| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 1,997 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1248 Posts |
here are the dates of two 1903 cents. again all settings etc are exactly the same. Nothing is different.....except the dates in the coins. why?   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4846 Posts |
i really don't see any difference
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1844 Posts |
There is no difference at all, except the toning of each coin with perhaps a bit of wear
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1248 Posts |
well now, please have a look at the slant of the ZERO and the top left angle of the 3 and the inside of the 9
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4846 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
573 Posts |
I see a difference in the front left serif on the 3. The top one slants more than the bottom one, But I don't see anything on the other numbers.
|
|
New Member
Canada
8 Posts |
I see that the light source for the top pic was from bottom and on the bottom pic light source looks like its more from the right, based on the highlight and shadow positioning. This might throw some of the comparative optics off a bit? That 3 does look a bit different though. Wish I had a USB microscope to look at my own items. Scanning is such a pain.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1248 Posts |
Not a scan..... taken with a Macro lens and a Rebel.
light source: incandescent lamp 60 watts in a reflector
white Balance setting; manual- incandescent compensation
exposure: manual
NOTHING on auto setting
HOWEVER, light source was applied with the axial lighting method at 45 degrees, not 90.
BUT, the light source has NOTHING to do with dimensions.
the lens was exactly at 90 degrees above the coin.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
480 Posts |
Date figures were often entered into the dies by hand, and so they can be in different places or angles. Also, thre were several punches for the same number, and these punches could be different shapes.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
153 Posts |
I think that the difference in the 9's is due to wear. I also believe that the last 2 digits were hand-punched into the working dies (unlike some dates where only the last digit was hand-done). The difference in the 3 may be more evident with a little gentle cleaning of the first one. It appears that the first one is a 3/3 and the underlying 3 is identical to the bottom one. It always took more than one hand-punch or hub-pressing to the working die to make the incuse deep enough for clean coinage. They didn't always hit the same place twice or 3 times in a row. BTW, I'm a new member but 30 year collector of Large Cents. I've been a lurker, but never knew about the "variety" section of this site until I actually registered.
|
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 1,997 |
|
Posted 05/26/2010 10:34 pm
