Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2396233, member: 1892&quot;]I, for one, don&#039;t feel you&#039;re being antagonistic.</p><p><br /></p><p>Let&#039;s look closer at the third image. There are just the positives - the &quot;dents&quot; into the die - from the collar hit; the fields are still normal, showing striations, in the areas where a reeding hit should have pushed metal.</p><p><br /></p><p>Edit to add: Look at the 4th pic. Lighting is obviously from the viewer&#039;s left; that&#039;s why the back of the head shows shadow. Were the lighting from the other direction, there would be highlighting there, not shadow.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, the defect we&#039;re talking about is lit to the left in that image, and shadowed to the right. This proves that it&#039;s raised from the surface of the coin - just like the devices - rather than depressed into it. If it were a depression, the far side would be lit and the near side in shadow - the sides <b>towards</b> and <b>facing away</b> from the light. In combination with my previous mention of the fields being untouched inside the curve of the feature, it seems plain (to me) that it would be difficult to assign a PMD explanation to what we&#039;re looking at.[/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