| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 1,299 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
In process of working a trade with a member on another forum, I wanted to document that the 1949-D RPM-005 I plan to offer is correctly attributed. But when I initially attributed the coin long ago, I wrote down D/D/D on the holder instead of D/D. My photo below hopefully helps explain why. So, is this a D/D/D? Looks like it to me. I see 3 sets of serifs top and bottom. Comments? ...Ray  |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2624 Posts |
I see what you're speaking of but I'm not sure, the lower two might just be one damaged.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4038 Posts |
The markers shown are a few NE-SW lines between the tie and the date. The coin does have these though the die state is different so it's hard to line up the exact lines since many are gone.
After looking at the coin very closely under high power I'm thinking the "tripling" shown in the picture is either too minor to attribute or just a figment of the shadows. I'm sticking with D/D.
Ray
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
Looks like the right die to me from the image provided. As for the mintmark itself - it could be a tripled mintmark, and looks possibly so - but something to note for 1949D is the fact that there seem to be a LOT of very minor split serifs that year, which leads me to believe there could have been a problem with the punch itself. I'd have to see more of this coin to ascertain three punches.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
526 Posts |
Just a thought. If we take a look at the strike or hammer blow that puts the mint mark into the working die, we may get an answer.
When the blow is struck on top of the punch one would think that contact is made just once. But it isn't. Because of the elasticity of the metals involved and also some physic laws, that one contact turns out to be many more, each contact happening to a lesser degree than the previous. Lets follow the events; the first strike on the punch results in the punch indenting the working die. The next action is the punch and the hammer both rebound upward (due to elasticity of the metal) from the working die. However, the exerted downward force (produced by the die setter)results in a second contact of the hammer to the punch (even though this is still the initial striking of the punch). If there is any slight movement to the punch, between the first and second contact to the punch, the reaction will cause a secondary or shifted image or a repunched mint mark.
From what I understand concerning the placement of the mint mark on the working die, it was accomplished in two intentional strikes; the first strike was more of a tap to set the punch into position, while the second strike was to actually sink the punch into the die. It is during the second strike that the "bounce" could cause more than one image to be formed from one strike.
BJ Neff
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
Do we know if the mint technicians were trained to look at that first, light tap strike to see if it was in the right position? And if not then maybe move it over to the right position for a second tap strike? Or maybe they just tried to align the 2nd strike by "feel"? If two intentional strikes were the norm, then it might just be that the strength of the first strike was variable from tech to tech and this would explain why there is so much variation between RPMs.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Excellent photo, and very interesting read of the physics involved in punching mintmarks!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
526 Posts |
Another little tidbit of information concerning the punching of mint marks into the working die.
From what I understand a guide was placed over the working die with a hole in it. This facilitated a more precise placement of the mint mark on the working die's surface. Still, even with this guide, there are variances seen in the actual placement of that mint mark.
BJ Neff
Edited by BJ Neff
12/26/2011 9:11 pm
|
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 1,299 |
|
Posted 12/25/2011 8:25 pm
