2010 Lincoln Clashed Dies

[jcuve]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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).

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.