die adjustment/die fill/worn die - the differences

[robbiegal]

OK
I was trolling through my old die grading/error examples book last night
I had this coin 1953 penny listed as die fill then the 1951 in with the die fills but I think it is more of a worn die. even though the 1951 looks bad I think it is a fairly good grade
I have left the photos large
any comments & pics welcome
1953

1951

[autocoupler]

I'm certainly no expert RG, I reckon the 51 has done a few miles, but also suffers from a poor strike/die fill etc. IMO.

[robbiegal]

yeah true about there being circulation damage

when you say poor strike are you meaning - soft strike? or worn die strike ?

[autocoupler]

yeah true about there being circulation damage

when you say poor strike are you meaning - soft strike? or worn die strike ?

I would lean towards maybe a soft strike just going by the lack of Kings ear, and the lettering in the obverse legend doesn't appear to taper off.

[Robster]

The first coin has consistent lack of details around the entire obverse and reverse- Die pressure Adjustment.??

[accumulator]

Yep,looks to be pressure adjustment strike on that 53 Robster & badly worn dies on the 51 as it just does not look the same,but it has had a lot of circulation so it's hard to tell.

[robbiegal]

ta guys
maybe I need a better example of the soft strike
what I am trying to get my head around is the difference between
1. die alignment strike
2. soft strike - good dies
3. soft strike - worn dies
4. what distinguishes the difference between a die alignment strike and a soft strike
5. and so on

I have heaps of 1940's that are what would be called 'soft strikes
I should take some snaps

[runway]

All covered in variety books and dvds

[Fordprefect]

All covered in variety books and dvds

WHAT

You wouldn't know a Die Adjustment strike if it bit you in the bum.

[Fulvio]

1. die alignment strike
2. soft strike - good dies
3. soft strike - worn dies
4. what distinguishes the difference between a die alignment strike and a soft strike
5. and so on

Basically all the same, to a point. Let me try an ELI5 on this...

What we have is kind of a sandwich, with the planchet filling in between two slices of die. If you imagine an actual sandwich, and that you press down on it after you've made it... The middle starts to bulge and the filling flattens, but the crust remains intact until you apply quite a lot of force.

Same thing with the coin. As you go from the dies barely touching the planchet and increase the pressure, the middle of the coin forms first, and the metal progressively flows towards the outside. So the center will be fully struck even if the pressure is light, whereas the outer areas may not be struck at all. As in the '53.

The rest is semantics really. Whether the pressure is light because the operator is dialling it in, or whether he's just left it wrong, or whether something untoward has happened during the run doesn't really matter. The end result is the same.

If the dies are worn, it will show in the areas under the most pressure first, because they do the most work. So the low relief, which are the high points on the die, and in the middle of the coin. As you can see on the roo's far leg and George's eye on the '51. Of course the heavy wear doesn't make it easy, but that's mostly on the high points of the coin. Look at the low points.

I don't think the '51 is a light strike actually. I think its all down to wear and fill. If it was a light strike like the other one, the lettering would look like on the '53. And its far too well defined I reckon.

Also, that 1 on the '53 is a die fill. Its in the wrong place to be from the light strike.