Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Publius2, post: 4534268, member: 105571&quot;]Maybe, maybe not.&nbsp; If the ID of the obverse hollow cylinder was only a few millimeters larger than the OD of the reverse anvil cylinder, then the beam bending moment would be low (the moment arm would be the distance from the obverse cylinder radial centerline to the outermost point of the reverse devices) making making most of the stresses shear rather than bending.&nbsp; I don&#039;t have my engineering references handy to try any calculations, but I can see where it might not bend before the devices were flattened.</p><p><br /></p><p>,</p><p><br /></p><p>I thought most, if not all, of the 1794s were struck with the reverse being the anvil die.&nbsp; Even if the obverse were the anvil die, I would expect to see evidence of a blank planchet strike in the reverse dentils and I don&#039;t.&nbsp; Also, the struck coin is slightly harder than the blank planchet due to work hardening so I wouldn&#039;t expect the blank planchet to be able to flatten the devices the way we see.&nbsp; Absolutely not at all sure about the last statement, though.[/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