2010 Lincoln Clashed Dies

[jcuve]

A few of the arrows in your images are not actually clash points. The arrows that point to devices as opposed to fields are not clash caused items. Clashes cannot reach into the devices on the opposite die since the two fields hit each other. It is the edges of devices on one die that leave marks on the filed of the other. Any mark on any part of the coin that is raised above the field is not the result of a clash, it has some other cause (struck through being a common one). Overall, the clash is very impressive. Your coin does point out that some of the vertical lines on the shield extend all the way to the level of the field, allowing them to leave an impression on the obverse field in a clash incident.

The white arrows point to various clash marks (except on the overlay where they point to the same areas of the clashes). The black arrows are die markers. If you were suggesting that the marks on the shield were not clash marks, you are mistaken as they are certainly from the obverse die. I have a number of cases on a Lincoln cent or a Roosevelt dime where clash marks have been left in recessed parts of the die (raised parts on a coin). I have not however seen such marks on some of the higher denominations (such as Morgans). One can routinely find examples of minor clashed Lincolns where an impression of bay 7 can be found just below Lincoln's ear.

[rockdude]

A few of the arrows in your images are not actually clash points. The arrows that point to devices as opposed to fields are not clash caused items. Clashes cannot reach into the devices on the opposite die since the two fields hit each other. It is the edges of devices on one die that leave marks on the filed of the other. Any mark on any part of the coin that is raised above the field is not the result of a clash, it has some other cause (struck through being a common one). Overall, the clash is very impressive. Your coin does point out that some of the vertical lines on the shield extend all the way to the level of the field, allowing them to leave an impression on the obverse field in a clash incident.

I guess I'm not understanding your statement here; "Any mark on any part of the coin that is raised above the field is not the result of a clash, it has some other cause (struck through being a common one)."
Are you saying that 'clash marks' do not leave raised marks on the coin?

[clairhardesty]

Amen to that! I have collected Morgan dollars for quite a few years now and the variety of clashes found in the series is astounding. I have had coins that clearly came from the same die pairing in different stages of life and seeing additional clashes along with various repairs is incredibly interesting. Looking at coins that show clashes, chipping, cracking, and repair and seeing the tool marks of the mint artisan that was charged with getting the maximum possible service out of each and every die they were given really brings the history of the coins to life.

[wavysteps]

Clash dies can boggle the mind. Since we started the MADdieclashes.com, I have delved deep into the construction of counter clashes, mad clashes, floating clashes and such. At times, I go to sleep trying to figure out exactly what is happening on a particular clash.

Back to basics; a negative area or incused area on a die will not leave a clash mark. The field surrounding the negative area will. So, when we look at a "prisoner" Lincoln cent, it is the bay areas that are indented in the die causing them to be raised on the coin. However, when dealing with a counter clash (type I), the second transfer of that element is incused in the die or raised on the coin or just the opposite of what happens when a normal die clash occurs.

I do agree that most people ignore this concept and point to anomalies that seem to be clash marks, but are in reality not the actual mark left by the clashing of the die. That is why we have made MADdieclashes.com in hopes that the collector will better understand the dynamics of the die clashes in its different forms. As I said before, a die clash can boggle ones mind.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

Clash marks appear as incuse, mirror-image versions of design elements found on the opposite die. Now, in the case of a very weak clash mark, an impression may be left of only the field lying between two design elements. This will then appear as a raised mirror image on the coin. An example of the latter would be the "dragon's breath" clash on the Vermont quarter.

[clairhardesty]

A few of the arrows in your images are not actually clash points. The arrows that point to devices as opposed to fields are not clash caused items. Clashes cannot reach into the devices on the opposite die since the two fields hit each other. It is the edges of devices on one die that leave marks on the filed of the other. Any mark on any part of the coin that is raised above the field is not the result of a clash, it has some other cause (struck through being a common one). Overall, the clash is very impressive. Your coin does point out that some of the vertical lines on the shield extend all the way to the level of the field, allowing them to leave an impression on the obverse field in a clash incident.

[jcuve]

We have this listed as ADC-1c-2010-01 at Maddieclashes.com.