| Author |
 Replies: 20 / Views: 1,987 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3592 Posts |
Agree with coop,the design is incuse so scraps would only affect the fields.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1915 Posts |
If the area in question is incuse, how can it be from a feeder finger. In order to appear incuse on the planchet, it would have to be a raised are on the die. Seems to me a scrape from a feeder finger would take metal away from the die face, not build it up. And a struck through would disturb the devices.
Edited by seal006
02/22/2013 10:15 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Here is another example:  The anomoly is just in the field areas and incuse. Something on the die pushing into the planchet during the strike. Just in the outside portions of the die. If the die was damaged, then the anomoly would have been raised and not incuse. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1915 Posts |
Like a strike through? This is what I thought you meant before. Then John suggests feeder fingers. That is why I questioned John's analysis. A feeder finger would leave a raised impression on the planchet, not incuse like the OP's coin.
Why does it not appear on the devices. What ever was on the die, wouldn't it get sucked into the incuse parts of the die, or block off altogether. Both of these would result in an abnormal looking device.
Edited by seal006
02/22/2013 10:17 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Seal you are correct. Feeder finger scrapes are raised. The reason the devices aren't affected as they are deeper into the die. The fields are on the outside part of the die. On the OP coin it appears the die may have picked up something that may have some grit into the substance and leaves the deeper incuse portions on the coin. where looking at very small amounts that are only touching the outside (field) portion of the die.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1915 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3453 Posts |
This has been a great discussion - thanks!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1915 Posts |
Yes, it is amazing what info you can get when you ask the right questions.
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1915 Posts |
Neither, a strike through of something on the die.
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
O.K. thank you. John1  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3345 Posts |
Huh well now I got a better understanding. Is it worth anything other than a curiosity?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1915 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2740 Posts |
Something dragged itself across the die face, and in doing so deposited some crud on the surface of the die. The crud was deposited only on the field. Imagine a paintbrush being lightly stroked across a die face. Paint will only be left on the field portion of the die. In this case the "paint" was more like a mixture of grease and grit. I doubt it was left by a dirty feeder finger, as the direction is wrong.
In summary, this is a struck-through error.
Error coin writer and researcher.
Edited by mikediamond
02/23/2013 2:13 pm
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 20 / Views: 1,987 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 02/22/2013 06:41 am
