Is floating clash the correct term?

Yeah it is that darn microscope. I thought I had the mother of all multiple split serifs on one of those state quarters they had trouble with until I realized all the letters were incuse. Microscope never showed it, loupe did though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The first question in a situation like this is, "How do you get a 'clash' into a deep device (hole) in a die?" That's even aside the alignment problems.

Your thinking should proceed from that fundamental question.

 

That is one of the biggest drawbacks to images taken at a high magnification. Unless the viewer knows whether it is supposed to be raised or recessed, it is hard to tell. A good example would be to look at the word "LIBERTY" on a Morgan dollar at 75x-100x magnification. We already know that it is supposed to be recessed, but you can't tell from the photo.

Chris

 

I believe you and I think alike on this point, but there are many here who will argue forever that you are wrong.

Chris

 

Couldn't care less about that, my friend.

My opinions are only formed by fact - as I see it - and I will change my opinions instantly if fact proves me wrong. Especially knowing my impulsive nature; I've been forced to eat crow often enough to have acquired the taste.

 

I like it with Crystal Hot Sauce!

Chris

 

Dumb that down just a bit more for newbs with a learning attitude.

 

I think if you were able to see a cut-away view of, both, the obverse and reverse dies, you would wonder how a device from the depths of one die could clash and show up in the depths of the other die without (possibly) destroying one or both dies.

Chris

 

As certain others have concluded, these are contact marks from another cent. It's not an error.

 

Oh, oh, oh, how does a depth create a depth. How does an incusive reverse die cause and incusive image on the obverse die. Answer is it can't. If an incusive part of a reverse die strikes the obverse die hard enough, without a planchet there, the impression left will be raised.

So now when that obverse die strikes a planchet, it will create its intended devices, plus incusive devices, left behind from the previous clash.

Yeah, I have a genuine clash, unless somebody can demonstrate otherwise.

 

Let's imagine a die for a moment. In order for the coin to be struck as a positive, the raised features (the devices) on the coin have to be a negative on the die. A pair - obverse and reverse - is used for each strike. On them, the highest points are the fields, the flat parts of the coin. Now, very occasionally as the dies are coming together with tremendous force (on the order of 150 tons), one of the soon-to-be coins (planchets) fails to feed into the system to be struck. It's possible but not always, because care is usually taken to set a die depth enough to keep them from ever hitting each other. This is more or less successful for some designs than others, because no two coin designs present the same exact challenge to the minter. Each design "fills" (planchet metal flows like water during a strike) slightly differently and some require more persuasion than others - more pressure - to get a good strike. This has to be balanced by the need to preserve dies, so you're usually as conservative as you can be when deciding how to strike it.

Anyway, sometimes a planchet doesn't get fed and they hit each other instead of it. In that case, the edges of the features (remember, the die is a negative, the edge where the feature starts falling off is what contacts first) get slammed into the other die hard enough to become semi-permanent. Those "features" then get struck into successive coins, causing clashing.

For features like the letters on the Lincoln to be located where they are via clash, those letters first had to hit hard enough to clearly transfer their entire outlines (such as seen) to depth. And - visualize a die - they had to hit at a depth pretty darn difficult to *ever* hit in a clash, deep in the die, requiring some sort of catastrophic failure of both die and alignment at the same time pretty much unknown to modern numismatics because there's no way to make a full die get so off-kilter (only way to line those letters up in that spot) as to hit that deep. Just ain't possible.

Have similar things happened? Sure; pieces of die can break off and then get clashed onto opposing dies. I can't see such a structure as imposed on your coin surviving that intact in a clash, without transferring other features which would have kept it in one piece long enough to clash.

Do I know what caused your coin? Nope. There are numismatically-interesting possibilities as well as useless ones. All I'm doing is explaining why I don't think it's a clash, at your request. And despite the firmness of my opinion, I'm still only going with the preponderance of the evidence seen. More evidence = more thinking.

 

Why thank you SuperDave. That is exactly the type of thoughtful correspondence I was hoping to draw out with my post.

So let me zero in on one of your points. You are saying one of the problems you would have with this being a clash is because of where the misplaced letters appear on the obverse. They are way out of alignment for what most would consider a legitimate clash. How would they appear on the side of Ab's head when on the normal reverse they are near the rim in other words.

 

And those features struck into successive coins are incusive/negative because the part of the incusive/negative die that transferred to the other die caused a raised image on that receiving die.

 

A classic SuperDave numismatic throwdown of logic

 

Egg-zactly

SuperDave has a way of expanding ones numismatic thought process

 

Not to complicate matters, I know there are many, many new people here but aside from the known cud on this coin it also shows an incuse E from CENT or ONE that is very much out of place on the Obverse.

http://www.maddieclashes.com/fdc-1c-1993-01/

 

But I am thinking, if the large die fragment on the coin I provided a link for never broke away, that E never would have made it there. That still makes my penny undefined unless you all want me to believe it got squished hanging out with its friends. Highly unlikely and insulting to my penny.

 

@SuperDave

Your explanation of the clash was excellent, but you mentioned that most coins are struck with approximately 150 tons of pressure. Is this generally acknowledged by most experts familiar with Mint operations? The reason I ask is because I know that Morgan dollars were struck with 130 tons, or so, of pressure. Silver dollar-sized coins are no longer produced, and 150 tons of pressure just seems like overkill for coins like the cent, nickel and dime.

Chris