Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;AWORDCREATED, post: 1811679, member: 52245&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>Then why did you do this?&nbsp; and What?&nbsp; You were asleep during my former thread and then didn&#039;t notice that I linked it up here for you?&nbsp; Seriously?&nbsp; Sane people are supposed to put up with this sort of dribble?</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;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 ,&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;&lt;who amongst us hasn&#039;t?&gt;,</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot; 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. &quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>So what?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;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.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Irrellevant.&nbsp; To this coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot; Do you see the connection?&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>There is none.</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;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.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>So do you claim that all the 43 dies of whatever mint mark show the same progression to the SW tail?&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;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. &quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Had you actually been paying attention you might have noticed it going farther back, like hubs or master dies.</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;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. &quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Seems you completely fabricated the part about doubled dies.&nbsp; Where did you conjure that up from?&nbsp; Perhaps I can help you if you explain what exactly your claim is regards what your proffer as supposedly some claim by me as to DD.&nbsp; And do Quote the record please.&nbsp; You are making this stuff up in your head and imputing it on me.&nbsp; I won&#039;t bother with the rest of that part except to say this is shown to occur regardless of mint mark.&nbsp; Is it possible they started over mid year?&nbsp; Which of the tails is the earlier?&nbsp; You seem to be so deeply wrapped up in your checklist dogma that you do not even understand what you read.</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;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. If you need some more help understanding the topic I would be more than happy to PM you and discuss, instead of taking the thread more off-topic than it has already become (I tried to end the off-topic nature of it in post 21). &quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Don&#039;t think that for even a nanosecond that you can pull off trying to patronize me.</p><p><br /></p><p>I notice that before I finished this you have already edited your post.&nbsp; This quotes what was original when I got it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Go back to my thread, rather than trash me or it here.&nbsp; It is on you to have brought this here.[/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