1983-D Lincoln Rotated Reverse ☆

From 1990 to 2000 there have been a number of clashed dies listed as MAD Die Clashes. It is thought these happened durring their installation into the press when the installer dropped the hammer die onto the anvil die leaving an odd totally unoriented clash in odd places.
So if the dies are installed by hand then spinnig past 360 degrees would have just been a fumble of the hand.

Wait, they think that somebody dropping a die is what causes clashes?

My mistake; got the flip wrong in my head. One of the many...not the few.

SD , only Radical MAD clashes are thought to happen this way because they are so very far out of alignment .Once the dies are installed in the presses , mechanically these clashes could not happen

I sure wouldn't mind meeting some of you guys at a coin show some day. You guys hold such a vast knowledge on coins. It's amazing! Thank You.

DoubleMan, l think I know just enough to get myself into trouble that I don't know how to get out of !

I should probably admit that nobody will ever successfully accuse me of believing that maddieclashes engages in appropriate academic rigor for what they publish.

That's not a clash, and I cannot imagine the intellectual gymnastics it would take to believe it is. It has two distinct sides and does not have the radius of the feature they claim is transferred. That feature - the edge of the die - would be a dropoff into nothingness on one side because there is no metal to touch the other die. And unfortunately, that "nothingness" would have been on the lower side of the feature, where the demarcation here is the strongest. The sharp part of the hit would need to be the left/upper side of the feature for their claim to be true.

The die is so old it's ghosting. Why would they be handling it mid-run? If this coin had been posted here with no accompanying information we'd probably be universal in calling it a die gouge.

And we'd be right.

I won't go so far as to say I disbelieve everything that place publishes, but I do not trust their standards of scholarship.

Over the years I have noticed disagreement in points of views on certain coins and types of varieties /errors.
Coneca, Wexler, Coppercoins , certain varieties one sees as legit the other does not. In some cases it all boils down to what the attributer sees as correct.
Years ago I sent three coins to Coneca. One was found to be new discovery 1948 DDR quarter. The other two were found to be abrasion doubling.
Now years later one of the abrasion doubled coins is listed as a DDR on Coppercoins.com and the other I posted here on this forum and was unanimously seen as a hot lips dime with massively clashed dies.
Views change, what was thought to be is found not and those taken for fact are reconsidered.
Many thanks for your input SD , definitely food for thought