Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Marshall, post: 2576908, member: 21705&quot;]Coming from an Early Large Cent background, I do use State to encompass both events. </p><p><br /></p><p>The reasoning is that there is a sequence to the emission of coins from every die and anything which marks a dies progress through the sequence is a new state/stage. </p><p><br /></p><p>I personally hate tying the die state to a variety which includes both the obverse and reverse dies. While there is a correlation for die pairings, it is far more haphazard than some suggest. They just pulled dies off the shelf as needed rather than use them individually until retirement interrupting the symmetry of sequencing.</p><p><br /></p><p>My understanding is that Hubs first began being used in 1798 Large Cents with presses being insufficient to transfer detail to the dies. This required touch ups to the individual dies which are the markers used to determine their die variety. It is especially difficult for 1800 to find these small differences on worn coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>But it appears that the date was still being added to individual dies in 1883, even if the individual punches changed from single digits to complete dates. </p><p><br /></p><p>But each individual die tends to wear differently and break differently. I lean toward die breaks for identification on such similar dies because they are a fingerprint of the individual die rather than of the hub. I think the stages are more of a generic term for the life of a die. At least on Early Cents, individual die stages are difficult to separate from strike issues which cause similar loss of detail.</p><p><br /></p><p>I like numismatic discussions more than marketing ones. Thanks for the dialogue.[/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