| Author |
 Replies: 20 / Views: 2,652 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
I just love pictures that are upside down and backwards. and ask to ID something.....IS THIS A TRICK question? it is holloween.......with only 4 choices,,,why all the sideways pics?there are only 2 possibillities....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
of the 4 choices only 2 are concidered FAR DATE... of those two, one is slightly less than the 3rd denticle and one past the 3rd denticle..guess which one you have?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
VAM 27 is the root......the die scratches or polishing lines are after the listed coins....yours is a LDS of those listings, where the die was polished at some point in time...lines in the bow are a great example...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
by the way picture 3 shows it is a far date...
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
467 Posts |
Haha, ya looking at the 4 MM pics is a little redundent.
How bout do the same shots and then add the same shots at 30, and 60 deg too? :) Just to make sure we get all the possible pics of the MM.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Um, it's not the mint mark the OP is highlighting, it's the wreath "polishing."
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
I understand that and agree Dave, but its obvious its not VAM 2 or 51 by date and MM placement...the thing is. when the listing was concieved VAM 2 and 51 date and MM don't relate to this coin.... now the polishing lines he is seeing..are later stages within this same coins die state,,,VERY COMMON...yet none of these polishing lines will revert to a new VAM.....its still a VAM 27....but I would fight for it as well...but no cigar!! |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
I agree with both of you Oob and Dave.....I think that maybe the 'polishing lines' in the bow area might be the key here. To me the exact date placement is just a wee bit further right than 2,18, 27, or 51. I really don't think that it is any of those for that reason. The oval and round "O" thing has always thrown me though. I am not really able to discern a tangible difference between the two.
Are there specific dies that are known both with and without these 'polishing lines' in the bow area?
The reason that I ask is that with this phenomena being so prevalent across a wide span of years, I would think (as Dave) that these lines are hub related (not caused by the hub, but rather in need of die repair due to a working hub defect), in which case, these lines in the bow may have been placed there prior to initial use of the die. I also think that the reason for the addition of these lines and the scribbles on the '21s may have a very close relationship, although the tool of remedy was obviously different.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
The point that strikes me with the area around the bow (how many times can you use the word "the" in one sentence? And I'm not done yet) is the remarkable number of transitions between field and device in such a small area. I cannot help but think that this is an area of extreme stress in the design, and strongly suspect it was the source of major problems. It makes more intuitive sense to me that it should be a die problem - the fields on a die here would be small and isolated, subject to premature failure due to concentrated stress. However, it's such a common thing that I wonder if it was difficult to fully strike up a working hub (where this area would be "negative").
The regular-looking lines in some (but not all) examples of the phenomenon remain a problem for me, but I cannot ascribe such prominent lines to polishing. They're just too deep.
The 1921 scribbles seem entirely different to me. They're found in such variety - 115 different 1921-P's alone and they're known on Denver coins, too - that I must think something was up with the Philadelphia die polishers during this time. Political, maybe?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Yes, you are correct Dave....I am no English major for sure. As I recall, it was one of my first words that I learned how to spell, so maybe I just became comfortable with using such a word rather frequently......I do appreciate your pointing it out to me......I will be aware of it from now on (I assure you), and hopefully, I may improve and save myself further embarrassment and project more coherent thoughts. (Didn't use it once in all of that tap dancing....did you notice)?  I will have to think further on such a possibility of this being a die problem.....I never gave it any thought previously because I believed that there were no dies both with and without these lines, so I had assumed that they were placed there before die usage.....why fix something that is not broken? It has been my thought that this effect in certain dies was caused by a graver (in such case as Oober's coin), and a rotary sanding (or polishing tool) on 1921s.....Your thoughts of dies having weakness in these small fields make much more sense than do my previous daydreams of possible cause.....I want to think on it some more....I think that I like your ideas Dave. Okay, it was painful, but I think that I managed to get through 'all' of that without mention of my favorite word.  edited to add: This is what you were referring to wasn't it? Quote:
I think that maybe the 'polishing lines' in the bow area might be the key here. Edited by zeewool
11/05/2010 03:22 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Quote:
I cannot help but think that this is an area of extreme stress in the design, and strongly suspect it was the source of major problems. Yes, I definitely agree, but my thoughts are that the possibility remains that this problem could be linked all the way back to the Galvano. I used to own many of the 1878 vam-9, and I recall these lines (although not identical), being there in the bow area on them also . I understand that some areas on the 1921 coins differ from earlier years......was this wreath bow area one of them? Do these lines (like on Oober's coin) show up on 1921s as well? Since the master hubs had to be 'touched up' after reduction from the transfer lathe, it has been my thought that maybe the design was (intentionally) not fully engraved (depth wise), in this area because of preconceived problems with transfer reduction from the Galvano. Further design transfer between this hub to master die, to working hub may also have been preemptive considerations, with the prior intent of depth being added at a later time...... I would be interested to know if any of these lines are identical among particular dies.... (For instance, are the bow polishing lines in Oober's coin identical with any other 1884 O varieties)? |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
I wasn't poking fun at you, zee; I was poking fun at myself.  1921's also have the problems we're talking about in the bow area, in no lesser proportion. Oober's coin as an example demonstrates that the problem would have to be downstream from the galvano - although his coin has quite pronounced oddness around the bow, if you look at the VAMworld "1884-O Round O Reverses" page: http://www.vamworld.com/1884-O+Round+O+Reverses....you'll see that both the VAM-2 and the VAM-51 pictured have very little going on there. This demonstrates nothing we can conclude from, since at this point it could still possibly be a function of die state. |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Yeah, I do respect your views Dave, although I still believe that the problem could easily have roots in the Galvano.....If I knew that these long slender protrusions from the master hub would have to impress into the master dies, and the working hubs would again have to impress into the working dies, I think that I would leave this area at minimum relief until it was time to touch up the working hub, or even the working dies themselves during final annealing. Those lines are deep, and are there for cause.... I believe the cause may have been to reduce the previously untouched field at time of device depth adjustment. Quote:
This demonstrates nothing we can conclude from, since at this point it could still possibly be a function of die state. I also would vehemently disagree with that, (for now), as I doubt that there exists a variety both with and without these lines. |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
I also would vehemently disagree with that, (for now), as I doubt that there exists a variety both with and without these lines. I concur. It's the least-likely explanation, but has yet to be ruled out with a certainty. I've been through all of my duplicates, a very small sample, without success. Indications are, then, that oober might have a new Round O die based on the presence of the lines in the bow. |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Yes, those are my thoughts as well Dave, unless this it is declared as a die state of a known round O. (This would be in error though, because the date placement rules out 2, 18, 27, and 51).....(I still don't know how to tell an oval O from a round O though).
The one thing that I am pretty sure of though, is that those bow lines are not die state indicators.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 20 / Views: 2,652 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 11/02/2010 02:30 am
