I know there is a die clash, and on the bottom picture I pointed out a mis. clash too. do you see it?
#2-- look at this spot on the top picture , seems like you can get a better look. there are 3 lines going north and south. I can see it better with the coin in hand, but it is there.
You are correct that the rectangular area below the ear is from a clash (with a memorial bay). The beard detail is hard to say, the picture is too small to tell, but I am inclined to think it is just a normal part of the design that varies from one hubbing to another. There are some MAD clashes that were erroneously listed as a Doubled Die, billed as "Extra Beard" before it was determined they weren't DDOs. I would be surprised if one coin had a two visible clashes, one with normal alignment and another mislaigned but anything is possible.
Here's a photo collage of three coins, maybe it will help with future diagnoses in the beard/ear area... There's a 2000 MAD clash (extra beard); a 2008 CDDO-002 with doubled beard details; and a 2008 with a mild double die-clash below the ear:
I alwasy thought the term "mad clash" reffered to the 1983 I alwasy thought the term "mad clash" reffered to the 1983-P listed in Wexler's Authoritive Reference as LCCLO-001 where it was so extreme that is was thought to be caused by a mint employee fooling around because it was almost "to hard to understand" how it might happen???
The one I'm talking about is different that the extra letter The one I'm talking about is different that the extra letters - that one is fairly common the "mad clash" is extremely rare.
I guess a "MAD Clash" does refer to any misalligned die I guess a "MAD Clash" does refer to any misaligned die but don't they have to be rather exteme or way out of mint tolerance to be valuble in the error/variety market???
I believe that John Wexler initially thought the '83P LCCLO-001 was a product of two obverse dies having a MAD clash - and that could only happen if a Mint employee was fooling around with a press. I think it might have been Ken Potter (or someone else I hope I am not offending) that realized the two '83Ps with extra letters were in fact the product of a Counter Clash. The CPG lists LCCLO-001 as FS 035.3 and it displays a CUD (LC-83-46R). My guess was that this die struck very few coins after being damaged whereas LCCLO-002 struck far more.
if you look close at my first picture, you can see the lines that jcuve"s first picture shows, just down the neck a little further, i circled the wrong spot on the second pic. my circle goes right through the middle of the mis. clash--thanks--BILL-- you can zoom on both to get a closer look
Being that there was definitely a clash, which resulted in the bay mark below the ear, it is easy to assume that any extra marks near the beard are too also part of that same clash. An overlay of the reverse over the obverse, lined up to meet the existing mark below the ear, is needed to determine what part hit the beard.
I hope Im not beating this to death, but I made another picture of what I think is a mis. clash for you to take another closer look. the arrows point to what I think is the clash. did this change anybodys mind? thanks for all your help-- the picture can zoom in, and you can see the lines going north and south--thanks for all your help--BILL
You have the coin, and you're probably right about there being clash marks at that spot, but beyond that, like determining what part of the reverse die made contact with the area in question, I would need much larger clearer pics (preferably from a scope). Maybe someone else can figure it out?
