Die Clashes; ram adjustment wrong, hammer and/or anvil zero points moved OR

It is all about Z. However, when somebody asserts a coin cannot be a die clash because the impression is incuse and not high relief.......... and generally goes on to assert it is a vice job, well.

It should be quite evident by reading what has been posted here and other places, much confusion exists.

If you were to take a poll and ask if die clash coins present reversed mirror images of everything, including the alpha-numerics, I suspect you'd be surprised how divided the results would be. And they can only be one way or the other, always.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The "single squeeze method" refers to the making of the dies themselves not the coins struck by the dies. The only coins intentionally struck multiple times by dies are proof coins.

 

Ya reckon if the setup man places the dies in the press and misses the die height by a few thou before spinning it through, that would cause die clash coins just like several other errors that could occur during high-speed operation?

Take a look at several die clash coins and it will dawn on you that how a few here and there weren't made with one strike. More like somebody at the mint intentionally goofing off and possibly in the name of testing installed and set die heights.

Thanks for the schooling and clarification.

 

No schooling intended at all , that's not me , never has been , just clarification.

 

The multiple photo example photo is of my recent 1983 find, the single photo is of a 1986, not mine, so yes, multiple strikes are known. This much I knew.

 

And what happened to your "candor"?

 

That is nice for sure. Certainly not a clash deep enough to get into the high relief although the multiple bays make one wonder how many times it or the dies were hit.

Does another like it exist?

It does appear to present like a vice-job except that one thing required in the form of a deep enough clash, full depth Z-interference, which would likely destroy both dies if it happened.

 

Yes, there are others like it. I've seen a couple pass by on Ebay. This was not a discovery piece for me therefore. I'm sending mine out to Bob Neff for an accurate attribution to make sure I did not make any mistakes on ID. A couple of nights ago I broke a new roll of 1959P Lincolns and found a dozen with a single but very noticeable bay clash under the chin. My 83 is doubled on the obverse but I believe the 86, not mine, is tripled.

 

I could see the setup man giving it a full speed test run and off just a bit with the dies getting smacked several times before he could power off. Then get them set right before the foreman came around wondering why the hopper wasn't full of pennies.

500-700 blows a minute, yeah, that could happen.

But it appears almost like a die had to be loose since it smacked it in several locations. I hope those guys were safety glasses at least. Awesome coin and great find.

 

Rather than "multi-strikes," what do you think about calling that characteristic "multi-clashes" as we all should know they occur when there are multiple times the dies touched w/o a planchet.

This is getting very confusing . Die clashes occur with one cycle of the press where some abnormality (whatever you said X,Y,Z) which I hoped "we" were trying to find out, causes the dies to touch one time. This will produce similar coins having the single clash. If the dies (that are clashed once already) touch again w/o a planchet another additional clash will appear on the next coins struck. On and on, and on untilt the dies break or are removed and refinished.

In post#21, Ordinary Fool questioned my post and wrote: "It is all about Z."
I'll buy that. "However, when somebody asserts a coin cannot be a die clash because the impression is incuse and not high relief.......... and generally goes on to assert it is a vice job, well." Well what? Die clashes can be both raised or incuse. I someone questions this think about what a clash would look like in this example: If the reverse banner on a Barber half (the banner is raised with incuse letters) was transferred to the obverse by a clash. What would it look like?

"It should be quite evident by reading what has been posted here and other places, much confusion exists. If you were to take a poll and ask if die clash coins present reversed mirror images of everything, including the alpha-numerics, I suspect you'd be surprised how divided the results would be. And they can only be one way or the other, always."

No poll necessary. Nothing posted on CT surprises me. Read just about any thread and it proves your point. This thread has become very confusing because many of us have never had any basic numismatic instruction.

So far, the OP has taught me that something in the vertical distance (Z?) of the dies causes clashes. What about the momentum of the dies? Hummm.

 

O M G I can see it now: The mint engraving shop sends out two perfect dies and the press operator smacks them together a few times! No NO NO!

This is better than SNL

 

Here are two of my coins that exhibit multiple clash events. Multiple strikes are a different beast and not directly related to a clash event.
attachment-21 by stoneman227, on Flickr
1971-d dime clash obv by stoneman227, on Flickr
1971-d dime clash rev_edited-1 by stoneman227, on Flickr
Again let me say that a multiple strike is not the same as a multiple clash event.

 

Excellent, you have made my head hang in shame for all the fun I was having at another's expense. I wish I had just posted your words above.

Now can someone tell me what part of the process causes dies to clash?

 

It is Z, the vertical axis, X and Y would be on the horizontal plane and relate to centering.

Take a peek at Tommy's penny that had at least two die clash strikes (looks like three to me and none of them struck the same place) and see what you think about the speculation about what caused his penny and others just like it.

High speed production failures as in a die came loose and was propped up by some thick sliver for the anvil die (unlikely) or the momentum swinging a loose hammer die home and beyond, OR a rod journal/bearing letting go would produce distinct errors prior to a feed malfunction resulting in a blank striking chamber and then the dies clashing... and the feeding/striking resumed.

I'd say it would make distinctively different noise although every press room I've been in has been so noisy that ear protection was a must.

You'd have to be pretty tuned in to feel it. At one time I kept up service/repairs on a huge 500-ton hydraulic press and you could feel in stroke out a massive part from over 100 feet away despite it being much quieter than a high speed 15-ton mechanical unit.

To make a vice coin appear exactly like a die clash, the die coin would need some relief. But, they both present the same way with respect to what is mirrored.

 

How do multiple stike events result in the opposing images ending up where they are not intended to be without any die clashing?

 

Not sure I totally understand your question but a multiple strike, in collar, of a planchet where the coin does not flip between strikes but rotates to some degree will show two properly oriented designs from the same die . Were the planche to flip between strikes then the coin would exhibit a properly oriented design from the obverse and reverse on each side. The strength of what remains of the initial stike will of course be less than the final strike.

 

What may be throwing you off are counter clashes . The 83 cent above to be an example.
The first clash event impressed the designs from each die into its opposite . When the second event happened there was a lateral shift of one or both of the dies so that the second impression was staggered. At the time of the second event there was an impression of the opposite die in each die and this would be transferred back to the original die creating a partial doubling of the design to be seen in coins struck thereafter .

 

I can't speak to the physics of what happens when there is no planchet between the dies during a strike but comparing the large number of clashes that can be found on dimes that have the thinnest planchets opposed to other denominations says a great deal about the razor thin tolerances that are being delt with.

 

Ok so I've read multiple strike events are not die clashes even though die clashes are involved. Nomenclature, fine.

So one or both of the dies were loose and the die height was incorrect for potentially that (die kicked off vertical and therefore Z moved) and/or other reasons.

Sounds like it would be a fun job to get to leave stuff loose and beat the bejeezus out of it just to watch people guess how it happened.

How is the penny you posted different than the one Tommy posted? They both appear to me to have happened basically the same way.

 

It happens! I've seen some huge expensive dies crashed by a faulty die set up crew.