Thread: My New Franklins

Well, got some new Franklins. I didn't want to post in the "Post a Frankie" thread for fear I may have already posted too much in there already. I would hate to overstep and hog the thread just to show off what coins I do have. Considering, I thought I would create a new coin thread of my own.

Secondly, I applaud those who can take pictures. I tried so hard to get the tone/luster/detail with a head on view. I don't think I did too badly, but definately room for improvement. I applaud the great photographers out there.

Now, without further delay:

Nice - I like the middle one the best, seems to show the most luster in the pictures. But all of them are nice. Nice additions.

Gotta love those Franklins. Nice pieces you have there.

Looks like the 60-D has a die clash under the bell to the right. And the 57-D either has an RPM or MD, probably MD because E.P.U. looks a little funky. Nice pic-up...

Originally Posted by dimeguy

Secondly, I applaud those who can take pictures. I tried so hard to get the tone/luster/detail with a head on view. I don't think I did too badly, but definately room for improvement. I applaud the great photographers out there.

Don't feel bad! Everyone on the NGC forums knows that a 5-year old with a disposable camera can take better pics than me.

Chris

Originally Posted by abe

Looks like the 60-D has a die clash under the bell to the right. And the 57-D either has an RPM or MD, probably MD because E.P.U. looks a little funky. Nice pic-up...

Thanks everyone for the kind words regarding the new family members. Now, I was wondering if Abe (or anyone else who is willing to answer) would enlighten me to RPM vs. MD. To facilitate the matter, please allow me to tell you what I know and correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm correct, RPMs generally occurs when a mint worker repunches a mint mark in not the quite same position on the original die. This creates what I like to say is a sort of shadowing on the mint mark. The mink mark doesn't appear as clearly struck and seems to sort of blend in the surrounding field, yes? Now MD, I'm assuming is mint doubling (although could be mint damage as I've heard and read both terms)? Basically same characteristic shadowing affect as the rpm but in a localized area as a result of the die not striking quite the same area twice? Here is were I get confused...why would they strike a coin twice if not a proof issue? Maybe because the dies in the late 50's were weaker and a second die strike as needed for the same desired detail? Also, how can one portion of the die be slightly misaligned, while the other portions are not? In essence, how does one not create a complete DDR in such a scenerio?

Now, I may be completely wrong, and sort of hoping I am so that I can learn something new. At least I did spot the die clash on the '60 D before buying! Please forgive my confusion as I don't collect the rpms, clashes and such as they are in my eyes considered more errors than varieties. Below are cropped and enlarged pictures of the EPU and the mintmark. I attempted to get a pic through the loupe but I find I can't steady a camera with one hand. Thanks again for all your help,

dimeguy



Now here I can definately see a difference as compared to the '60D I posted. The D is more filled in the center and it seems to have that shadow I have been talking about, especially on the far left of the D.



I'm not sure what Abe was looking at here. I'm guessing if anything looks suspicious it would be the far right leg of the M as it seems to make more of an acute angle to the middle of the M as compared to my other coins. Still, this is only a guess.

Originally Posted by dimeguy

Now MD, I'm assuming is mint doubling (although could be mint damage as I've heard and read both terms)?

It is known as machine doubling, mechanical doubling or strike doubling. These terms are synonymous.

Here is were I get confused...why would they strike a coin twice if not a proof issue?

They aren't striking the coin twice. Machine doubling is caused when the die loosens in the collar that is holding it in place. As it retracts from the coining chamber, the back-and-forth movement of the die from the vibrating machinery causes it to make a secondary impression.

Now, I may be completely wrong, and sort of hoping I am so that I can learn something new. At least I did spot the die clash on the '60 D before buying! Please forgive my confusion as I don't collect the rpms, clashes and

dimeguy



It's difficult for me to tell from your photo, but it looks like machine doubling.

Chris

Thanks, Chris, for the reply. Shortly after I posted the last reply I went to the "Past TOTW" post and found this gem about machine doubling vs. doubled die:

Machine Doubling

Definately owe Treashunt a big thank you for that thread!