Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cpm9ball, post: 1104782, member: 24633&quot;]Rascal, you&#039;re making a statement in the absolute which you can&#039;t possibly prove. You do realize that coining operations use several presses at the same time, and all of these coins are intermixed into large bins which are then transported to the distributor who is responsible for bagging and wrapping them, don&#039;t you? How many rolls have you examined? 500? 1000? More? How many machines do you think were involved in the production of the coins for those rolls?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I&#039;m not disputing that the obverse clashed as well, but in order to minimize down time, it is much quicker for the mint worker to just replace the reverse die to keep the coining operations on schedule. Still, this has nothing to do with proving that the same reverse die is responsible for both of the coins you&#039;ve shown us.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>They didn&#039;t replace the reverse die with a defective one. They replaced it with one that had, itself been repolished so that part of the bison&#039;s upper leg is missing. Maybe you should study some of the Morgan VAM&#039;s. There were millions of coins produced from clashed dies, and there were equally as many that were produced from repolished dies. Heck, you don&#039;t even have to go that far back in time. Another good example of what polishing can do to the surfaces of coins can be easily seen on the States Quarters business strikes beginning in 2005. When the Mint began using the satin finish on the Uncirculated Mint Sets, they hadn&#039;t forseen that these specially prepared dies would deteriorate as quickly as they did. Not wanting to waste the dies because they still had some useful production life, they repolished and used them for the business strikes because it didn&#039;t matter as much what the circulated coins looked like. A quarter is a quarter!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>No, your coin with the separated leg, in all probability, did not come from the same die. You would have seen evidence of the heavy polishing that would have been needed to remove the multiple clashes.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The mark you see from the &quot;E&quot; appears to be a faint &quot;trail die&quot;. You can read about them here.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.traildies.com/id122.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.traildies.com/id122.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.traildies.com/id122.html</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I&#039;m sure it probably has happened, but I can&#039;t cite any specific examples at the moment. The point is that to prove different errors on two separate coins came from the same die there would have to be a distinguishing marker on that same side. You can&#039;t use an obverse clash or gouge to prove two different errors came from the same reverse die.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Better luck next time, Rascal!</p><p>&nbsp;</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