2010 Lincoln Clashed Dies

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.