Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;foundinrolls, post: 1813044, member: 4350&quot;]Here&#039;s why they are thick.</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s a combination of die wear (as noted by some) with the late remnants of the die being polished to remove clash marks.&nbsp; At this point, you may not see any evidence of the clash marks anymore as they wear off the die as it is used.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; They are also abraded off the die as much as is possible.</p><p><br /></p><p>The evidence is on the Memorial building.&nbsp; On the upper left of the building, the portion where the upper part of the building comes in contact with the lower part of the building is missing and that is is a sign of die dressing (abrasion).</p><p><br /></p><p>In this case and in many others, the die abrasion has widened the shoulders of the lettering causing larger looking letters.&nbsp; The die abrasion effected the surface details rather than digging too deeply into the die.</p><p><br /></p><p>In some cases of die abrasion, the depth of the die is changed more dramatically as it effects the fields and the letters and the deeper portion of the letters on a die is narrow. On those coins effected by dies that were abraded deeply, the lettering can look smaller on a struck coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>So the letters can be narrow or thicker as evidence of die abrasion and you have to look at the overall picture to figure out what happened.</p><p><br /></p><p>This coin is not a doubled die.</p><p><br /></p><p>You also see a lot of this on the reverses of Kennedy halves.&nbsp; The lettering looks wider but it is not due to die doubling.&nbsp; You still would see evidence of notching and grooves on this type of doubling, especially on squared off letters like the I of UNITED.&nbsp; There is no such evidence on this coin.[/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