Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;eddiespin, post: 2272443, member: 4920&quot;]I guess I haven&#039;t seen enough, then, Howard, as I&#039;m still thinking it&#039;s plausible the original digit cavities were simply filed and polished down to the point of leaving that shallow, flat, shelflike impression, in anticipation of the second punch. The superior digits appear disturbed, however, distorted. I can especially see that in the thinned outlines in the 8 and 6 suggestive of them having been compromised in those areas. In strike doubling, those superior digits are disturbed, foreshortened, as they&#039;re taken from to form the underlay impressions. I&#039;ve never seen strike doubling in which that isn&#039;t the case, to varying degrees. The superior impressions are always compromised, distorted, as here.</p><p><br /></p><p>We&#039;re getting to the same place, although through different logic. I&#039;ll concede, nobody ever mentions what I&#039;m talking about. Still, how can it be otherwise, that when a date is re-punched, the superior impression isn&#039;t always fully-intact? How can&#039;t it be, unless it&#039;s also strike doubled, in which case that part of it is cut off, borrowed from, to form the underlay impression? And we see that, here, in these superior digits. They&#039;re cut off, borrowed from, all over. If that&#039;s what they looked like on the gang punch, that&#039;s one cockeyed gang punch.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in