OT - Feed Finger Gouges Or ?

[RogerRock]

Striking errors seldom show up on Walking Liberty Half Dollars. Quality control on the entire Walker mintage was exemplary. I simply label this as major die gouges. What would you call it?

This error is not unique since I found two of them with same date and gouges.

[fogie]

ODD - AWED....No idea!

[RogerRock]

ODD - AWED....No idea!

THANKS Brent!
I have searched thousands of Walkers with Very Few errors found. I found a few cracked planchet examples and several small planchet clips but no major striking errors besides the two 1940 die gouges.

[vampicker]

Wild! Looks way too strong for feeder fingers. Is the stuff that appears to be to the right and below In God We Trust directly opposite the affected area on the reverse?

[RogerRock]

Wild! Looks way too strong for feeder fingers. Is the stuff that appears to be to the right and below In God We Trust directly opposite the affected area on the reverse?

Yes ,and more above Y.
. More stuff on obverse between L and I that is also weak.
Rim is not involved.
The better grade example of the two is about to cross your desk John or someone at ANACS.
Brian R. looked at it in hand and commented that he did not think it was feed finger gouges.

[vampicker]

Cool, I'll look forward to seeing it in hand. Might come back with something generic like 'die gouges' but I'll try to dig a little

[RogerRock]

Cool, I'll look forward to seeing it in hand. Might come back with something generic like 'die gouges' but I'll try to dig a little

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

[pup_picker]

Cool, I'll look forward to seeing it in hand. Might come back with something generic like 'die gouges' but I'll try to dig a little

.
maybe compare some vlds CBH. if it is a similar effect, quite surprising to not see it more on the WLH.

[vampicker]

I'd think there's a limit to comparisons with any of the pre 1836 coinage as it is a largely different process. But I see your thought process here - the present example does have an effect that resembles the late stages of many of those early halves

[RogerB]

The "rays" seem to be radially oriented - not parallel as expected from some coin striking damage/

[RogerRock]

The "rays" seem to be radially oriented - not parallel as expected from some coin striking damage/

The extra "radial rays" are raised like die gouges from the dies. Somehow the dies were damaged much worse on the reverse than the obverse. The radial orientation usually is caused by contact with feeder fingers on Morgan Silver Dollars. However, the gouges on this Walker are much stronger (reverse) and widespread on both dies.

Most "coin striking damage" is related to Struck Through Debris which always results in an incuse impression on the coin.

The absence of clash marks rule out clashed die cause and effect.

[RogerB]

Please explain how straight-line feeder/ejector mechanisms can produce radial makes on a die.

Thanks

[messydesk]

Please explain how straight-line feeder/ejector mechanisms can produce radial makes on a die.

Thanks

They don't. The above statement is mistaken. Feed finger marks on the dies are going to be straight across the die, parallel to each other if there are multiple such marks, and on silver dollars they are on the left and right halves of the anvil die.

[RogerB]

Thanks!

[pup_picker]

I'd think there's a limit to comparisons with any of the pre 1836 coinage as it is a largely different process. But I see your thought process here - the present example does have an effect that resembles the late stages of many of those early halves

how about an extreme case of trail dies?

sitting here looking at some foreign ddo/ddr etc coins and looking at some of the anomalies, in this instance, trail dies, which are scattered all over this particular example so i thought i'd mention it. i'd post a pic but i'm certain you know what trail dies are.

[RogerRock]

I'd think there's a limit to comparisons with any of the pre 1836 coinage as it is a largely different process. But I see your thought process here - the present example does have an effect that resembles the late stages of many of those early halves

how about an extreme case of trail dies?

sitting here looking at some foreign ddo/ddr etc coins and looking at some of the anomalies, in this instance, trail dies, which are scattered all over this particular example so i thought i'd mention it. i'd post a pic but i'm certain you know what trail dies are.

An excellent website Traildies.com by Robert (BJ) Neff, Bob Piazza, Jason Cuvelier, and Will Brooks covers all the related topics on trail dies. Trail dies are caused by die polishing when a rotating brush or buffing tool drags debris from die recesses which can erode a gouge (or series of parallel gouges) into the higher relief of the field. These die recesses are the design devices which transfer onto the coin in raised relief.

The die damage on this Walker does not emanate from the coin's lettering or other devices. This rules out trail dies as cause and effect.

The parallel pattern of these deep gouges may be the result of an incomplete die polish attempt which stopped short of degrading the lettering devices ERICA any further.

Early capped bust halves displayed extreme die erosion near the rim and peripheral lettering which is relative to the inferior die steel and minting process of that time.

Thank you for your input on possible causes!

[RogerB]

RE: "Early capped bust halves displayed extreme die erosion near the rim and peripheral lettering which is relative to the inferior die steel and minting process of that time."

“Gaspar and Dyer discuss the important production techniques indicated by the presence of a neck, which indicates the use of a collar to prevent the fishtailing of the inscription.”
[P.P. Gaspar and G.P. Dyer (1980) The Striking of Proof and Pattern Coins in the Eighteenth Century British Numismatics Journal Volume 50 1980 p 122. In Sue Tungate, Matthew Boulton and the Soho Mint: Copper to Customer. University of Birmingham. 2010. 156.]

[RogerRock]

RE: "Early capped bust halves displayed extreme die erosion near the rim and peripheral lettering which is relative to the inferior die steel and minting process of that time."

“Gaspar and Dyer discuss the important production techniques indicated by the presence of a neck, which indicates the use of a collar to prevent the fishtailing of the inscription.”
[P.P. Gaspar and G.P. Dyer (1980) The Striking of Proof and Pattern Coins in the Eighteenth Century British Numismatics Journal Volume 50 1980 p 122. In Sue Tungate, Matthew Boulton and the Soho Mint: Copper to Customer. University of Birmingham. 2010. 156.]

THANK YOU for the reference info.

[RogerB]

You're welcome.
The physical situation of open vs close collar is more complicated, but the brief explanation of "fishtailing" will suffice for usual purposes. Increased die erosion farther from the center is a product of greater planchet metal movement, which in turn erodes the die. A primary steel problem was consistency in alloy which also led to localized hardening and tempering irregularities.

[RogerRock]

ANACS grade/attribution posted.

1940 50c ANACS # 5420329 VF 25 Struck from Eroded Dies
Comment - Most probably Die Erosion. Still uncertain about what may have caused this. It might be worthwhile to have this examined by Mike Diamond or Jon Sullivan.

I would disagree with "Struck from Eroded Dies". The dies have been damaged from a major striking error in my opinion. I have an ANACS 1924 D 1c #2933521 VF 20 Damaged Reverse Die which exhibits a long straight line plateau across the field and devices that was well known and documented before it was encapsulated.

The big question is what could have caused this die damage ???