| Author |
 Replies: 354 / Views: 19,064 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 3660 Posts |
You are going to make me do this again Gene.....  The black part is rounded at its outer edge.  Which way are those impressions rounded? The same (right) way, or the opposite (wrong) way ? Are you catching my drift buddy? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
My original thought whenyou pointed out the black part, that they are facing the wrong direction, but I figured we would get to that soon enough
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Check it out, here (in green) is what those impressions should be looking like:  Following me? The impressions are not mirror images of the field between the denticles, the impressions are inverted to the field between the denticles. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
yes this was my thinking also
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Then you were correct all along, and we are at that part now. Okay, so consider for just a few minutes that the totally absurd notion and long held belief that the Morgan & Orr actually was capable of a tilted die......(I can't believe that I am actually even exploring this). How much of a tilt would be required to reach the area where the impressions are (even if the impressions were turned the right way)? Three, maybe five degrees? Now consider this: the impressions ARE inverted to be the effect of the denticle spaces located closest to those impressions. They would have to be caused by the denticle spaces on the opposite side of the upper die. Now what degree of angle would be necessary to reach across the die face to the impression area? 35-45 degrees? Look at those impressions again, looks like it was a pretty flat strike 'eh? What do you imagine the result of a die clash at a 35-45 degree tilt would be? Would the impressions look as the do? Or would they look like hyphens (or dashes) like these marks in green?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
they would not be flat and showing as much detail as seen in these photos...dashes...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1551 Posts |
It is widely held that some denticle impressions where caused buy the dropping of a die during the set up. On the 1878 CC Vam-20 it is clear. Well now it is, I have the EDS of this one that kind of cleared things up. Leroy's letter states that with the strong polishing lines on this coin point too. Not a clashing of dies but more like them being dropped on each other during set-up. On this coin it has a very faint second denticle mark above the more clear mark (as if the die bounced) If this was the cause of a denticle mark what part of the opposing die that hit it would come into play IE: top / bottom /side too side  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
so then it was to have bounced about 20 times then? on some coins?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1551 Posts |
 Not all but a few I am sure that the dies where dropped. The coin that Zee posted looks like it bounced 3 times. It has also been said that there where a few drunks working at the mints back then. It takes just a little imagination too see some guy working on a press after a few too many and dropping it a few times Edited by twohawks
07/25/2010 11:28 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Hmmm, do you believe now, (despite the credible stature of whoever makes the claim) that these denticle impressions were caused by a tilted die?
There is only one possibility for this phenomena, and that is of a piece of a broken die edge being caught in a 90 strike per minute clashing. How could such a piece find its way in between two perfectly good dies I have been asked?
Consider this, there are many, many ways for this to happen, and I will not speculate on which one was the culprit, but just to mention a few:
1). A piece of a previously broken die sits on the coining table of the press, vibration of the striking moves it into the collar, lands on the lower die, a planchet fails to feed, clash...with a piece of a previously discarded die in between the dies instead of a planchet.
Have you ever seen a coin with a piece of metal (probably of the same nomenclature) embedded in a coin? I have, and so have many of the 'experts'.
2). Coworkers joking around with subtle sabotage. A piece of a die placed in the strike area intentionally.
3). Oh, I could speculate all day, but the fact of the matter is that these impressions are in no way indicative of a tilted die, but rather that of a piece of a broken die.
Gotta go potty now.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1551 Posts |
  I have hit my own finger with a hammer 3 times in less then 5 minutes SLOBER roofing my camp And you would think that after the first time the darn thing would move out of the way!! |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Not to direct any implications of absurdity in your direction Russ, but it sounds to me as if the drunk in question is who ever came up with that crap about dropping dies. We already know what a clash looks like that occurred with 150 tons of pressure behind it. Now, dropping a die or a drunk sitting in a chair banging them together will inflict similar damage? Yeah, okay, Knowledge is King, but I call that sort of Knowledge the Knave, (or the Fool).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
Russ you can tune a guitar but can't tune a fish....several coins exhibit this phonememnum, hardened dies would have be be struck with quite some force to imprint themselves into either surface...and theres no room for a tilted dies as there's no room between the two surfaces..A broken piece is more likely....there are coins that have up to 20 something impressions in rows as the move into the interior of the coin.. you can't drop a die and do that....Mechanically speaking that is... it doesn't add up..
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Look Gene, my intent when you brought up this denticle impression thing was selfish and vengeful for the idiot treatment that I received at the gang bang at site X. My sole purpose of all of this was to discredit the long held belief of the die tilting thing, not to demand acceptance of the die piece thing.
I believe that we (you and I) have effectively concluded that die tilting could not possibly have been the cause. Now there is a new pretender to the cause. I don't know about you, but I refuse to waste any more time or thought to refuting such incongruous notions born of wildly imaginative speculation without any basis or indication of truth.
|
| |
Replies: 354 / Views: 19,064 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 07/25/2010 10:37 pm
