Why Am I A VAM Enthusiast?

That's another interesting point. Furthermore, if there was a "bubble" scenario, I cannot imagine it lasting more than a few strikes before it "burst." All the same, I'm having a darn difficult time making the mental leap from "repeated clash strikes" to "a soft hole in a die." A combination of the two, exacerbating a preexisting weak spot? Maybe.

The topic remains unexplained. Fresh thinking is needed. Complete information will never be available; even if records of planchet composition exist, the processes of the day didn't have the precision to lend strength to a true "theory." It will always be speculation.

Unless someone sacrifices one of these "ovaloid" coins to a complete metallurgic micro-study. I suspect we could arrive at something conclusive then.

Good thoughts Remmy. It is far easier to dispel or criticize a theory than it is to prove it, especially when dealing with events that happened a hundred years ago.

I will say this though, a sunken die is caused by improper annealing, leaving the die soft with a deceivingly hard outer shell. Striking would be all that is necessary to bring out this flaw. In fact, the impact of a normal strike generates far more actual pressure on the dies than does a clash. Consider this: the upper die and the lower die will merely touch (relative to strike) at clash. If the press were (or even could be) adjusted to a distance between the dies in closer proximity than that, dies would not survive clash, and press would take a terrible beating as well throwing it out of kilter, requiring parts replacement and constant maintenance. Striking pressure of 120 tons is just that; 'striking' pressure. If a clash occurred at that pressure, both dies would shatter, and press repairs would be necessary. If neither planchet or lower die were in place, how far would the upper die travel at strike? What stops the upper die in downward momentum?

Sunken dies are a matter of perception. People may only notice the more extreme cases, but they are common. Most people don't know them when they see them. The most extreme case of a sunken die was a VOW over a year ago, and I cannot remember the VAM or even the year or mint, but it was not even mentioned as a sunken die, instead it was listed as an over polished die. (A case of misidentification). There are many instances of sunken dies in unclashed coins, but most folks just don't know a sunken die when they see one, not do they understand just what a clash really is.

Whether or not I am correct about the origins of "ovaloids" is a matter of speculation. The only thing that I am certain about is that clashing is not a factor with either "ovaloids" or sunken dies. While I believe that improper annealing is the catalyst for both, I believe that hubbing is the direct cause of former, and striking is the direct cause of the latter.

The location of these effects in the vicinity of the clash ring is not only the basis for those who feel that clashing must be the cause, but it is also the basis for my thoughts on the bubbles and their shapes.

The rationale as to why this 1A2, 1A3 thing is even classified as an "ovaloid" escapes me. Where is that distinctive oval shape?

Let me finally say this, and it is not meant as a personal lunge toward 'anyone', but I have heard many people brag about the vast number of coins that they have studied over how many decades, attempting to impress who? Maybe themselves, but I am certainly not impressed by people who can spend so much time looking at something and 'still' not understand what they are looking at.

The greatest cherry picker alive (in my opinion) a former attributor, can talk to me all day long about which VAM this is or that is (as could you) and I will believe him, he goes to all of the shows, and picks them clean, he knows every little pup on every VAM it seems. He is a Rain Man in that regard, but a total idiot when it comes to cause and effect of those pups. He has a MAD clash on this 1825 cent and that 1832 dime, and cannot understand why I say that MAD clash will not occur on a Morgan. He knows nothing of the press. I like him very much, as one of the nicest guys I know in vamming, but I refuse to talk to him about cause and effect of pups, it is like talking to a wall, as he has these preconceived notions that were etched into his brain long ago by those that he emulated, and is resistant to any other ideas. I have learned much from him, and miss him, but he knows only identification, and nothing of creation.

I am off on yet another tangent I see.

PLANCHETS ? I was under the distinct impression that these "ovaloids" were die specific. Now I am to understand that they could be anywhere at random on these coins (planchet specific)?

Just a quick note here, As I have tried to show the "nose" area in question for 1891-0, the arc impressions transfer from clashing is the outline of the nose, now notice the sunken area...notice also that is "within" the RECESSED area of the die,...
not the surface,,,
"HOW" could this area, which is below the surface die, suddenly be RAISED from clashing? I do not feel its possible those parts of the die never touch.........however being a defect of the die , a weakend portion could fail, I believe as Zee has stated this is due to the annealing or hardening process, which hardens the "skin" of the die, not the entire or whole die from top to bottom side to side...
this particular die does not seem to show multiple clashing such as other vams do, so that the clashing alone IS the final reason for the failure...NOOO....yet the occurrence is die specific for this year..
The die failing weather there was trapped air pockets in the dies metal that failed and allowing the die to sink, to me is on the right track of reasoning as to what caused this sinking die.....Many an R5 coin has many many thousands produced and not share this same effect..
So clashing alone can not be the answer for an area that is "BELOW" the die surface to fail..

Are we now talking about "ovaloids" or sunken dies Remmy?

When I first saw the raised dome in the field of the 1891-O VAM 1A3 my first impression was this was caused by metal fatigue of the die due to repeated strikings.

Whether this effect is caused by dies clashing is because all of the observed specimens that have ovaloids are clashed.
My understanding of letter transfer is the tilt of the die (left,right,center)when the clash occurs to get letter transfer.

If this effect is indeed from the annealing process of the die, then what would the die look like after repeated strikings? Shouldn't we see evidence of more failure?
I don't follow that what caused the ovaloid is an occluded gas bubble in the die. It is possible, but I don't think probable.

Terry, you have effectively tied together everything that I have been talking about for quite a while now.

Forensics is another word for unfounded speculation when it comes to these coins. Without any knowledge of annealing, the forensics expert does not understand that each and every die is unto itself, unique. Some are good hard dies that will last 100,000 strikes or more. Others break on first strike. Some are soft in the middle, and sink with striking, some are brittle at the edge, and a Cud is the result, some crack laterally, some radially, some don't crack at all. Annealing (heating and cooling at exact temperatures and time durations) is only one factor in the life of a die. Initial grain density, quality of grain ore, alloy mixture, clashing, strike wear, basining, and polishing are other, but far from all other factors. If a person does not understand annealing, that person has no idea what a die actually is. Most folks don't even know what a die 'looks like' for crying out loud, but feel competent to talk trash about what is possible and what is not.

These Morgan dollar dies were fit into a press, but not just 'any' press. The Morgan & Orr used to strike these silver dollars was unlike (significantly unlike) any other press on the planet in their time of use. The infamous tilting of the dies......the misaligned dies.....and all of the other things that the experts see on other coins and naturally assume that a press is a press, and if it is possible on my 1834 half dollar, it is certainly possible on a Morgan. Without knowledge of this particular press, it is impossible to determine what it is capable of and what it is not.

The processes of minting coins.....'hubbing' and 'die polishing' for example....will give each die a distinct personality. How many hub strikes is necessary for each die to achieve the exact relief of the previous die or the next die? How many turns of the polishing plate, at what speed and pressure setting will offset any inconsistencies in hubbing? Is the press adjusted to compensate further? Without knowledge of the processes, what sort of basis for understanding just what happened could there be?

Then there is the dreaded clash.....just how frequent are these earth shaking occurrences? How much pressure is applied to the dies at impact? Is it really pressure, or what that causes the impressions from clashing? How far downward would the upper die travel if the lower die was not present?

If a person cannot answer these questions, then "forensics" is a joke.

So, clashing is it then, caused by tilted dies, the same cause as so many other die abnormalities.

I am tired.