I've had this medal for several years, and even though I've posted full images of it, I've never posted close-ups of a couple of filled die chips that are on it. Are they really die chips or a hidden message the designer, Ray Pelletier, wanted to convey? Why do these two die chips look almost identical? Why are they in these two "E" and not the others? Did Mr. Pelletier have some sinister message in mind? Chris
You're right they are extremely uniform. I haven't noticed die chips on any of mine. I'll have to look. I bought a $30.00 mono microscope from eBay but it doesn't capture images anywhere near the quality of yours.:rollling: mike
those are simple die chips just like the ones that made the BIE errors on the linclon cents in the 40's and 50's. just a sign of a die that is wearing out. Richard
Yep, you're right! There were thousands upon thousands of those pennies struck, and there were maybe a few hundred of these medals struck. Yeah, it's just like it alright! Chris
The reasons they were caused are the same. The designer did not leave enough space between the engraved areas and the small raised section of metal chipped off. You may disagree with what I am saying but to dismiss it scarcastically may make you look like the fool in the end. It couldn't be that the dies in tokens are often made of inferior metals because they aren't expected to produce more than a few hundred, It must be some sinister message from the designer!! Which one sounds more foolish?
What did people do before emoticons were invented? .....and despite the fact that the dies failed in both cases, it has no bearing how many coins or medals were struck. Right? I guess that puts the 1878 8TF VAM-9 in the same category as the BIE's and this medal. While we're at it, why do some people prefer Beemers over Fords. They're all just plastic, metal and rubber. Chris
I did not make comments about the rareness, value or even if I liked the medal because that is not what you asked. You asked about the die chips and that is all I addressed. Since you brought up the VAM subject, fifty years ago the cataloged all the BIE errors and people actively collected them, now they have virtually no market because people realised they were just the result of die wear. I wonder where the VAM values will be fifty years from now.
My questions were intended to be "tongue-in-cheek", hence the comment about the emoticons which makes it apparent that some people can't grasp the gist of a comment without them. Had I chose to use them, would you have answered differently? What did people do 50 years ago when all they had was paper & pen? The fact that you made it seem as though these are common everyday occurrences with your reference to the BIE's (How many of these were struck?) failed to address the fact that, unlike the BIE's, there were very, very few of these medals struck. As a matter of fact, another member posted a link to an identical medal that was engraved some three years later in 1967, and it doesn't have any die chips at all. Could it be that the original die failed earlier than expected and they had to make a new one? How many medals do you suppose were struck on that original die? Yes, I brought up the VAM-9, specifically, unlike you who made just a generalized statement about all VAM's (?) because those dies failed after striking only 300+ Morgan dollars. (NOTE: Some accounts put the number at 303, but 341 have been attributed.) In case you didn't know, the VAM-9 was discovered in 1966, but the coin has been around 133 years unlikie the BIE's that were produced in the 40's & 50's. By the way, two Presentation Pieces of the VAM-9, an ANACS MS62 and an ANACS MS64, were sold by Heritage from the Leroy Van Allen Collection in 2008 for $11,494 and $19,500 respectively. You can call me a fool and you can call my comments foolish, but the fact that you have chosen to comment negatively with only half-truths borders on ridiculous. Chris
Where did I state half truths? I merely stated that the die chips that occured on the medal happened the same way as the BIE errors. I drew a parallel between the chips and how they happened, I said nothing about potential rarity. Instead of looking at that fact you decided to ridicule my comments based on rarity rather than the fact that they are indeed formed the same way. My statement about VAM's was just an observation and speculation about the future of VAM's in general. As far as the number of coins attributed to a die that failed 133 years ago, that would be total speculation. How many were melted down, removed from circulation, lost, or othewrwise damaged before people knew to look for them? I own a 1983 DDR lincoln cent. Only three are known to exist but I would never make the assumption that there were only 3 minted. Once again, please tell me wher my "half truths" were?
If you can't make cents of it, then trust me, I won't ask a penny for your thoughts. Your comments, without "looking at both sides of the coin" were unnecessary and centsless. You needn't bother responding, because I won't waste my time with your garbage. Chris
I will respond anyway. I merely answered that they were common die chips and that is when you decided to go all sarcastic. Whether you like it or not my comparison was accurate. time for you to grow up. You still haven't pointed out any "half truths" If you are going to accuse please back it up with something.