Let me add this very brief sentence or two:
How unfortunate for me it is, that I am so easily misunderstood. I wonder if it is this way in reverse as well? I did NOT say that I 'think' that this was a cause of rust. What I did say was that it "APPEARS" to be indicative of rust. Do I actually believe that this was a cause of rust? No. Do I believe that this was an effect of another specific cause that I have in mind? No. I have not seen or thought enough to have a conclusive opinion. I will say this: I don't care 'who' says what, I will investigate everything, before reaching my own verdict (if the topic is of enough interest to me to pursue).
The word "pitting" is what everyone seems to be hung up on. If another word or term, like 'mass chipping', or carbon 'bubble popping' were initially introduced with claims of extensive "research", would the lemmings follow? I'll bet they would.
I have only seen one (1) picture of this phenomena, and I will not venture a definitive conclusion on anything based on that alone. There are too many possibilities remaining. Is rust one of them? Yes. Is it the only one? No. I do not function in the manner that many of you think. If the scientific method cannot be employed, (and there are plenty of reasons why many things concerning coins minted over 100 years ago are not subject to this method), then the next best option is to eliminate possibilities.
In the case of denticle impressions for instance, everyone knows now what I have said about it, yet everyone still considers my words to be just another theory. Let me say this: My 'theory' is the 'only' theory so far even remotely resembling a 'theory'. If a person would take the word 'theory' and apply it to my view on these denticle impressions, my belief would probably be very weak at best. The word 'theory' has a meaning, and I try not to use the word much, rather, I have beliefs, and my beliefs are based upon things that I hold as truths of certain aspects of the overall topic. Everything else that has been claimed about those impressions has been predicated on wild speculation by folks who were totally ignorant of possibilities, and their preachings in no way qualify as 'theories'. Tilted dies on a Morgan & Orr? Impossible. Banging two dies together by a drunk coiner? Utterly ridiculous. I have heard other stuff, equally lacking in either education or common sense.
Pitting in this case? Maybe, it APPEARS as a person might think rust pitting might be a logical answer. Definitely pitting 'from rust'? I say 'prove it'. Show what "research" has been done. Definitely "pitting" of any cause? Again, my challenge would be the same. Forensics is a pretty powerful word when all that has really been accomplished is speculation by perceived authorities, and the subsequent following of the masses. How many die chips does it take to quantify or qualify as pitting? How many dots (with the supposed creation of carbon bubbles) are needed to amount to pitting? How long does it take for superficial rust residue to actually progress into pitting on what metals? I am interested in all of this "research" that is claimed to have been accomplished already, and by whom?
One of the biggest hindrances I see to discussions or debates with cause and effect areas on coins is the preconceived notions that folks carry around with them based on words like "research". When I hear this word, it means to me that someone has done more than write a book on his or her personal thoughts and speculations. It means to me that someone has done more than 'read' a such a book. What are the qualifications of such an author or or reader to proclaim 'research'? It is a word (like 'theory') that we throw around far, far too loosely and then are lead around the streets of Hamlin to the tune of knowledge.
You brought up a good point Dave, about the steel used during that era. I had previously talked to deaf ears (or maybe it was a wall) on another forum about just that, in post WWI America, not in reference to pitting, but something else. I did skim over the archives of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers from 1921, and found nothing pertinent unless you might think that protective metallic coatings being applied to steel in the form of dipping in zinc may have happened. I have heard nothing of zinc coatings on coin dies previously. Drill bits, yes, dies no, although it would not be out of the question nor would it be a ridiculous notion to think that modern dies may be titanium coated.
Since guns have come into play here, I can honestly say that I know nothing of them other than the workings of specific antique firearms. If the discussion turns to the mechanisms of the 1873 Colt Single Action Army revolver, or the 1873 Winchester rifle, for instance, I am more than capable of carrying on an intelligent and in depth conversation with 'anyone' short of Elmer Keith.
Personally, I speculate that the intended method was that the dies were to be simply wrapped in oil soaked cloth, packed in confetti and wooden crates, sent to the branch mints and left in those oily rags until inserted in the press. I continue to place blame on the management/supervision of the O mint for much of what folks find so interesting in the coins of that species. I find things like extended improper storage of the dies, improper press procedures and maintenance, under trained employees, etc, etc, to be more deliberately responsible and interesting than the question of why do some Morgan dies exhibit these effects while most do not?
Why do some dies show signs of excessive wear while others crack and
Cud in seemingly early state? Why do 1921 specimens have the tendency to display complete peripheral cracking at a rate exceeding that of their predecessors? The answers are not waiting to be 'proven', as there is no means of doing so, but through a logical process of elimination of possibilities, probabilities can be ascertained. I have covered many different aspects of coining and coin features elsewhere, and instead of response with open mind, I received jeers and sneers from those who cannot think for themselves.
It has never been my intended goal to shanghai anyone into my way of thinking or my beliefs, as that is all my words are (my beliefs). I would be rather sad to think that I could sway someone into thinking as I do. Just as saddened as I am when I see folks clinging to the impossible pipe dreams of others, because they have 30 or 40 years experience and their minds have closed to the reality of other and better possibilities. I have encountered a good many people who are considered to be experts in their chosen field of expertise. Some actually are, but many are just followers of those who weren't. Also sad is someone who can spend 30-40 years dealing with something and 'still' not understand it for what it really is. Things are not always as they seem, or as they have been explained. My goal is that folks might think for themselves, put on the old thinking cap, set the scales of judgment at an even field, release, and weigh and decide for themselves.
That is what I feel sets the few here on this forum apart from the throngs elsewhere; the ability to think rather than to merely follow. That is why I am here, and that is why you are here whether you realize it or not.
Posted 08/22/2010 12:03 pm
one might have to thinki!
