2010 Lincoln Clashed Dies

[diamond]

The areas of the design that show clash marks have very low relief. It doesn't take much plastic deformation for contact to occur with the opposite die. I don't think the dies are rebounding. I think the slight amount of plastic deformation they experience is permanent.

[clairhardesty]

The two identical coins add significantly to the notion that the die caused the appearance and I concede that it is strong evidence. But from a logical, scientific position, even massive correlation does not prove cause and effect. Stronger correlation is stronger implication but implication never becomes proof. I know that is being picky, but that is the way I choose to be on this issue. I simply won't accept the idea that the die can intrude that far into each other (the effect is on both sides, isn't it?) and then rebound back into nearly their original positions before going on to strike coins until an explanation of the physics involved makes sense to me.

[rascal]

Well, as I said, the coins don't prove the theory, they only suggest it. The fact that we have coins that look like they could have been minted with ful depth clashed dies does not prove that was the mechanism that in fact produced them. Two things that will change my mind on this one are a detailed explanation of the physics that allow such a clask to occur and a look at a die pair that has experienced such a clash. I can imagine other ways for such coins to come to pass but they are more complicated than the extreme die clash (which is actually a very simple theory and therefore an attractive one) so it does not make sense to present them as part of this discussion. If we have a set of coins that are (or at least seem to be) a result of the same die clash that will add weight to the theories. Again though, from a logical perspective, correlation never serves to prove cause and effect. Correlation doesn't even prove connection, it only implies these things. True cause and effect mechanisms need to be explained by solid science and ultimately, observed in operation.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if you want to believe different than me there is nothing wrong with that. I forgot to tell you earlier that the two coins I was talking about are 2000 P cents and they are both confirmed as being from the same die by me using die markers to confirm this.I'm adding a photo so you can see one of them. if you look closely inside of the white circle you can also see the U from e pluribus unum from the reverse die.

[clairhardesty]

Well, as I said, the coins don't prove the theory, they only suggest it. The fact that we have coins that look like they could have been minted with ful depth clashed dies does not prove that was the mechanism that in fact produced them. Two things that will change my mind on this one are a detailed explanation of the physics that allow such a clask to occur and a look at a die pair that has experienced such a clash. I can imagine other ways for such coins to come to pass but they are more complicated than the extreme die clash (which is actually a very simple theory and therefore an attractive one) so it does not make sense to present them as part of this discussion. If we have a set of coins that are (or at least seem to be) a result of the same die clash that will add weight to the theories. Again though, from a logical perspective, correlation never serves to prove cause and effect. Correlation doesn't even prove connection, it only implies these things. True cause and effect mechanisms need to be explained by solid science and ultimately, observed in operation.

[rascal]

I will accept the opinion of the coin experts for now by ending my arguments but I remain unconvinced that deformities of such magnitude can happen dynamically and that rebound can be so complete. I will be happy to come around for good when someone can describe the physics that allows such occurances. The fact is that our coins do not prove our theories because correlation never proves cause and effect. We are after all being asked to believe that the hardened steel die essentially flatten out while somehow maintaining their patterns, then return to their original depth after leaving cross impressions on each other, doing no damage to the rim area of the field in the process. Again, I will cease my arguments but I remain unconvinced.

I was just like you on this one and I have argued for years that it would be impossible for this to happen , but now I know better since I have seen it with my own eyes. like I told you earlier I have found two 2000 P cent coins that show clash marks all the way across Lincoln's neck. The reverse side of them are strongly clashed and show quite a bit of Lincoln's details and outline. what we have to remember is that the dies don't have to bend much at all if any to do this. each die is not flat at all , the center of the dies is protuding up higher than the dies edges with dead center of each die being the highest point so it is easy for the center points to clash together with just a tiny bit of help from huge amounts of pressure..

[clairhardesty]

I will accept the opinion of the coin experts for now by ending my arguments but I remain unconvinced that deformities of such magnitude can happen dynamically and that rebound can be so complete. I will be happy to come around for good when someone can describe the physics that allows such occurances. The fact is that our coins do not prove our theories because correlation never proves cause and effect. We are after all being asked to believe that the hardened steel die essentially flatten out while somehow maintaining their patterns, then return to their original depth after leaving cross impressions on each other, doing no damage to the rim area of the field in the process. Again, I will cease my arguments but I remain unconvinced.

[rascal]

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.

clairhardesty I noticed your quote here and decided to give some information that may help you. you said { Clashes cannot reach into the devices on the opposite die since the two fields hit each other. } I have to disagree with you here . I once thought this was true but now I know I was wrong. I have two identical clashed die cent coins here where the pillars of the Monticello building are visible all the way across Lincoln's neck . I also noticed that Mr. Neff had one on a website that shows the same thing. Don't ask me how this occured because I can't figure it out.

[diamond]

The Roosevelt dime does show a double set of extensive clash marks, some of which appear on the raised design. These correspond to shallow recesses on the die face and therefore areas that are susceptible to damage. It is clear that during a hard clash the die will experience slight plastic deformation. It's the only way that clash marks can be transferred to sunken areas on the die face. I see no other errors on the dime, apart from the related Type I counterclash. There is no point in looking at any other explanations, as the nature of the error is clear.

[clairhardesty]

I have a question about one of the pictures. In the closeup of the area below Roosevelt's ear, is the oak leaf image incuse on the coin? Based on my reading of the shadow and light patterns it appears to be.

I cannot accept running out of ideaas as jujstification for accepting one that has so many issues simply because it has not yet been trumped by a more acceptable theory. While there does appear to be some evidence of die clash on this coin, die clash alone simply cannot explain the entirety of what we see. I also cannot accept the notion that the die somehow softened during a clash event and then regained their hardness to strike this coin. Little, if anything at all, in your shuttle example is applicable to the physics of a die clash event. The notion that we don't understand everything is valid but that doesn't serve to explain anything.

The reverse appears to have clear signs of machine doubling in addition to what may be clash marks so clash alone is probably not a complete solution to the existence of this coin even if you accept the notion of device to device clashed, which I still do not. The existence of other coins with similar appearance does nothing to further any one theory of the creation of this coin.

I do think that if we keep this discussion going that we may be joined by others with more and possibly new ideas and that we may eventually come up with a theory that explains the coin without having to say some of it is unexplainable.

[jcuve]

I think one thing that may baffle the mind on some die clashes is, how can you get some of the strength that you do, and not shatter the dies. I know I am still baffled at the one I found which I think most would agree, should have shattered the die. The coin I am referring to is a 2000 P Nickel listed on maddieclashes as ADC-5C-2000-02.

Dave

If I recall, Mike suggested that the dies may have been unusually soft in the case of that particular clash.

When it comes to how the dies can defy a sort of common sense logic about a couple of steel rods with deigns on them banging into each other and recessed parts making contact when they seemingly should not: it may be impossible to establish why.

When the last space shuttle was damaged and was unfortunately lost upon reentry, scientists had to conduct experiments where they fired high speed installation at panels similar to the shuttle wings to see if it was plausible for something soft to act in a different way and damage the wings like a hard material. They were able to conclude that at high speeds damage was possible. With die clashes, we are dealing with a lot variables: such as the properties of steel (which are convex as BJ noted), speed, heat and pressure - how they play out to the results seen is beyond my guess work.

All I know is there is no other way to explain the Roosevelt above, other than to suggest that there were at least two clashes of the dies with a off-set movement between them. Each side shows the same rotation and misalignment - and the counterclashes fit perfectly - the simplest explanation is they clashed twice - this notion, "Some other mechanism is involved," is nonsense.

[Digenes]

I think one thing that may baffle the mind on some die clashes is, how can you get some of the strength that you do, and not shatter the dies. I know I am still baffled at the one I found which I think most would agree, should have shattered the die. The coin I am referring to is a 2000 P Nickel listed on maddieclashes as ADC-5C-2000-02.

Dave

[wavysteps]

What other device can replicate a design element? What Jason has shown is a die clash and the transfer of design elements from the obverse to the reverse and the reverse to the obverse.

When looking at die clashes, there are many considerations to be made. The first is that since the working dies are convex shape, the die clash will be mostly seen in the center of the dies. Next, we must take into consideration that the obverse die has deeper recessed areas than the reverse die. That means more of the obverse design elements will be transferred onto the reverse die than the reverse design elements onto the obverse die. Then we must look at the hammer die and see if it is tilted or rotated. This and many other factors are looked at when considering just what a die clash is all about.

In the past,, die clashes were looked on as "a die clash is a die clash". That attitude has changed for a "die clash is just not a die clash" any more. With the site MADdieclashes.com, we have strived to make people aware of the many different types of die clashes and with the multitude of pictures that are presented on that site, I hope that we are accomplishing that changing of opinion.

Yes, we do have some unanswered question, ones that beg for an explanation concerning die clashes. However, only through continuous study will those answered be revealed. At present, Mike Diamond, Jason Cuvelier, Bob Piazza and myself are trying to uncover those unanswered questions. Hopeful in the future, we will know all that is to be known concerning this unusual error type.

BJ Neff

[clairhardesty]

What you are seeing are not the direct result of die clashes. Some other mechanism is involved. Perhaps Mike Diamond knows the cause of such results and can explain them, I cannot and won't try. If you can explain the physics of how the devices of one die can reach into the devices of the opposite die during a clash event (somehow bypassing the fields), I will listen, but I cannot imagine any mechanism allowing such an occurance that does not totally destroy both die.

[jcuve]

No, I am saying that one die cannot reach into the devices off the opposite die during a clash event. The fields are the highest parts of the die and they hit each other during a clash. Clash marks are all left on the fields of the die, not in the devices. The two fields hit each other and try to push each other down, resulting in marks on the fields from the edges of the opposite devices (where no impact occurs).

That is simply not the case. Below is a Roosevelt clashed dies example which also has a Type 1 Counterclash I photographed last weekend. It should be rather obvious that both dies made contact in areas well below the fields; specifically near the ear and across the bridge of the nose. These are not coincidental strike-throughs that just so happen to look like reverse design elements...

[clairhardesty]

No, I am saying that one die cannot reach into the devices off the opposite die during a clash event. The fields are the highest parts of the die and they hit each other during a clash. Clash marks are all left on the fields of the die, not in the devices. The two fields hit each other and try to push each other down, resulting in marks on the fields from the edges of the opposite devices (where no impact occurs).