Clashed Dies And Die Cracks

Zee, that information comes from your same source.

now we come back to the topic, hehehe, to late at night to answer but love to see the whole principles arise.....(my meaning is. it's not a simple answer and there are many points involved)...great to see this surface....been away.

Thank you, zeewool. Could we then theorize that not all dies received the same basining treatment, and that a decent letter transfer not only requires a strong enough clash, but also the providential pairing of dies whose preparation made them "compatible?"

Understanding that these are two convex surfaces coming together, a "deeper" pair would be much less likely to transfer. We know that clashing is very common among Morgans, but letter transfer is not. Furthermore, not every clash transfers the same quantity or degree of the "usual" transferred details - the line at the neck junction of the obverse; the spike from the wing under the "n" of IGWT, and the curve on the (viewer's) right of the wreath.

I'll picture these below. Please excuse the images; they're among my earliest attempts at coin photography (2004) but they pretty clearly show the 3 most common clashing transfers:





Note the strength of the clash, especially on the reverse. Numerous uncommon features have been transferred - above and left of the arrowheads, the "u" shaped feature is a transfer.

Now. Below is an 1878 VAM-41C, known as the "Bearded Lady" due to the striking clash transfers under the chin.







Note the strength of the details transferred to the obverse. Note, also, the location of the usual diagonal line on the neck (left red-circled feature) - it's much lower than normal, implying die rotation. The letter transfer (both red-circled features) is obvious.

Now see that only one "normal" transfer feature is found on the reverse - the line below IGWT, and it weakly. One might assume that the original clash destroyed the reverse die, and another was inserted to strike the coin shown.

But look more carefully. I draw your attention to the washed-out inside wing details and tailfeathers. Importantly, this is a 7/8TF coin, having been somehow treated to remove the 8TF and replace with 7. I use the ambiguous term "somehow" because, having examined the coin minutely, I saw no polishing lines.

I note "something" around the wreath:



These are not, IMO, polishing artifacts.

I'm guessing that the 8TF-7TF change was done via basining technique rather than hand-polishing, leading to an abnormally-deep convex reverse die which is far less likely to receive clash transfers. Of course, if the reverse was strong enough, close enough, to the obverse for so much letter transfer to happen, why didn't it pick up details of it's own?

Perhaps the reverse was basined both before and after the clash, to remove the clash damage. Why, then, wasn't the obverse die treated also?



I offer this monologue not to explain, because I don't feel there has been an explanation, but to illustrate how frustrating it is to find a definitive explanation to anything regarding Morgan varieties.

All we'll ever have are working theories.

While you're at it, factor in what we know about the inexact science of annealing of the day. Could the basining process possibly generate sufficient heat to have an effect?

I highly doubt it (my opinion), as the basining was done at such slow speed that heat should not have been a factor, but then again, I am only speculating, and you might have something there, and this deserves further consideration for sure.

edited to add:

I have thought about it now, and my answer would be no. The heat generated would not be sufficient enough to alter the steel of the die, as would annealing.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I really do believe fervently that all dies are unique in many ways. Basining has an effect as does hubbing, but certainly the greatest effect is caused through annealing. Some are hard, some are soft, some are inherently bubble filled, some have fissures at creation. No two are of exact equality....... if a clash is imagined between a hard die, and a softer one, the result is quite predictable.

Even though MOI (I / me) is a new comer to vamming, moi did figure this out rather quickly.

David

From this below



Do these have a corresponding clash on the reverse and have you seen them with and without on the reverse?
Also Can it be "assumed" even the "slightest / Faintest" clash at that "junction" of neck and chin is related meaning it's a clash. (London calling and rock the casbah -- come to mind - just kidding).

The reason I bring this is up is cos now I have 3 or 4 "O" mints that have this. I have put these away but I can go back and get the dates if you are interested.

BTW, I like your pics as they are very educational.

Thanks