Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Sunbird, post: 8285375, member: 116324&quot;]Yeah, I was puzzled by the Mint&#039;s claim about the &quot;same thickness&quot; too. It would be nice to have a simple table of all dimensions at each step in the production process. All they mention is that the blanks are wider than finished coins. But the thickness can&#039;t be the same if they&#039;re starting with perfect, flat cylinders, since the official thickness they give for their coins is the max thickness, which is at the edge formed by the upsetting mills. That means the blanks must be thinner than the official coin thickness.</p><p><br /></p><p>And then there&#039;s your point on the strike. The design rises up from the field, so that metal has to come from somewhere. I wonder if anyone has put together a video enactment of the coin strike in slow motion. Even just a graphic, cartoon video would work. Given a flat blank surface, except for the edge, it&#039;s not clear to me how you end up with a raised design. The die is a negative, like a mold. So how does it force solid metal up into itself? If it just forced its way into a flat metal surface, it seems like it would have to create a new, deeper field immediately surrounding the design features, while the rest of the blank would be elevated over that. That&#039;s not how most coins are, including US coins. Does it depress the surrounding field to force metal to flow onto the die? That would thin out that part of the blank. All of this has to happen in an instant, less than a second.[/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