Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Severus Alexander, post: 7956764, member: 84744&quot;]Thanks for looking into this - I would like to see more examples too!&nbsp; I agree that the theory would require more examples before it could be accepted.&nbsp; Maybe in the coming years someone will google this thread and post their example. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I can think of a couple reasons for the error&#039;s rarity, if the theory is right:</p><p><br /></p><p>1) If the missing die disk were on the anvil, as I&#039;ve represented it, it would be really hard for a mint worker to fail to notice it was missing.&nbsp; An extra-Kevinish mistake!&nbsp; (Perhaps their rarity offers a little support for the idea applying to the anvil die only?&nbsp; Small, moveable hammer dies were generally easier to replace, so maybe there was a need for a replaceable die disk on the anvil only?)</p><p><br /></p><p>2) The die-disks were surely anchored - maybe by iron dowel pins, for example, or a collar that could be tightened.&nbsp; Perhaps the anchoring system was simply extremely reliable resulting in very few errors of this type.[/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