Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cpm9ball, post: 1319219, member: 24633&quot;]Thanks for the link, rascal. This definition suggests that a buckled die MAY be the result of excessive clashing, but it is only speculation. What still confounds me is that if, in fact, there was excessive die clashing, why don&#039;t we see any evidence of any clash whatsoever in the left obverse field or on the reverse? </p><p><br /></p><p>However, I was curious to see if Alan Herbert discussed it in his book on mint errors. Although, it isn&#039;t mentioned, I did find a passage which may have a bearing on this............</p><p><br /></p><p><b><u>Worn and Damaged Dies, Collars and Hubs (II-G)</u></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><i>The last class in this section is design transfer, which is somewhat difficult to explain to anyone not familiar with metallurgy. It basically is a case of the die metal deforming due to the repeated pounding of striking coins, with the central portion of the design of one die transferring to the opposing die through the planchets as they are struck.</i></b></p><p><b><i><br /></i></b></p><p><b><i>The best example I can offer of this phenomenon is the toy which you&#039;ve all seen which has five or six metal balls hanging in a row, touching each other. When you pull back the end ball and allow it to strike the row, it causes the ball at the far end to swing away from its neighbor. The same thing occurs with design transfer, the outline of the design being transferred from one die to the other. Note that there is no actual die-to-die or die-to-collar contact as there is in a die or collar clash.</i></b></p><p><br /></p><p>The toy Mr. Herbert has described exhibits one of the simple laws of physics.........<b><i>For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.</i></b></p><p><br /></p><p>Now, let&#039;s take this information to see how it relates to the striking of the coin. Someone correct me if I&#039;m wrong, but it is my understanding the anvil die is normally the obverse and the hammer die is normally the reverse. Given this, the hammer die is like the steel ball of the toy that is pulled away and let go to strike the other balls. So, the reverse design is being transferred through the planchet to the obverse die. Wouldn&#039;t this possibly account for the fact that there is no evidence of a clash in the left field of the coin. As I mentioned before, when a clash occurs, it doesn&#039;t necessarily have to leave any evidence of the clash on the reverse die, but given the fact that a buckled die is thought to occur from excessive clashing, it would seem only logical that there should be some evidence on the reverse. Since there is none, I&#039;m thinking that Mr. Herbert&#039;s explanation of die transfer is more plausible.</p><p><br /></p><p>Chris[/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