Die Clash

[Steven]

When Dies clash how is it possible to effect any part of the design when the field does not get effected.
Found this 2005P with a bay under the ear and was a bit confused as to how that could happen.

Steven

[garylcsr]

Steven check the Reverse as well it is easier to see.
here is one i found last nite and Coops exspination that looks good to me lol
Gary

http://www.coppercoins.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2185

[eagames]

Could it be that it did show in the fields but they were able to polish it away from the fields but could not polish it out of the portrait?

Still seems like it would have to go equaly deep into the fields to get that deep into the portrait.... maybe somebody can explain how?

[coop]

On a die clash the fields of the coin gets affected the most. But areas in the design of the bust that are close to the field level (not as far into the die) may also touch. Yours is a good example. The deepest parts of the fie do not touch, but areas of the same level as the fields can be touched as well during a clash. The mark in that area was probably undetected when they removed the other die clashes or if your coin has the other die clash outlines, then you got one before they removed the clash marks. Great find and glad you posted the image as it shows another area that can be affected. Looks like the bay West of the Statue. The statue is further lower as you are looking at the lower floor of the 5th bay from the right looking at it reversed and actually number 7th bay looking at the reverse of the coin.

[Steven]

I checked over the obverse and reverse well and the only indication of the clash is that under the ear. Nothing anywhere else on the coin. I would think it the field would be effected. This one shows the bays but only effects the field.
Steven

[coop]

From previous discussions on this subject the die clash may have a doubled mark or even tripled clash mark on columns 3 & 8. Most are removed but some still remain. So I'm guessing that yours is one that was un-noticed by the one who removed the other clash marks. Glad you posted it. Looking at the tag above with the dlash clash overlay, the next bay with the statue in it would almost be in the neck above the collar. That area may be low enough to show a clash mark also as I have seen a lot of scratches in that area also. So that might be another area to watch for when you find a clash.

[Steven]

Thanks for the help coop. This one just had me a bit confused. Didn't look at all as if the die had been reworked but maybe after a few planchets pass through the dies some of the evidence of the cleaning would be less likely to see?
Steven

[Dick]

ED, Steven, Coop, I was looking at mine, and it is 1985D, but does not show very much of the back of the head, & neck. No markings on OBV. Also, a question. It looks like the bay on the neck, under the ear on one post, is higher than another one I saw. It was down very close to the collar, while this one is up, very close to the ear. How can this difference be?Seems it is NOT a clash! I checked the overlay, and it is impossible to be a clash. The area involved has some kind of mark there, but not a clash. The reverse has what appears to be feeder damage: 2003-D



Dick

[coop]

Dick: The difference is the top and bottom of the bays can make marks where the level of the design is the same as the fields. In other words the lower area of the relief would be where the clash would affect as they would be the same height as the fields. You have to view the die as not only backwards, but also a 3-D image with the higher points on the coin being the lower points inside the die. Where the lower areas (like under the ear and neck) would be almost the same height as the fields allow the opposite dies to touch in these areas during a clash.

Something that has to be taken into account is that the coin in the overlay was a 1964 proof Cent. The setup process is different now than from that example. The overlay was mainly used to show where other clash mark target areas are. The single squeeze is a lot more shallow than the example of the 64. Also the 64 was struck a multiple of times. So depth will look differently. I used that coin as the proof coins make the fields a better coin to overlay. So if someone has a newer proof that is out of the plastic, a good OBV & REV image would be appreciated. That way I could update the overlay with a single squeeze example. I guess I should try a business strike as the location of the AM is different. But proofs work best for this type of overlay. If you have an example of a new one please send it to me.
richard.cooper3@worldnet.att.net
All the newer proofs I have are still in the plastic and they usually give poor images because of the glare. If no one has one then I will try to use one of the proof sets I have to shoot through. Thanks guys.

[eagames]

Coop,

About what Dick mentioned:

[coop]

Ed: On the image in the other thread, check where the crease under the ear would be formed by the floor bay and where on the neck where the crease for the neck the upper portion of the bay would make contact. That would explain why they are not the same height. The bottom and upper part of the bays would make marks in different areas.

There could be some shifting when the dies clash, but they would have to be re-aligned if they removed one and the clash mark areas should be back in line otherwise the coin would be a MAD Cent or in correct alignment. Just depends on how the operator set the dies up. (That is considering the dies were removed.)
On Stevens image you not the marks to the East of the head? Do you see that last one looks taller? That's because that is the area outside of the column not a bay area. With all the things we're finding, who knows for sure what is going on down there.

I got a box of circulated Cents from out of town. Some of them I've found some nice coins in the rolls. But tonight I found a OBW roll of 2002-D That had been open yet. So I opened it and it didn't yield anything, well yet. So anything we find is usually a chance thing. I've figured out what Chuck said is so true. That if it isn't seen right away, its probably not there or worth the effort trying to find something there. Too minor stuff won't bring any returns for our efforts. Just move on to the next coin. Stuff that looks interesting I set aside for a second look, but 98% goes back into circulation.

[Dick]

Coop, the best I can offer is a 1989-S proof. The rest are in plastic, like yours. Will it help?
Dick

[coop]

Close but no cigar. I'm thinking a 98-2006 would work better. Nice try though.

OK, I used a shot through a proof set. I think it gives a better picture as the 1964 example was hubbed differently and the 2000-S I used is closer to what we are looking at. See if this helps?

[Dick]

Real beautys, Coop! In 1985, mine has the lips in the lower section of the bay, almost on the stylobate. I had the nose involved, but now it is much clearer.
Dick

[Dick]

Gentlemen, an observation:
I have seen posted, and in hand, several clsahed dies , and just realized that not all overlays can be accurate! The changes in the head, and details thet have been changed over the years, will make a subtle difference in which year is involved with the clash. My clash die, dose NOT jive exactly with the overlay, (2000), or the one by Coop, (2005)! These changes will, and have affected the actual SIZE of Abe's head, the detailing that has been changing on the facial features, all make the same clash nearly impossible to verify, unless compared to the year involved! Case in pointL Check Murphy's set of Abes, over the decades. They are not identical! One of my clashed dies, has the nose partially involved in the clash. Another does not.
It would be nice if a set of overlays for each year, or at least when any design changes have been made, were posted, or available for the members. Coop, ED, MUrph, or any others that have this ability. I know I would benefit, and am sure others as well. Since joining the forum, I have found out that not all cents are identical, even tho they still look alike!Dick