Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="TypeCoin971793, post: 3198187, member: 78244"]The die marriage studies on modern coins, particularly early US coins, DO provide information that was not recorded, such as practices at the US mint and the order which the dies were used. It is not just about “creating rarities to sell at a premium.” For example, by studying the designs on the obverse and reverse, we can tell that dies were not put aside for use in only the year for which they were made. Dies made in 1794/1795 were used in 1796 to 1798. Surplus dies made in 1798 were recut so that they could display the current year, creating many overdates. Studying the edge can sometimes suggest how coins with different years were made with the same technology and thus were made at the same time. There are also many spectacular die failures, which show the mint’s practice of using dies until they literally fell apart, or show some of the careless mistakes that the mint workers made. All of this is done with “reverse engineering” as none of this was recorded at the mint. And these characteristics can be seen on the “common” varieties as well as the “rare” varieties. I like some of the varieties that tell these stories, but I could not care less about varieties whose only difference is that the berry stem is tilted 5 degrees more on one die than another (except for flipping for profit). So I reiterate: the die studies are not that different.[/QUOTE]