Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3272825, member: 19463&quot;]I don&#039;t care what you call them but the dimple was an artifact of the centration pin of the tool used to smooth the flan.&nbsp; I would liken it to our modern Forstner bits except there is evidence that their central pins were separate an did not always rotate with the cutters.&nbsp; This image from my page shows a pin that was firm on the left and a pin that rotated on the right.&nbsp; I have lost the larger version of this. That page dates to a time when I got a lot of complaints about large photos that slowed loading for 14.4 modem users.</p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/pits.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p>Central Dimple is probably a better term.&nbsp; The coins with the circular scratches are weakly struck.&nbsp; The two above are not worn but never transferred detail to the high points of the portrait.&nbsp; Weak strikes exacerbate any lack of flatness of the dies making some coins weak in the center and others not.&nbsp; I suspect all flans had the circular marks but most were erased when stuck properly.&nbsp; I also am not surprised that some periods show more problems from poor technical workmanship than others.&nbsp; Why were these coins released looking that way?&nbsp; I would guess the workers were not disciplined for poor workmanship and the management needed every possible coin to meet the quotas.[/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