Do die pairs always mate for life? I'm wondering, because in finding some varieties tonight I noticed that sometimes when the reverse or obverse had all the die markers present for the given variety, the other side sometimes did not. I post this here because it seems a very pertinent question for those of us who search for varieties.
I would assume that it may differ for every type of coin, mintage figures, some probably do..but I have a mercury dime which has and obverse that the die is so deteriorated that all the lettering around the edges is very weakly struck, and there is a giant crack running up liberty's neck and cheek, and the reverse seems to still be at a fairly early die stage...letters all still sharp no fbl but still much bolder than the obverse....I cant imagine that one die would wear out so much quicker than the other...I have to assume the reverse was changed earlier in the run...Jmo
You would think that they would age at the same rate. I suppose being seperate pieces that one could take some damage though without the other being effected. The ones that I came across tonight were Lincoln Cents.
No, they are not paired "for life." I am not sure what series you are refering to but, in the early days of the mint dies were difficult to produce and often times they used the same dies for several years or until the could no longer be re-punched or repaired. Many times different obv./rev. dies were mixed and match several times and then the original pair would be re-united in the same year hence the term re-marriage. A good example is Reverse Die P, a varitable workhorse for the capped bust half dime series. This die was first used in 1831 on the LM6/V1 die marriage. The die was later used on the 1832 die marriage LM6/B11. Next this die was used to strike the prohibitively rare 1833 LM5/V10. Then it made the 1833 LM10/V1. The mint employees pulled this tired die out of the cabinet one last time (one last known time) to strike the 1835 LM1/V2.
Another example is the 1834 JR-6. When these were struck the reverse die began to form a retained cud, then another full cud, then in it's terminal die state it formed another retained cud but, the second full cud had been repaired and was then only a retained cud. One theory is that the die was taken off the press, the dislodged portion of the die(creating the full cud) was put back into place and held into place w/ some sort of wire/metal banding to extend the life.
Thanks for that answer. Makes sense. I'm referring to one a little more modern though. Lincoln Memorial Cents.
The hammer die will usually wear out or be replaced before the anvil die. I would think that most die pairs are in the several hundred thousand area. Ever find a coin with the obverse in high mint state and the reverse looking extemely mushy. The obverse die had been exchanged while the reverse keeps on coining. And yes, this can make it difficult when searching for die markers...
No. There are many cases of a die marriage lasting for a while, then one die being matched up with a different mate, then being reunited again with the original mate. There are many reasons for this. One reason : the mint stopped production of a given denomination and used the press for other denominations; in the meantime, the dies were stored away. When it came time to resume production, they didn't necessarily pull out the same dies. Sometimes, the Mint shut down entirely for yellow fever epidemics. Again, they pulled the dies and stashed 'em and pulled a different marriage when time to start up again. Another oddity of the early Mint - since silver dimes and gold $2.5s are the same diameter and have the same reverse design, the same reverse dies were sometimes used for two different denominations ! I'll let your imagination run wild on that one...
So would that produce a hybrid? Following along similar lines, are mated dies always polished at the same time? What brought these questions about is a 1969-S LMC RPM. The mint-mark looks correct, and all the die markers on the reverse are correct. However, the obverse markers aren't there...at least not for the MDS examples I'm comparing to. Could it possibly still be the same die pair with the obverse having been polished sooner than the reverse?
Die as far as I know are not paired at all - in other words Die as far as I know are not paired at all - in other words they are not manufactored that way - there is a box of obverse, a box reverse, they take one of each and start coining. Now if speaking about after they are installed if they keep the same 2 in place they do not. When one wears out they replace it and on and on. My freind J. Bordner for the Welxer files even notes that fact while attributing such as 19?? D/D RPM 100 second, third or whatever reverse.
Thanks BHP. That makes great sense noting the reverse as you said they do for Wexler. Speaking of Wexler, I might be overlooking it, but I can't find anywhere on his website that links to his variety index. Do you have a link to this?
It seems too that the older the technology the more rapidly the trussel fails relative to the pile. Some of our reenactment trussels have outlasted the pile by a factor of five using exact materials.
Many of die markers of varieties do not show up until the middle or end of the die's life. That is why identification of markers may be linked with die stages, such as EDS ( early die state) MDS ( mid ) or LDS (late). Ones that appear faintly in say MDS may be well visible or enlarged by LDS. Perhaps yours is a EDS example and not yet there or visible. Jim
S-L-M - Spread-Location-Markers. Spread - direction of doubling - north,south, etc. Location - devices which exhibit doubling Markers - Specific unique attributes of the die of which can be used for confirmation. I use a hybrid of the above S-L-L-M when possible The 2nd L is for location of mint mark when available. Location of the mint mark is a unique attribute for every mint marked working die for 1989 and before. Actually 1990 and before for most series.
Jim, That's just it. My reverse matches perfectly to the MDS markers, but the obverse doesn't. However, the mint mark appears correct. My question is this: Could the obverse have been polished before the reverse? This could have altered the look of the obverse.
