Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;jcuve, post: 796342, member: 13945&quot;]I agree, it is a nice coin.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If one looks closely at your assertion, there is one flaw in the logic. If one thinks of the devices on a coin as inhabiting a orbit, under normal circumstances, during a rotated second strike one would expect to find devices in these expected orbits. (You can make an overlay in Photoshop that would recreate these orbits.) </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Now, this supposed second 1999 has been suggested to be CCW (and above) the current date and within the expected orbit for the date. The issue is that this coin was not struck under normal circumstances, it was struck out of the collar. What that should mean is a second strike, rotated or not, should have struck inside the orbits of first strike as those orbits would have expanded and pushed outward a certain distance with the flow of metal. Exactly how far would be determined by (as stated by Mike D) the ram pressure, die clearance and the amount of metal availible for each strike. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The new orbits may not be drastically different but they should be different nonetheless...[/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