Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="SuperDave, post: 2403685, member: 1892"]This one's a good example of the "question everything" philosophy which is getting me mocked elsewhere on CT. It's my feeling that confirmation bias is too well-embedded in numismatics as a whole, and it's hampering the actual progress of knowledge. There's a huge difference between "knowing a whole lot," and "knowing so much you believe you already know enough." Looking closer, the ER aren't the only weak letters - the right peak of the M is weaker than the left, and IC are also weak at the top. On the other hand, the final A seems "normal." That's one data point. One die is misaligned. Was it the hammer or the anvil die? We don't know - enough "hammer or anvil only" errors are known for Lincolns that we can assume there was no standard orientation for them. Is it relevant here? I don't think so, because the reverse weakness falls in the "transitional" area between closest and furthest on the misaligned die, where you'd expect such a condition to have a possible effect on the strike. The misalignment is a little off vertical, on the 7:00 to 1:00 axis, roughly, and the feature being discussed is at about 4:00 referencing the obverse. Another data point. The weakness is located in an area which ought to be unaffected by the "complexity" of the other face - with only the date opposite (the strike is of normal rotation, right? That's a consideration) competing for planchet metal. Date looks fine, so this datapoint is likely uninvolved. So let's address the possibility of grease first. I've always been leery of incompletely-filled letters as "greasers," because that has to assume something contrary to the laws of physics to happen. Grease is a liquid - a highly viscous one, but a liquid all the same. For grease to only partially fill a device/letter, we have to assume that it moved - as a liquid does - under the pressure of a strike more slowly than the metal of the planchet did, because the planchet metal obviously beat it to the space ultimately occupied on the struck coin. So, the metal had to be less viscous than the liquid. That just don't compute to me. Of course, we_have_seen strikethroughs and such likely formed by particle-embedded grease rendered strong enough to "dent" the die or prevent metal flow. You can add enough crap to grease to make it assume the properties of more solid materials. But then, it behaves like a solid, meaning it keeps its' shape when struck, distorting only minimally. On this coin, we'd have to assume that the grease managed to remain "thick" enough to only partially fill the letters, while at the same time remaining "thin" enough to flow evenly along the axes of weakness noted on the I and C. I have a hard time reconciling that, and am therefore deprecating grease as the culprit here. The same argument works against any other "foreign object/substance" being present during the strike. So, the preponderance of evidence - and never forget, unless someone comes up with interior video of the strike or the actual die pair involved, we're always only able to work towards the "most likely explanation" and certainty isn't happening - tends to indicate that the die itself has features which caused what happened here. Also in the differential is some sort of planchet defect - a localized "hardness" relative to the rest which caused it to be much more difficult to strike in that specific area. Which is more believable? In this case, the die seems to be the culprit. Die wear or sinking? Maybe, but we don't see evidence elsewhere of worn-die artifacts and the images are good enough to expect that evidence if it exists. Polishing? Maybe; the two radial lines between E-R in Sheila's detail images tend to be diagnostic. So, to make a very_long_story short, I lean towards die erosion in that area, and a close inspection of the die involved would likely indicate removal of die metal - via some unknown mechanism; we can't assume it was polishing with certainty - as the cause. If you approach every single coin you examine with the care and degree of detail orientation I've just typed out above, you will amass a large number of "first discoveries" and eventually become one of those considered an "expert" because you'll be one. You will also extract the maximum amount of "flavor" and satisfaction from your numismatic efforts. That's why I question everything.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches