| Author |
 Replies: 58 / Views: 5,172 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Quote:
I would like to point out there is more than a good chance Ron's coin can be traced to either a EDS or LDS, OR ULDS coin simply from die forensics, There are a good many 'experts' who don't know the first thing about the process of minting these coins, think that the press was a magical machine, and fail to understand and take into consideration the great many possibilities and factors that should be involved in determining die states.... Die state can be determined on a few varieties, but those long lived dies are perpetual paradoxes, and anyone who thinks that they have it figured out is delirious. A die is put into service, it clashes soon afterward..... A superficial crack appears on the die..... After repeated striking the clash marks on the die begin to fade as the crack lengthens, or, the die is polished for other reasons, the clash mark is now gone, so is the crack....The die returns to service..... The die is clashed again in the exact same location..... The die begins to crack in another location..... See where I am going with this? The fact of the matter is that not only can die state not be accurately determined, the die cannot even be accurately identified.... despite those who believe it is so, die cracks are NOT fingerprints. |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
God pictures Indian, someone may be able to ID it.
|
|
New Member
United States
28 Posts |
That is a very busy coin. Looks like a lot of clashing. Unfortunately, for me, I can't get a VAM to it. I did notice the F in OF is strange as is the last t in trust. Also what looks like a nice gouge below the 2nd L of DOLLAR. Near date and possible O/O mm. Looks like something in the O to me...kenny |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Wear to a coin will mask the keys to both variety identification and die state. While most (if not all) folks choose to go the easy route and look in the fields for chips and gouges, and clashes (all of which can be found on one coin, and gone on the next coin out of the press), the real keys are to be found in the devices, not the fields.
Pups in the devices do not disappear through wear at nearly the rate as do pups in the field, and that is because of impact versus mere displacement (or 'flow").... but the pups still fade, even in the devices, and that is why when comparing coins of the same variety for die state, it is crucial that uncirculated coins be used..... Find a pup that is in the devices of 5 of your 6 comparison coins, but is missing in the 6th coin, and you might want to think about the possibility that the sixth is a different variety despite all of the other similarities found on all six coins..... That little "7" that LVA found on Bryan's v-85 is THE definitive die marker.... not the crack.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5617 Posts |
Ron, I took the liberty of sending you the over-lays after I asked Coop, months ago to make them for me, so actually, Coop is the person who needs to be Thanked again.
Zee, I will not continue to push my opinions on you or any one else, I respectfully agree to dis-agree, every die has a finger print like none other, every die can be traced to a strong degree of determination of its origin, simply by researching the dies and the PUP'S and die markers, each die, from the same working hub, will not be exactly the same, I mean precisely, identically the same, NOT. This basis is the ground for which the reasoning I am referring to is built upon. I am just giving my opinion.....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Don't take what I said personally Mike, I had others in mind for my comments, not you..... We have differing views on these things, and that is only natural.
I think that you misunderstand what I am saying here.... Put 6 coins in a group for comparison as being the same..... 5 of those coins all have the same crack.... (they are of the same die, obviously)..... the sixth coin has a different crack..... does that mean it was struck from a different die? It most certainly does not..... I just gave the scenario as to how this happens (and it would be naive to think that it did not happen a good amount of the time).
On the other hand:
There are a very good many varieties that are so similar that people think that they are all the same.... and therefore they are classified as the same (rather than being identified as different). With vams, the die is not the die.
edited to add:
To be clear, the "others that I had in mind" don't post here.... but they lurk.
Edited by zeewool
02/23/2011 4:11 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
220 Posts |
It seems to me that the discussion is carrying two ideas, which some newer folks may not see and keep separate. The first is the idea that a single VAM number can have different dies, or die marriages. This is true, as zeewool notifly points out. That is the way the system was set-up from the git-go. Since a single VAM can have many dies within the "classification" which is all it is, zeewool is correct that in this case, "the-die-is-not-the-die". But that is a misapplication of the "die-is-the-die" concept, because VAMs never intended to be die numbers (this is slowly changing, but that is a story for another day). The second idea concerns die states, or stages. Here, "the-die-is-the-die" is appropriately applied, because the "die" never changes, only die features change. Again, zeewool correctly points this out. If I see a difference of thoughts expressed above, it is how "die states" are established. If one assumes that die wear is continuous, then in theory the number of different dies states is the number of coins minted by that die. Of course this is ridiculous, because the die wear is usually miniscule from coin to coin. Thus listed die states are usually reserved for significant changes in the die, such as polishing, crack propagation, clashing, die wear, manual engraving, etc. The only interpretation is then what constitutes "significant". The 1921-S VAM-15 series presents a suitable example of this. |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Refreshing to me to find someone whom with I can agree completely Vfm.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
709 Posts |
|
|
New Member
United States
28 Posts |
All of this is interesting and educational. However, Indian1 and his 87-O clashed Morgan seem to have lost it's momentum. Any idea's on his coin? His Morgan seems interesting enough, and I'm sure we could offer him some help...kenny
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Okay dadz..... it is vam-13.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
220 Posts |
I'd start with a near date and high O m/m.
|
|
New Member
United States
28 Posts |
I know I'm new at this, but I can't figure out a match with VAM-13. Just by mm alone, is not Indian1's high and center? Maybe I missed the alignment?...kenny
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
I don't think you missed anything dadz..... the mm does appear high as Vfm eludes to.... I can only fall back onto the remote possibility that the angle of the photo coupled with wear spreading the mm up and the bow down might make it appear as a high mm..... (I am actually a very good dancer, but this is not my normal type of rhythm)..... The only thing that I am hoping everyone could agree upon then is that this is a near date..... that narrows things down considerably.... how many near dates have high mm?
edited to add:
Actually, I believe that the mm is most definitely shifted right.
Edited by zeewool
02/23/2011 6:41 pm
|
|
New Member
United States
28 Posts |
OK zeewool, I see that the mm could actually be shifted slightly right. I also see that not to many VAM's are listed for either mm. I also don't see attribution's listed that match the rest of Indian1's coin. Does that mean his coin has not been attributed yet, or is his coin worn beyond these pup's to recognize? OR, I'm too new/blind to see them. Remember, I'm new at this and only see the obvious, I'm still learning the finer points, but trying to help other newbies as I go...kenny |
| |
Replies: 58 / Views: 5,172 |
First Page
Posted 02/23/2011 2:25 pm
