I have noodled several million $1 coins and yesterday I noodled a Sir Henry Parkes $1 coin that appeared to be a partial rotation.
I compared it to another definite rotated Sir Henry Parkes $1 and sure enough, the rotation is not as severe as my first found.
Coin No 1 is the normal rotation, No 2 is the partial rotation.
Could this mean that the rotation is the cause of a die breaking away from its support and the rotation was found before a total rotation was formed as per the COF 2001 Upset $1 coins?
Have a look:
Another "clockface" Contender Goldie?
Nope, sorry. The rotation(s) pictured is the worse that I can find unlike the 2001 COF $1.
Quote from: 'Goldseeker' pid='27278' dateline='1378518498'Nope, sorry. The rotation(s) pictured is the worse that I can find unlike the 2001 COF $1.
It's a shame, Those clock faces are AWSOME :yahoo:
BTW Congrats on Cracking 1000 posts :yahoo:
:wavemulticolor:
Quote from: 'Goldseeker' pid='27272' dateline='1378517323'Could this mean that the rotation is the cause of a die breaking away from its support and the rotation was found before a total rotation was formed
That would make sense. We know they have standards for acceptable rotations. We also know they're rather slack about quality control, and its getting worse over time.
So it makes sense that an earlier coin would have had better QC and therefore the fault would have been detected and fixed earlier.
What I find interesting is the relative lack of rotations in later years. Perhaps they made structural changes in how the dies are held in place?
Nice one GS :good:
The Parkes $1 is a known rotation coin upset slightly to 7 o'clock I have seen only well circulated examples nothing in better grades