Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;non_cents, post: 1811663, member: 30970&quot;]I don&#039;t quite think this is the appropriate thread to discuss such matters (if you would like to start your own that is fine), but I&#039;ll give it my opinion anyway.</p><p><br /></p><p>My main theory is that the difference seen is a product of die wear. Dies progress through stages as they continue to strike coins. After having observed thousands of wheat cents myself, it is easily apparent that coins struck by a later die state can have inconsistencies in their appearance compared to coins struck earlier. This inconsistency is most obvious on the last digit of the date.</p><p>As to why there are &quot;so many&quot; examples of the supposedly different 3s...well, I believe that the difference is that some coins were struck in later die states, and some were struck in earlier die stages. To further this, you can find identical examples of the &quot;poor mans 1955 doubled die&quot;, a coin with an anomaly affecting the appearance of the last digit in the date. In reality, what is seen is a product of a die stage. You can also find coins without the anomaly that were struck by the same exact die, the only difference being that the coins without the anomaly were struck earlier in the life of the die. Do you see the connection?</p><p><br /></p><p>That&#039;s it...my opinion is that the difference is just when in the die&#039;s life the coin was struck. I don&#039;t think that is an unlikely scenario.</p><p><br /></p><p>What I think IS an unlikely scenario is the presence of 2 different digits used. It seems that the only evidence of such is the claim &quot;I can find multiple examples that look exactly alike&quot;, and you seem to be stuck in the notion that if there is an identical anomaly on multiple coins, then it MUST come from one die. However, there are many instances where this is not the case...some doubled dies having IDENTICAL die markers, yet were struck by a non-doubled die. </p><p><br /></p><p>There is also strong evidence against your claim, namely, the process of making doubled dies. In order for there to be a different variety of 3, there would need to be 2 different master designs used that year, as that is when the actual design of the coin is created. And that means that master hub would have it, which means the master dies would have it, which means the working hubs would have it, which means every single working die that originated from that design would have it, which would result in hundreds of millions of the alternative digit used on coins. That does not even account for the fact that Philadelphia at the time produced all the master dies for the branch mints, which would mean that even MORE would be present. That is simply not the case. Without any evidence besides &quot;I found some that look the same&quot;, I think your theory does not have enough to back it up to seem plausible.</p><p><br /></p><p>While I do commend your interest and pursuit in the subject, I would recommend reading up a bit on die varieties and the hubbing process so you can fully understand where I and others are coming from. Sometimes it&#039;s not as simple as &quot;these two look alike, therefore they must come from the same die&quot;. If you need some more help understanding the topic I would be more than happy to PM you and discuss, so we can keep the discussion on this reoccurring theory between the two people that seem most interested in it, you and I (though admittedly I&#039;m not as interested in it as you are).[/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