| Contenido del artículo |
- From mantoloking2002@yahoo.com Mon Nov 17 21:17:55 2003
Return-Path: <mantoloking2002@yahoo.com>
X-Sender: mantoloking2002@yahoo.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 24405 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 05:17:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172)
by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Nov 2003 05:17:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n34.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.102)
by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 05:17:54 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.144] by n34.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Nov 2003 05:17:54 -0000
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:17:54 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Help on Maris 18-M Reverse Die State Analysis
Message-ID: <bpca22+q2us@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <bpc776+bhtl@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 2688
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "mantoloking2002" <mantoloking2002@yahoo.com>
X-Originating-IP: 66.218.66.102
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=119381380
X-Yahoo-Profile: mantoloking2002
Buell,
Great and persuasive point about clashing impacting the field and not
the letters. I agree about the coin being "coin turn" but because
the "clash" is rounded rather than straight it appeared more like the
plough handles rather than than the exergue. BUT, the plough handles
are too far from the rim to logically create the clash at IBUS which
lead me to question what part of the 18, 19 or 24 (yes there are only
three)obverses created the clash. I am still puzzled but really like
your point about the fields versus device.
Thanks!
Roger
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "buellish" <buell@v...> wrote:
> Roger,
> Looking at my photo of my 18-M (coin also at bank), I notice that
my
> coin seems to match the Taylor coin (die state, not grade). While
> this area is angled slightly, I expect that this is clashing caused
> by the bottom of the plow. It does seem as if it is certainly
> clashing because it affects the fields and not really devices. The
> fields are the high point of the die, thus the receipient of the
> clash. Of course this clash could be caused by the 18, 19, or 24
> obverse die (I'm not forgetting one am I). Thus finding clash
> evidence on an obverse requires you search all those dies. It must
be
> the exergue line under the plow whose impression you are looking
at.
> Because these are "coin turn" and because it is the right distance
> from the dies edge. I can send a scan of my coin, but I don't think
> it adds to what you have. BTW, I see this same clash on my 19-M
rev.
> There I notice mostly bumps in the field extending to the right
from
> the bottom right of the "U" and the "S".
> Buell
>
> BTW my 18-M is plated in Oeschner as #1256. I don't see the clash
in
> the plate, nor is it mentioned.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Roger Siboni
> <mantoloking2002@y...> wrote:
> > New Jersey Copper Collectors,
> >
> > I was just studying the various die states of the New Jersey 18-M
> or M reverse and I ran into a bit of a snag. The latest state of
the
> die ( Die State IV by my reckoning) has what looks like to me like
a
> break running through IBUS. In a few catelogues, it is described as
> clashing. From the catelogue photos, I can not tell what part of
the
> obverse is clashed on the reverse and all my M reverses are of
> earlier die states so I can not tell from any of my coins. Can
> someone who has a late die state M reverse look at their coin and
> provide some insight?
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > Roger S.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
|
|---|
| URL de origen |
|
|---|
| Fecha de publicación |
|
|---|
| Volumen |
|
|---|
