Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;messydesk, post: 4686214, member: 1765&quot;]There really isn&#039;t controversy as much as there is misunderstanding.&nbsp; Looking at the rest of the die for all three die pairs shows the same thing happening.&nbsp; With wear, the indistinct under-mint mark becomes more distinct.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>You need to look into the process of making a die (or 3) with a corrected mint mark.&nbsp; The wrong mint mark needs to be effaced and then overpunched with another.&nbsp; Effacing the wrong mint mark does not mean simply polishing it off the die.&nbsp; It is recessed in the die and polishing it off would mean removing a lot of surrounding detail and/or leaving a dish on the die (hump on the coin) where the wrong mint mark was.&nbsp; Punching the correct mint mark there would make it a high point of the coin.&nbsp; What has to be done is the wrong mint mark needs to be somewhat filled, then repunched, then polished a bit, leaving little to no trace.&nbsp; Punching the new mint mark will also raise a little metal, pushing it into the old one, filling it a little.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now put the dies into use.&nbsp; All three will work fine provided erasing the old mint mark was done well.&nbsp; If it wasn&#039;t, the repair will fail in the form of a die chip bounded by the weak border between the repair and the original mint mark.</p><p><br /></p><p>Another thing to consider is that as a die wears, features don&#039;t spontaneously become filled in.&nbsp; Die cracks don&#039;t close, die chips don&#039;t go away.[/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