Floating Die Clash

I certainly don't have this coin in hand but was wondering . Other than being in a mint set , what separates these marks from reeding damage in other coins. I placed a piece of paper on the monitor and marked the crowns of the reeds on your coin then used these marks to check the spacing on the anomaly. The spacing was the same

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well that's funny as each of the images
Were photographed under a USB scope making each image different in size and magnification. So how did you determine what was what?

 

When a collar breaks and clashes onto a die, what was a positive structure on the collar becomes a dent, a negative structure on the die. On a collar, the positive is the spaces between reeding, and metal flows into the negative part to form the actual reeding. The marks on Paddy's coin are the broader shape of the curved spacing, not the narrower shape of the flattened reeding itself. Reeding hits would "dent" the coin with the shape of the reeding. That's why I think (at the moment, from these pics) it's a clash from a piece of broken collar.

 

Oh my, I used your second image which showes both the anomaly and the reeding in the same image

 

The OP's second photo seemed to have a highlight and shadow side that looked appropriate for the metal to be pushed up from a hit.
Perhaps I am antagonising those on this post which was not my intention . I will be watching and hope this turns out well for the OP

 

I can't tell from the photos if the row of U-shaped defects represents post-strike damage or damage to the die. If the latter, it could be damage from a piece of a broken collar that arrived from elsewhere. I'd have to examine it under a microscope. As far as letters go, I see nothing.

 

I, for one, don't feel you're being antagonistic.

Let's look closer at the third image. There are just the positives - the "dents" into the die - from the collar hit; the fields are still normal, showing striations, in the areas where a reeding hit should have pushed metal.

Edit to add: Look at the 4th pic. Lighting is obviously from the viewer's left; that's why the back of the head shows shadow. Were the lighting from the other direction, there would be highlighting there, not shadow.

Now, the defect we're talking about is lit to the left in that image, and shadowed to the right. This proves that it's raised from the surface of the coin - just like the devices - rather than depressed into it. If it were a depression, the far side would be lit and the near side in shadow - the sides towards and facing away from the light. In combination with my previous mention of the fields being untouched inside the curve of the feature, it seems plain (to me) that it would be difficult to assign a PMD explanation to what we're looking at.

 

Can you see the inverted 6 or 9 in this image?

 

Well Mike we are only talking a silver Roosevelt dime here ,if you like I be more than happy to ship it to you. That way you can see for yourself first hand .

 

I had to post it Mike ....

 

Very Good points SD !

 

If you PM me, I'll give you my mailing address.

 

Cool beans

 

I have seen similar on coins in hand and they were in fact caused by the sealing machine like the one pictured early in this thread. Keep us informed Mike when you see it in hand.

 

It is also a 1957 dime. These were just coins pulled from the regular coinage production. no special handling, no special treatment, as mentioned even shipped in bags. Then put in cardboard holders not cellophane. I'm thinking just reeding marks from another coin.