Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ToughCOINS, post: 2869772, member: 20480&quot;]Hi Jason, </p><p><br /></p><p>I wish to add a bit of my own flavor on this topic, and I expect push-back from others.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I agree that varieties address many noticeable differences between coins struck with the same dies, however I place clashes squarely in the error column.&nbsp; Small die cracks, chips and cuds are often the natural result of dies fatiguing over many normal strikes.&nbsp; Because the damage takes place over a very large number of strikes, any evidence that it is taking place is imperceptible, and likely goes unnoticed until some other event occurs which demands inspection / replacement of the dies.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>While more pronounced die damage usually results from the neglect of dies as minor damage progresses to major, it may also result from striking hard obstructions between the dies, such as hardened hand tools.&nbsp; This latter sort of damage occurs abruptly, and is unlikely to go unnoticed by an attentive press operator.&nbsp; The audible change alone should draw sufficient attention to detect damage to the dies.&nbsp; The same may be said for clashing of the dies in the absence of a planchet.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Both the striking of a tool between dies and the clashing of dies are abnormal strikes and, in my mind, should qualify as errors.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Like I wrote earlier, I expect some differences of opinion here . . . </p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;- Mike[/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