Abe surfs the bays

Danka. But we still need some pull from the team.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Fer crying out loud, it's not a DDR.

 

Fer crying out loud,

What the hell is it???

 

Either a misaligned die clash, or, more likely, some die damage.

 

please back it up rather than throwing out supposition. You shouldn't be dismissing coins or proffers without sound explanation. Can you show an overlay to make that misaligned clash a reality? (or even a possibility) Your speculation doesn't help any part of this, not my learning nor the spectators. If you have the actual answer I'd love to hear it, but useless conjecture is of no use.


Now lets talk die damage. Things like cuds, cracks, etc I have understood. Do tell what die damage does this?

 

Die damage: things like die gouges, die dents, etc. Damage done to the die by a tool. This results in a raised anomaly on the coin.
I don't see an overlay showing how this can be a DDR, AWORDCREATED, so why dismiss my opinion based on the fact that I don't have an overlay?

I try to provide info so that newbies can read this thread and realize what the original coin has. But frankly, seeing as how every opinion I present (most with factual evidence) seems to be met with opposition by one person and one person only, YOU, I get discouraged from posting info that people can actually use and understand. So maybe I'll just stop commenting on your threads altogether and let you believe that you have whatever you want. I'm sure my opinions are better suited for threads where I'm not being passively-aggressively insulted.

 

Might I refer you to post 23 regards the DDR correlation. Do you not see it????

Your opinions are NOT 'factual evidence', nor even evidence. I understand that you are young an inexperienced, and do not fault you for any of that. I like you. I appreciate that you try to help noobs (like me - to coins - but any whoo) but in that position you MUST strive to be factually correct and logically sound.

Keep up the good work, but realize you need to take the time to get it right for sure or you might do more damage than good. Being able to over come logical fallacies and having a grasp of the queens English can be powerful tools to add to your panoply.

 

Post 23 is not an overlay, it is a single image rotated upside down with a box in it. An overlay is 2 overlapping images, one of which is transparent. Hence the word OVERLAY, as in one image laying over another...
And again, unsurprisingly, you resort to more passive-aggressive attacks. What gives? I would hardly call myself an expert, but I would also not call myself inexperienced, and I'm sure many will agree with me on that.

I'll leave you with this: be respectful in your posts, and you will get a respectful reply. For now, I think I will utilize my "ignore" feature for the first time, as seeing threads like this show up every morning in my new posts list is disheartening, and these seem to be the only ones in which I get into fights, which are not beneficial to either the OP or the forum in general. So I bid you farewell, may all your coins be rare errors in your eyes.

 

"Post 23 is not an overlay" Which is why in post 31 I asked for help with overlays. It is not that much of a brain strain to see where they line up without all the magic being done, is it? Well I suppose it may depend on how neural synapses have been developed under various technologies over the decades. I know some recent kids that wanna puke when they see old cartoon style slow frames. Imagine the audacity of not being able to see the superposition outright - but then would you also argue against it if it were 'overlain" for your viewing simplicity?

Of us 2 you are THE young technologist. Just do it ORKWITCHYERBITCHIN.

Keep it about the coins, and if you don't preface it with weasel words, be for sure certain about it, and you should have no problems. I do not dislike you, but you go off half cocked at times, which in it self is not a problem, but then you get all personally offended when challenged about it. That doesn't bother me either, but I would prefer to not be seen as a bad guy on any of this.

Go forth with thick skin, that ability wards off aging

 

Both of you check your PM ( conversations) in a few minutes.

 

Many dies means hub variety at least. I went through a jar of 1973 cents. Findings: so far only the Denver MM has the bulge over in the left bays extending out of the monument. About 20% of the denvers show this feature in some easily recognizeable form. There is another population that has just the upper part of bay 2 raised to obviate that soffet feature ( or whatever that is called across the top of a bay). That must represent an early stage in the evolution of this variety. There must be many dies with this issue if my population of coins is a normal statistically represntative one. So the bulge part happened further back in the process perhaps on a working hub, or master die, or the master hub itself eventually pooped out which would explain why RDV-003 with those gynormous initials was used for only one year.

Only the original ABE coin also has the surfboard, which must be some additional situation on one of the bulged coin dies. Then the surf board part becomes an independant anomoly on one of the many anomolus dies, and is much easier to attribute if that feature doesn't have to be tied to the buldge feature which is on many dies.

Look at your 73 D cents. I bet you all have some with the bulge, assuming you have a large enough population.

 

I have recently come across more bulged 73d's, sans surf board. I'd like some help regards probable die hub population numbers which might help narrow down the bulge origin. Combining that sort of distribution with the information that 3,549,576,588 - 73d's were squished, and the apparent % of bulges in the population might narrow things down.

So about how many dies to make 3.5B coins? Average die life span?

How many working hubs to make that many dies? Ave ...

How many master dies to make that many WH? "

How many master hubs, only 1?

Thank you