Clashed Dies And Die Cracks

Oh, I believe you Remmy....I was just joking with you. If Alan did it, it has got to be good.

1904-0 is just like many years,un-researched until now when to many questions are asked...now the numbers are changing...Go figure....
Many years have only been briefly considered...less than 10 or 20 known die pairs....few listings with fewer pictures or postings..

Depends on how you're meaning the question. It's very likely that every single year and mint have both cracked and clashed dies. Some are more common than others, of course (I'm looking at you, 1921 ).

As a percentage of overall production, the number is likely low (+/-10%, maybe? Less?). They just get a lot more attention because of their distinctive features.

Some clashes are far more pronounced than others, yet only letter transfers count for anything. That has always puzzled me, as the letter transfers usually are among the least noticeable of the clashes, while wreath clashes are among the most prominent.

I see you guys straining to pick out and identify an N or a G, not to mention that phantom E thingy. It just seems rather silly to me that a person will cast a blind eye to a significant clash while searching in vain sometimes for even a small portion of a very lightly transferred letter for the simple reason that those are the rules.

I guess that the line has to be drawn somewhere, but I hear so many times about how much you love clashes......but why?......Do you ever self analyze what you do and why? I would think that a wreath clash would be just as telling for die state progression as would letter transfer.....or am I wrong, and missing a fundamental concept here?

Thanks for taking the time to rationalize this Dave. Evidently I have not looked at enough clashes unless they were pointed out to me, and then most of the letter transfers, I never did see.

As for the rarity aspect of the N and the G (and any other IGWT letters), I might think that the reason that they are usually weak to indistinguishable might be the same reason that this is a prime area for 'filled letters'; the intricacy of these letter drop offs in an open field does not lend itself well to clash contact, yet it does seem prone to nook and cranny status for goo and trash build up. The wreath drop offs however, are wider and would seem to me to be more susceptible to clash contact. The lettering in the headband is a totally different animal, as the letters have no depth, they are in fact, the field, The headband is the device circling that field, and that is why letter transfer is far more pronounced on the E which lies at one of the highest points of the die radius.

"What's the depth of a letter in Liberty's headband? A few hundredths? What would it take, factoring in the possibility of shattering of the die at a point below the actual face, to postulate a wholly non-parallel strike?"

I say a letter in the headband has no depth, but the headband around these letters does have a few hundredths, and as such would require little in the way of actual clashing force. I could be wrong about all of this, and would appreciate it if you might correct me if this is the case.

Basining produces a uniform radius of curvature suitable for coining. If taken to extreme, the result is a loss of design, not a noticeably curved field. However, the zinc basining tools had a fixed radius with different tools being used for different denominations and dies.

There are coins that show the effects of incorrect basining: usually a weakness of strike near the rim.

Dollar dies were slightly convex. When combined with the correct planchet upset angle and diameter, this produced flat coins with the minimum amount of striking pressure. But, radius, planchet and pressure had to be carefully balanced.

Postulation is overshadowed by principle in my 'opinion'.

Yes Oz, I recognize the flow pattern of the words, however, this is not in reference to clashing.