pivital CW rotation from K-5

[Dick]

There is a bit of confusion in my mind: Will the FOCAL POINT", BE opposite K-5? My interpretation is that the focal point IS K-5, indicating the actual "movement" will be on the OPPOSITE side of the face involved.
S/S East. The primary, (first mark made) is the point of reference from which the last mark's movement is inicated? That is the first one was at point "X", and was in error, so it was removed, and the second, (final) placed, East of the first?
This is one of "those" days! Comments?
Dick

[eagames]

I think the answers are yes and yes.

I'm assuming your first question with pivot from K5 is a double die description and your second question is an rpm description.

Seems opposite... for ddos they say the second image compared to the first so cw means the second image is cw from the first but on rpms they say something like s/s east it means the first punch remnant is east of the second one.

Correct me if I'm being reversed

[coop]

WHAT?

The direction on RPMs are figured from the Primary (strongest) mintmark. North/South/East/West/Rotated/tilted. I think this was what your were asking? The first punch maybe in the primary punch but a secondary or even a third punch in a different punching may come early or mid or later in the mintmark punching process. So the first punch may be same/different location. some years they are too close to the date, so the mintmark location was changed. but other times they could have just missed the mark of the primary location.

[Dick]

Now, I'm REALLY confused! Primary= First. Secondary= Second. I punch a MM, and it is too far north, so I erase it, (most of it). Then I punch another, South of the "other" one.
Should it read: MM/MM, south? Because some of the First, (primary) still shows? Or is the LAST MM the "primary"? If the last MM is the Primary, (in importance, obviously), then the prior punches are "secondary".

Rotation CW, at K5: K5 is the CENTER of movement, CW, or CCW. So I look for lateral displacement, on the other side of the coin.
Make sense?
Dick

[eagames]

Coop,

For example:

http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1956&die_id=1956d1mm003&die_state=lds

The stronger primary mark is south of the weaker one... so they call it a d over d north (because the underlying D is north).

For example:

Opposite of a ddo... CW on DDOs means the second image is CW from the first. (you don't call it CCW because the underlying image is CCW of the first)

The second image is CW so they call it CW:

http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1972&die_id=1972p1do006&die_state=lds

That's what I mean by reversed

[coop]

The primary is the strongest mintmark. The secondary is the RPM. Whether the location was changed or accidently struck isn't an issue. We can theorise it, but the separation of the two/three/or more punches is what makes it an RPM. The removal of punches I don't think happens. They just fall where they are hit. After there is strength, then it is easier to hit the same spot. Must have been hard work to do them. They don't add them since 1990, they are part of the die.

[eagames]

Dick,

The simple answer to your original question is yes and yes.

For RPMs I wouldn't say that primary is always punched first, it's just the main one you see.

I don't think they normaly do any "erasing". The MM is punched (recessed) into the die so it wouldn't be easy to remove it or fill it in with something that would last.

[coop]

If they removed it they would make a higher area in that spot. Kind of like when they over clean and remove part of the edges of the die devices. we see those marking especailly in LDS/VLDS die states. they lose their crispness of detail. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if they removed part of the mis-strike they would be making a large die gouge in that area. The problem would only get worse with age of the die.

[Dick]

Looks like I opened a can of worms! The whole thing is actually a case of "semantics". The interpretation of a phrase, by one person, does not mean that it was in the same context, as was interpreted by another. Most will understand, and have no problems. Others will have trouble relating to things that are the reverse of what we see. I said, : "erase it", as if it were protruding. That is not the case. The case is that what is "protruding", on the coin, is actually "sub-surface", on the die, and on the coin, visa-versa.
So much for the die.
The pivot point. That was a bit of a problem, but no longer is. I won't ask why it isn't the same case, depending on the direction one looks. CW, or CCW, from the "pivot point". What is "self-evident", will suffice. I appreciate all the answers, and info, all have given, and will try to make use of it. I'll give you fair warning, there will be other "BOO-BOO's"!
Dick

[coppercoins]

"The interpretation of a phrase, by one person, does not mean that it was in the same context, as was interpreted by another."

And that's why it is important to explain things clearly and with proper spelling and grammar.

Here's how it is...

1. Doubled dies, for those that have a direction of spread, are described in such a manner that if you follow FROM the doubling TO the complete devices, you will be going in the direction of spread. The 1984 doubled ear is actually described as having an offset spread to the northeast.

2. Repunched and over mintmarks are described in such a manner that if you could stand at the complete, boldest mintmark and follow the direction to the partial mintmark(s) with North being the top of the design, you would be traveling in the direction of spread.

The reason for the "opposite" effect in describing doubled dies versus mintmark varieties is because of the nature of how they are created. It is far easier to explain and visualize that an incomplete sink into a die would be an earlier hubbing whereas the complete, deepest design would occur after the other...hence traveling from the devices causing the doubling to the complete devices.

A mintmark punch is a completely different story. We don't know which came first, and frankly it's impossible to tell most of the time. Someone simply decided to describe the from the primary (not necessarily the first) mintmark to the secondary mintmark. In cases where there is no primary mintmark, we call them "tilted".