1964 5⢠Question

As I view it; "die cracks" are the result of an existing weakness in the metal becoming "fatigued" (stressed) beyond its strength to the surrounding stronger-metal, through the act of repetitive movement (pressures applied)...

To this day ... I have not come across a "just-beginning" or a "extended" example of the difference...

Has anyone else?

dts...

change-1 > removed the extra word 'have'...

In Zoell Fourth Edition page 35 the difference is noted...

1964 R196a Erroniously engraved additional WL front of beaver

Have to agree that the "extra waterline difference" is not the result of a die crack/break ... which would make it intentional...

But if we also take into consideration that Zoell viewed it as being a mistake by someones hand at the Mint...

Does this difference now become both ... intentional and unintentional?

dts...

>> cbu - It sounds like you have your mind made up on this, and don't really care want anyone has to say about it.-jg86 <<

I see ... I can ask a question because that meets with your approval jg86 ... but I cannot add to the discussion (as limited as it is), because that does not meet with your approval...

Enjoy your "acorn" jg86!

dts...

I have to go with cbu and DBM on this one. Seems to me that back in the '70's I read an article describing it as a gouge, not a die crack, and that's why there is no die progression for this error. I don't remember if it was CCN or the Charlton of the day (that's all I had available), but the error was only about 12 years old so it was still getting mentions.

"Erroneously engraved" -- hmm, the term is just vague enough that it could mean caused by a mint worker or caused by accidental occurance. Interesting line of thought. The only way I could see a gouge like that caused by an employee's hand is through carelessness in maintenance of the die -- if clean-up work on the die was needed to remove a bit of extra metal caught in the the design, for instance -- and the metal chisel accidentally slid across the surface of the die. But I don't know if the dies were ever cleaned this way by hand or not.

As to how a gouge could be caused by accidental, non-human means, that sounds like something may have gotten into the die while it was stamping and made a mark. It's similar to the process which makes a die clash, except in this case it wasn't the other die hitting it, it was a foreign piece of metal. I can't say I favour this scenario, I more prefer the first one, but there you go for consideration. And then again, it's quite possible that the gouge was caused by a third entirely different process. However it happened, the scratch fit so well with the design that quite a few nickels were minted before anyone noticed.

I agree that the "accidental scoring" of the die isn't necessarily the best explaination, especially given the depth of the scratch needed to produce such a strong gouge, but what would prompt someone to purposefully engrave that line? It would alter the basic design which had been used for nearly 30 years at that point. Could a legitamate die crack have begun to occur and they decided to "engrave" it out? Or would a die crack go too far into the die itself for that possibility to be feasible? I've never seen an actual die which has a crack in it, so I'm not sure how deep they can reach, but judging from any die crack coins I've seen the cracks don't seem to be that far into the die metal. I'd love to hear the results after you've worked your magic with one, SPP.