| Author |
 Replies: 59 / Views: 7,084 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
571 Posts |
I agree with Coop and the theory of dies hitting each other. I worked in a factory that used hardened steel punches to compact powdered metal into gear components. They were quite sensitive to damage by contact, merely bumping them together edge to edge would often be enough to damage them. I could see the possibility of a mint employee installing dies, and one drops down onto the other, maybe bouncing and causing a pair of dents to occur. It doesn't even need to drop far, just enough to make a little ding in the die. Not actually knowing how dies are installed at the mint just makes this my theory, but if it's in any way vaguely similar to how I installed punches at my job, it is highly possible.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3331 Posts |
I think that their uniformity in shape and angle argue for these not being a random occurrence, such as accidental contact between two dies. I previously had stated that it appeared to me that the gouges were caused by the use of some tool (I had not thought of feeder fingers) or some operation of the coin press. The explanation of these features being caused by feeder fingers fits easily. I doubt that the use of examples showing only one gouge was intended to make a statement that there could not be 2 gouges on the same coin (although I suppose that could be the possible intent).
The one argument I can see against these being rim burrs is that the photos in the definition are all quite similar to each other as far as the shape of the burr is concerned - which is a bit of a different shape than those on this coin (although it is extremely close). The angle of the burr in the third photo is virtually identical to the angle on this coin.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
I've noticed the Feeder Finger Damage is most often seen on the reverses of the coins. But with the change of position of the obverse and reverse dies, we should see more Feeder Finger Damage on the obverses on the new cents. But I've yet to see one. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3331 Posts |
Quote:
But with the change of position of the obverse and reverse dies Can you say when that change was made? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2775 Posts |
http://goccf.com/t/94501&SearchTerms=anvil,dieMikeDiamond - Posted 07/31/2011 10:20 pm Quote:
Beginning in 1992 (at the Denver branch), the Mint started experimenting with using the reverse die as the hammer die. This setup gradually became more common until it was the predominant setup in 2002. Changeover was complete (at least for business strikes) by 2005. So all coins, except proofs, are struck with an "inverted" die setup.
Also note Condor101 mentions in a different topic the conversion to the horizontal press during this time frame. Thanks, Doug. http://goccf.com/t/76840&SearchTerm...rtical,pressCondor101 - Posted 12/20/2010 1:08 pm Quote:
Then since 2002 they have been changing their presses from vertical strike presses to horizontal Schuler presses.
Edited by Halo1st
12/18/2016 12:24 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3331 Posts |
Great work - thanks, Doug!  |
|
Valued Member
United States
97 Posts |
The types of "spikes" going from the rim into the field that get thinner and sharper at their point have always been called "tool marks." This "die dent" term is something apparently "coined" by he younger generation of knowledgeable error collectors to describe die damage having a different cause and appearance.
The spikes are "tool marks." "Die dent" seems like a reasonable term to describe the damage that looks like a "blob.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3331 Posts |
Quote:
The types of "spikes" going from the rim into the field that get thinner and sharper at their point have always been called "tool marks." Very interesting! I had not heard that! I wonder if you can give me a reference on that? Perhaps a link? By the way,  to CCF! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3516 Posts |
and thanks for the info |
|
Valued Member
United States
97 Posts |
Thank You for the welcome. Your request has me completely baffled. I thought what I posted was common knowledge found in any ANA Authentication Seminar, the J.P. Martin Counterfeit video, ANA Correspondence Course, the Bill Fivas Counterfeit Detection Guide, the PCGS Grading & Counterfeit Guide, etC, etc... Let me expand my original post for you as I'm sorry my original answer was too basic. I am new to this form and I guess I expected more. This is what I have learned on the OP's subject. This goes for both genuine and counterfeit die struck coins: Anything that happens to a die after it is made will be INTO the die's surface. Dies can be polished, damaged, or "touched-up" before or during use. Anything INTO the surface of a die will be RAISED on the struct piece. When a die is polished the struck piece looks one way. When a die is damaged, it produces RAISED marks of all different types - depending on the damage. When a die is "touched-up" it produces all types of RAISED marks depending on the tool used and what was done. Generally, when authenticators' refer to "tooling" ON A DIE, it refers to areas on the piece (genuine or counterfeit) with RAISED "tool marks." When the tool marks are from the rim into the field they are often referred to as "spikes" and are caused when an engraving tool slipped. In the past, tool marks in the field and from the rim were a good sign that a coin MIGHT BE counterfeit. It is important to remember that tooling marks and "spike" tool marks also do occur on genuine vintage coins.. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3331 Posts |
Quote:
I am new to this form and I guess I expected more afewmorecents - thanks for your response. I think what happened here is that you were asked a question by a complete novice (me). I have only been working with error coins a few years and I am absolutely fascinated with them. I drive many of the other Forum members nuts with my questions!  Even though I have been collecting coins since the late 1940s, it is not until recent years that my interest has become more focused. You will find a large number of forum members here who are quite knowledgeable and experts in the area. This includes some who are major contributors to various numismatic publications and journals. Please don't take my obvious ignorance as an indication of the level of knowledge of all participants in the Forum. So I do have a question. You said: Quote:
When the tool marks are from the rim into the field they are often referred to as "spikes" and are caused when an engraving tool slipped. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that because of the nature and appearance of the marks, it is quite clear and certain that they were caused by an engraving tool which slipped? Edited by Pete2226
12/18/2016 2:27 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3516 Posts |
Pete, you don't drive us nuts! You help us and you make us question everything that is known. That's a great thing!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3331 Posts |
Quote:
That's a great thing! Thank you Dustin6! However, I suspect some are nuttier now than they were before I showed up!!  |
|
Valued Member
United States
97 Posts |
Pete, you already know more about errors than I ever will! We all learn new things. EXAMPLE: As I wrote, "die bump" is a good term I never saw before and I'll use it! I mistakenly took your question to imply I made up the term "tool mark" when you asked for a reference or link. I did not know where to send you and I felt very ignorant.
I registered here today on a friend's suggestion. I'm more interested in Counterfeits of 8 Reales than U.S. coin errors.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3331 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 59 / Views: 7,084 |
First Page
Posted 12/18/2016 09:35 am
