a fixed diameter and each element is usually a fixed distance from it.
Thanks again.
There is no reason that the diameter of the die would be constant. The die edge may be polished as well as the die surface, so that the diameter many decrease slightly vs die use and maintenance.
Oh! I wasn't aware of this. This changes quite a bit about how I model the coining process. I never did feel very comfortable with my understanding of the variations in the rims.
Would the diameter of the die ever decrease as much as the apparent difference in distance? This apparent difference is almost as much as the width of the tops on the normal coin. How narrow can a die get and still be serviceable?
I don't think the diameter can vary that much, but it could vary a little bit if a small touch-up is done to recreate the edge "bevel" after working on the surfaces. In the case of this die, there does NOT appear to have been any work done on the bevel as indicated by the TOP edge of the bevel remaining fixed. What you see is a change to the lower edge of the bevel due to the surface work that was done at the very edge of the die. This is most apparent on the first animation, as it holds all features constant (except for the small rotation) and as you can see the upper edge of the bevel is also constant. The lower edge moves, and the result is the bevel is narrower. In fact this means the die has actually gotten a little BIGGER if the surface of the field is taken as the reference!
I was not as careful as I should have been in lining-up the images in the second animation. I allowed both the top and bottom edge of the bevel to move, but we know the top edge does not move as evidenced by the first animation. I may re-do the second animation to better reflect what is going on.
http://macrocoins.com
Very interesting and very interesting photography.
The pictures might be even more interesting if the edge of the coin were the "fixed point" rather than the bottom of the "S". In the real world the die is a fixed diameter and each element is usually a fixed distance from it.
Thanks again.
Not if the die rim has been compromised, which I believe has been demonstrated.
What reason would necessitate the edge of a die to be polished?
Wouldn't the collar determine the diameter of a coin?
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
Couple of questions . . .
What reason would necessitate the edge of a die to be polished?
Wouldn't the collar determine the diameter of a coin?
HH
True, but the size of the impressed area of the coin depends on the diameter of the die face itself, which can vary as the surface is polished; on the depth of the bevel; and the strength of the strike. A weakly-struck coin has a smaller struck area because the bevel is not impressed as far. This is why neither the lower edge of the field (which varies with polishing) nor the upper edge of the field (which varies with strike and possibly bevel polishing) can be thought of as a fixed reference.
http://macrocoins.com
The lettering is simply in a different place relative the edge of the coin and the opposite edge of the coin. Indeed, virtually the entire top of the letters lie entirely outside the place defined by the "regular" version. I don't understand how simple polishing, improper hubbing, and strike characteristics even in tandem can account for this difference.
I am impressed though and took note of the apparent die polishing in the oblique view of the letter tops.
I'd very much appreciate an explanation that I can follow.
Couple of questions . . .
What reason would necessitate the edge of a die to be polished?
Wouldn't the collar determine the diameter of a coin?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't get it.
http://macrocoins.com
I made a graphic to explain what's going on. Hopefully a picture makes more sense than my words did. From the pic, you can see how the edge of the "S" can move farther away from the coin edge, and also how the outer radius of the field can move closer to the coin edge, as the field is abraded through polishing OR if it was not completely hubbed. Both of these effects make the edge of the "S" look farther from the rim of the coin.
This I understand.
What I'm seeing is that virtually the entire top of the "S" is further from EDGE of the coin.
From your pictures I can see how this area has been polished and this polishing would cause the S to be further from the rim but not further from the edge. If you redid the overlays holding the edge of the coin as the reference point then you'd see almost no overlap at the top of the "S". This seems to me to imply that polishing is merely a contributer to the apparent differences.
http://macrocoins.com
I like your illustration cladking. Thanks for doing the work. The whole "die thing" is something that I find interesting. Thanks again.
Yes . . .I'm loving this too.
One more thought & question.
It's apparent that these mint set coins were struck especially for these sets. Looking at the hammered strikes I'm thinking that these coins were struck with higher die pressures than the normal business strikes.
If the die had been polished on the sides, and with increased die pressures, wouldn't this cause finning?
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
I like your illustration cladking. Thanks for doing the work. The whole "die thing" is something that I find interesting. Thanks again.
Yes . . .I'm loving this too.
One more thought & question.
It's apparent that these mint set coins were struck especially for these sets. Looking at the hammered strikes I'm thinking that these coins were struck with higher die pressures than the normal business strikes.
If the die had been polished on the sides, and with increased die pressures, wouldn't this cause finning?
All the graphics are Rmpsrpms's. I've only posted a couple of pictures myself. Some of the better ones are WillBrooks'.
These coins really are special and it's easy to overlook if you haven't seen several of them. As I think I mentioned earlier I set aside about ten Gems to put in my safety deposit boxes and 30% were this "variety" (or whatever it is) but only 3% of issue is. It's vastly overrepresented in 1996-D Gems.
The extreme sharpness of strikes of mint set coins is very apparent on 1989-D cents. In the ten finest Gems for these about four will have the copper sheared right off the sides of the lettering in the word "United".
I can't imagine why people pay so little attention to mint set coins except most aren't aware that most of the finest coins made each year go intothis source. Of all the modern mint sets the 1996 is in many ways the most special of all.
I added some more annotations showing that the top of the S is farther from the edge of the coin.
The ENTIRE top of the "S" is at different distances from the edge. There is no overlap as your earlier animation suggests because the edge of the coin was not a fixed point.
The graphic above shows the top of the letter a fixed a distance from the edge but this isn't what the two different coins show.
I'm aware I'm repeating myself but the point isn't being addressed and I don't understand how any of the processes suggested so far can account for this difference. Am I wrong? I get out the calipers and see there is a large distance between ALL points of the S on one coin compared to the other.
I think it would be obvious what I mean if this same graphic were done with the edge of the coin above the "S" held as the fixed point. This is the location of the collar so no matter what happens to the die every part should be the same location from it.
Obviously the "S" would be moving if the edge were fixed. I don't see how any of the processes could account for such movement.
As such strike and die characteristics can explain it adequately to me.
I appreciate everyone's effort. It's kind of a shame the coin only looks different but it has been an interesting learning experience. I had never really been able to model the way the rim and edge form in the strike.
http://macrocoins.com
Because the edge of the coin is not a fixed reference, since the die can misalign slightly in any direction during striking, using the edge as a reference is a mistake when trying to determine a die variety.
I neglected to mention that I had first determined that other design characteristics (specifically the "C" in "CENTS") were in their normal position relative the edge of the coin. Every design element is in a fixed position relative each other and the edge or it is a variety. This is a very common technique for quickly identifying differences in token dies where differences can be subtle and exceedingly common. Obviously the rim isn't a fixed point but the edge is anytime the coins are the same size.
It would be risky trying to malke this determination from a photo because of optical effects and paralax but it should work otherwise.
I neglected to mention that I had first determined that other design characteristics (specifically the "C" in "CENTS") were in their normal position relative the edge of the coin. Every design element is in a fixed position relative each other and the edge or it is a variety. This is a very common technique for quickly identifying differences in token dies where differences can be subtle and exceedingly common. Obviously the rim isn't a fixed point but the edge is anytime the coins are the same size.
It would be risky trying to malke this determination from a photo because of optical effects and paralax but it should work otherwise.
Except that, as I already stated numerous times, since the letters are not COMPLETE, they will obviously NOT be the same distance from the rim (or even the edge which can vary from coin to coin anyway depending on whether or not the planchette is centered during the strike). I do not see why this is so hard to understand. Heck, if they were completely abraded off the die, then they would have NO distance from the edge of the coin, right? They would not be there at all! While I admire your tenacity, I cannot in good conscience just sit by while you continue to call these a variety. They aren't. What do you have to say about the 1989 I posted above with the same anomaly? You made no mention of it. Well, guess what. I have ANOTHER one for you. This time, it is a 1986 with the exact same thinning of the letters toward the periphery. This time it is on the letters ONE. How many different dies and dates must I post before you accept this for what it truly is?
You have this backwards. The rim is fixed, but the edge is not. Simple evidence of this is an off-center strike. Any reference to position of features of the die should be made vs the rim.
Remember, when we talk "die variety", we make reference to die features.
http://macrocoins.com
It looks like the appearance of the "S" being further from the edge may be a sort of optical illusion that doesn't stand up to measurement. If it really were further I have no doubt that it would be a variety.
As such strike and die characteristics can explain it adequately to me.
I appreciate everyone's effort. It's kind of a shame the coin only looks different but it has been an interesting learning experience. I had never really been able to model the way the rim and edge form in the strike.
Somehow it seems this post was misinterpreted.
I still like this thread though and hate to see any thread go bad so I have to post something.
While the coin only "looks" a whole lot different than other '96-D cents rather than actually being struck by different dies, I still do find the coin interesting based on appearances (and the learning it has provided).
One bit of learning was strongly reinforced; this is the best site on the net to discuss coins.
http://coppercoins.com/lincoln...r001&die_state=mds
Here is yet another example of a die that was over-polished yielding the exact same effect. (Except for this one is also a doubled die.)
http://coppercoins.com/lincoln...r001&die_state=mds
It does look pretty similar, doesn't it?