Die Adjustment Strike, Roosevelt Dime

I bought this dime because it had great eye appeal for a die adjustment strike - the devices are strong but they look like they're fading in (or out) of the fog. And the price was right. Errors aren't my collecting niche, so I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars.

But I'm curious as to why die adjustment strikes are considered errors at all. They are intentionally made to calibrate the correct striking force. How is that an error? Or do you guys use the term differently?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thats interesting, we had a thread on this a while back.
One thing that Mike Diamond has written about is that Die adjustment Strike should in most cases be eliminated.
Weak strikes can happen well past the adjustment time period. They also can get progressively weaker or stronger depending on the type of mechanical malfunction.

 

The error is that it was allowed to escape the US Mint. Like the Blank Planchets.

 

That's why I bought one certified. I trust NGC to know the difference between an adjustment strike and merely a weak strike, or a strike-through. Or are you suggesting NGC could be wrong? That it's a mechanical failure weak strike that came after the adjustment strikes?

 

IMHO I'm not to sure about the attribution given by NGC.

Maybe @Fred Weinberg or @mikediamond and @JCro57 can chime in.

I have a NGC attributed elliptical planchet Mint Error that was determined by Fred Weinberg that it is not.

 

This is the kind of thread I really enjoy! A real learning event for me! Thanks for posting this one!!! Anxious to read more comments!

 

I don't think it is a DAS
Is there any reeding on the edge?

 

I agree with @paddyman98. They are supposed to be destroyed and never make it to circulation, so a Mint (QC) error.

 

I don't have it in hand yet. I'll let you know when it arrives. Educate me as to what difference the reeding makes...

 

I'm surprised at some prices they sell for to me it basically looks like a duplicate intense grease filled die strike or a ground down coin,not really exciting.

 

I agree. I looked at a lot of certified die adjustment strikes, and there's an abundance of coins that only a mother could love priced at three or four Franklins and higher.

 

A Die Adjustment is necessary to get the machine to produce the correct images on the planchet. After several attempts, as each one improves, it should be ready for production of the coins.

And as @paddyman98 said, they are not supposed to leave the mint. Today they should be destroyed by waffling the coin but even the waffles seem to get out of the mint.

 

When I first saw the coin, I was thinking the same way a little. If this were ground down there would be copper core visible and it wouldn't have an upset rim.

 

I not sure if there is a good way to determine the difference between a weak strike and die adjustment. I would expect both to have the same characteristics.

During the strike, the planchet expands slightly into the collar and the reeding is formed. Weak/missing reeding indicates a weak strike. Strong reeding would indicate another error such as a debris filled die or possibly abrasive damage.

If anyone is interested, here is the error-ref entry
https://www.error-ref.com/weak_strikesinsufficientrampressure/

 

That's correct. If the ram hasn't been locked down, it could back off and begin to produce 'weak strikes'.

 

Typically during the setup, there will be scrap parts (coins) produced. Once the tools and equipment are dialed in, the press will be run for a bit to warm up the equipment. Then parts are pulled for QC checks and a signoff to run. Anything run before the signoff are considered setup and scrapped. If these are mistakenly mixed in with the production run, 'escapes' like this will happen. Fun for us collectors.

 

"Weak strike" is much more appropriate.

There is no way of knowing if it was created due to an actual trial. I imagine at some point the machine is stopped for maintenance or has to stop for some unscheduled reason. The stoppage is not instantaneous, so the pressure gets weaker and weaker for the strikes until it does stop.

 

So apparently the term 'die adjustment strike" either needs to be cast aside or reinvented. If we can't know that a weak strike was created by an actual trial (as the same effect can be rendered by mechanical failure or maintenance) then simply calling the error a weak strike is sufficient, as @JCro57 suggests. It's a weak strike of uncertain origin.

OR...regardless whether the weakly struck coin was produced by a trial, or mechanical failure, or maintenance, in all of those cases the striking pressure had to be adjusted (or readjusted), in order for normal operations to continue, and therefore the term DOS can still be used. The definition is broadened to include a larger category of weak strikes.

 

Here is NGC's definition...

Die Adjustment Strike: Also known as a die trial, this error occurs when a coin is struck from the press with very little pressure. When the press is being set up and adjusted, extremely weak strikes can occur as part of the process of optimizing the strike pressure. Coins struck in this process are typically destroyed and are rarely found in circulation.

 

Die adjustments happen during setup, so any weak strikes may be labeled that way. A weak strike, due to things changing under operation, occur after setup (e.g., the ram wasn't locked down or tight enough and was able to back off). The question is if there is something that might be assignable to one type of weak strike over the other. I would guess that minor weak strikes could be assigned to changes during operation. Extreme examples of weak strikes might indicate a setup piece. Interesting question.