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

should the dies clash every time if there is no planchet between them?

I do not believe that with the ram correctly adjusted to dies correctly set in their zero Z position, that the dies should or would clash merely because no planchet was between them.

I believe the hammer or anvil dies can possibly move out of their correct Z set point or the ram adjustment could move. If the ram journal/bearing wore, that could clash the dies if all else was good. Same for the crank's main bearing/journals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ordinary Fool posted: "Should the dies clash every time if there is no planchet between them?"

I understand the question.

I do not believe that with the ram correctly adjusted to dies correctly set in their zero Z position, that the dies should or would clash merely because no planchet was between them.

I believe the hammer or anvil dies can possibly move out of their correct Z set point or the ram adjustment could move. If the ram journal/bearing wore, that could clash the dies if all else was good. Same for the crank's main bearing/journals."

Could you please explain hammer & anvil dies, Z set, ram journal, crank bearing, etc? Thanks!

 

Thank you for your candor. I suspect many have no idea how a simple mechanical press actually operates when presenting in authoritative manners relative to this topic and others.

I'll see if I can find a good animation that speaks clearly to a general lacking of knowledge in this area. If I am unable to find a basic tutorial on the subject, I'll draw one up as soon as I have the time. Animating such a production, wouldn't be my strong point.

In the meantime, I'll offer that Z designates the vertical axis relative to the Cartesian Coordinate system.

The ram adjustment requires there be a very strict adjustment of how close the hammer (obverse) die comes to the anvil (reverse) die to happily strike coins. The ram adjustment is not set so that the two dies strike each other. This only happens due to the conditions stated although, there could be other possible causes.

I am saying, a die clash does not occur with a properly set up press just because no planchet is between the two dies. There would be no striking impact unless there was a mechanical problem.

The ram (connecting rod which happens to have an adjustable length) swings on a crankshaft on a mechanical press. Wear or misadjustment of the rod, its bearings or that of the crank can cause the Z zero set point to be wrong and result in a clash.

Now I'll gladly stand corrected if wrong.

 

around 1 minute in, note the hex adjuster in the connecting rod/ram.

That is used to set the "die height" in the Z axis.

A failure at this point can result in the dies clashing.

How do the coins look just prior to the inevitable catastrophic failure as compared to those produced after the dies clash on an empty striking chamber?

 

I don't know. I think it's an interesting question. Maybe a good one for @dcarr ?

 

Much respect for the candor guys and it seems rare for many people to admit they do not know.

By the way, the last of several questions I've posed is definitely a tricky question and highly unlikely that anyone lacking understanding and experience will be able to answer.

 

Interesting write up. So is this how a major counter clash occurs? With a total or near total failure and the two dies hitting each other? Thanks. Tom

 

I am unable to deduce any other ways. Can a coin flip and be stricken as such? It appears that too has occurred if by unintended production mishap or somebody goofing off........

Do you think a die clash presents as a vice job or the exact opposite?

 

All of the clashed coins I have found, were found in circulation. Only recently did I find a major counter clash, a 1983 003. My best guess is your explanation. They do not present as vice coins as only the higher details, bust and pillars appear on these, as opposed to backward lettering on vice coins.

 

I may require some animated 3-D visual graphics to explain to me what I think I know about that. I am hoping I am not still high from toking one many years ago, but, I cannot grasp the idea per your complete explanation.

I agree on the high points. Do you assert the high points present as incused, or high relief on the side they aren't supposed to be?

A vice job presents the high points that aren't supposed to be there as incuse on the opposite side they aren't supposed to be.

Let's get passed this point before I get schooled on reverse or mirrored alpha-numeric characters.

 

The elements of the clash are raised or high relief, not incused. That's what made your explanation plausible to me but not of a total failure. I would suspect a total failure would mash the coin, distort it out of proportion. So there still has to be some tolerance left if I am correct? I would think a total failure would ring some bells and whistles fairly quickly with two dies hitting each other. I'm treading lightly here because my knowledge is limited on all of this. Flip over strikes are another beast altogether and when a coin gets stuck and the next one in the chamber dislodges it. (Or not) and then multiple strikes are possible.

 

Think real hard about this because I am going to say it boldly.........

the only way the reverse of a coin will present as a properly stuck obverse, is for it to be flipped over and properly struck.

The classic "die clash" or die kiss when the opposing dies kiss each other, presents exactly like a vice job, because that is pretty much what happens.

Think about how die clashed dies are repaired.

The high relief, that would present as incuse on the wrong side, is removed by filing, grinding or other abrasive methods.

I'd go further and suggest in the event the clash was much more than a kiss, both dies would likely be rendered useless.

That's pretty bold, huh?

Think about it real hard.

An aside, one of the most brilliant cad monkeys and master machinists I know has a brain not wired normally at all. Completely dyslexic and cannot spell even three or four letter words. Yet, he drew and set up five-axis stuff churned out on multi-million dollar gantries, for Boeing making the huge money.

He can sketch out a 5+ axis drawing faster than most people can render a few cocktail napkin 2-D perspectives. What I am saying, is not every gifted person is gifted in the area of spatial relationships.

I certainly remain quite willing to stand corrected upon being shown.

 

I can't really speak about the original question because it is very field specific. I'm not a masher- if things start getting squished there's usually smoke involved.

However, I can try to explain the differences between a vice job and a clash. A vice job is merely the impression of a coin pressed into another coin. Thus the relief is incuse. On a clashed die, the relief is pressed into the opposite die. Thus the relief on the die is incuse. The die then transfers this effect to the coin causing the effect on the coin to be high relief (similar to the coins features / mirrored / wrong side of the coin).

edit to add: it's important to note that on clashes it's actually the low points that get transferred first since they are the high point on the actual die... I'm just going to find a good visual.

 

So are you saying a "die clash" coin would have the alpha-numeric characters mirrored or reversed?

I agree that the lowest parts of the relief (closest to Z,0 the center of the coin's thickness for reference) are transferred to the opposing die during a kiss. Also that the areas of transfer would be the highest points of the opposing die referenced to Z,0.

The die kiss attempts to properly stamp, the opposing sides' minted reliefs on the dies opposing each other.

Consider rethinking this and a vice job?

 

You can reference Z,0(a) in several different ways. Anvil or reverse die's lower-most point could be Z,0. If so, the center of the coin would be Z,1/2(a) coin's thickness, with the moving hammer die's "zero point" being Z,1(a).

Or the integers can be negative and positive except for zero, of course.

Or they can all be negative integers, even zero. It just depends on where you reference your zero datum point and set it.

For example, if the center of the planchet is Z,0(a), the thickest point of the coin's reverse (be it the rim or it's most raised relief) would be Z,-1/2(a).

Conversely, the obverse's same would be Z,1/2(a).

a= the overall thickness in whatever units of measure are referenced to the dimensions taken from the blueprint.

 

http://www.maddieclashes.com/ has excellent overlays for typical clashes:


I found an example of a standard vice job on an ealier cointalk thread:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-must-see-error-dime-any-thoughts.283278/





Here is an example of a strongly clashed Roosevelt dime borrowed from Robecsimages, http://www.robecsimages.com/LVT.html :

 

Notice reversed alpha-numeric characters?

I'll go further and assert that some "die clash" error coins presented as such are only possible if their multiple strikes are done with dies in progression.

Even further yet again, some that are presented as "die clash" error coins clearly had to be flipped and stricken since some have no reversed or mirrored characters and what is high relief on the proper side also presents as high relief on the improper side.

Again, how is a true die clash distinguishable, via mere photographs, from a vice job? How is it different than a coin that has been flipped over and stricken with its opposing counter die?

I am sure I have read several here inform a person that their coin was a vice job and not a die clash because the characters were inverted.

Just something to think about if taxing your brain is something that doesn't hurt too badly. It's work.

 

Pretty sure what you've seen people say here is "that's a vice job, not a multiple strike or double-denomination (cent struck on dime, etc.)". The latter two don't have inverted characters.

 

The latter two aren't relevant to the subject of die clashes as opposed to vice jobs. Also, until the single squeeze method was adopted, these coins were stricken with multiple strikes.

Were they multiple strikes from the same die set or single strikes via dies in progression?

Thanks

 

IMHO, this thread has gone off into the weeds. All sorts of errors have been added. Die clashes are straight forward. They look a certain way. That's because the clash happens to the DIE and is transferred to the coin. Squeeze jobs are all wrong (unless you were to squeeze a counterfeit die into a coin) because two coins are used. Hopefully, we can return to the OP and try to determine why the dies became clashed in the first place.

BTW, the impressed design of a genuine die clash can appear either raised or incuse into the coin struck by a die that was clashed. That's another thing to think about.