Causes of "Die Flash" on Predecimal Silver

[autocoupler]

Why is the 'default' field not shiny in the first place?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :scratch_one-s_head:

It's an interesting question and certainly one I'm not too sure about. My guess is that the original fields would certainly have been uniform, and so being would have looked nice and shiny because of it. I do know that when you attempt to touch up only a small area of a larger machined surface, it's usually always noticeable, particularly if the repair is carried out in a multi directional fashion. All supposition from me as far as toolroom activities, and material usage at the Mint is concerned

[robbiegal]

I have a friend who used to work on/make dies - but not pre-decimal ones
If I remember I will ask him about this as he might have suggestions

i think this is very interesting

[Fulvio]

i think this is very interesting

Indeed.

Trying to get to the heart of the matter with regards to the processes at the mint is always like a good detective mystery I think.

They keep crap records. They actively avoid telling you useful things. They dumb things down to primary school student level.

And yet, we often CAN piece stories together by putting our heads together. Great fun, eh? :angel:

[trout]

This IS an interesting subject and I have no doubt whatsoever that we will come up with a plausible explanation with or without the help from RAM

[r9453]

Jim Noble used in on a couple of his coins, then noticed Walter had aswell in the latest numisbid auction.

Can you recall which coins? Any pics?

[trout]

I am a little surprised that Walter, Eric or Andrew haven't had any input on this question yet :angel:

[Cockatoo Coins]

Walter was on the specimen 1916 shilling, Jim used it on a heap of the Fenton Zac's

[r9453]

Here is a link to the shilling:

http://www.numisbid.com.au/Browse/1916M_Specimen_Shilling_PCGS_MS64/31245

EDIT:
http://www.noble.com.au/auctions/lot?id=364553
http://www.noble.com.au/auctions/lot?id=364554

[nealeffendi]

Here is a link to the shilling:

http://www.numisbid.com.au/Browse/1916M_Specimen_Shilling_PCGS_MS64/31245

Now Walter states the die flash for this 1916 shilling is characteristic of that years specimen strikes. Now I've noticed that die flash coins are usually free of die cracks, blobs and other defects and are normally well struck. So are they early strikes? Possibly early strikes from dies of the first batch off a new hub? So possibly the die flash is on the hub and transferred to the working dies and before long the flashiness is lost from both the hubs and the working dies?
Are die flashes characteristic of other specimen strikes from other years (particularly the pre 1955 stuff), I've a 1936 sixpence that I got of Klaus Ford that was sold as Gem and it has a perfect strike with a die flash behind the kings neck, now I know that 1936 "proof" sixpences exist so is my coin a "proof", a specimen or a circulation strike (possibly from the leftover "proof" dies).

[autocoupler]

Now I've noticed that die flash coins are usually free of die cracks, blobs and other defects and are normally well struck.

The three 1956 Florins I posted earlier displayed obverse die cracks in the lower bust area. Would it be possible for a proof die to develope die cracks during the course of it's limited run? Showing my ignorance here, so what did they do with the proof dies following their limited usage, were they then used for circulation strikes after maybe being touched up if necessary?

[r9453]

so what did they do with the proof dies following their limited usage

Waste not, want not?

[ausjack]

The numis link looks like it could have a slight die crack from the rim heading to the emu's bum and I'd like to know what the mark is behind the kings head. The first noble's link of the 1962 looks to have a die crack on the bottom of the bust but can't tell with the 63 but I think Fenton was really lucky to get such high grades with both those coins as I wouldn't have given them a 67 or 67+ that's for sure and would have given the 1963 MS62 and the 1962 MS63 if the 1916 was only MS64 as it's a lot nicer strike than either of Fenton's coins.

Yes auto I have seen lots of proofs with die cracks, just ask Belly. That's why he called me eagle eyes :winkextra:

[robbiegal]

i think this is very interesting

Indeed.

Trying to get to the heart of the matter with regards to the processes at the mint is always like a good detective mystery I think.

They keep crap records. They actively avoid telling you useful things. They dumb things down to primary school student level.

And yet, we often CAN piece stories together by putting our heads together. Great fun, eh? :angel:

Although some explanations are a bit like little kids theories - if there is a gap then just fill it in with what works for you

I have had some very weird and wonderful éxpert' explanations of numismatic matters that are plain rubbish

I guess that I am lucky having friends who have in the past or currently do work either in the mint on the minting floors or in the more historical sections
i am very lucky and it probably is why I am such an avid collector now

being a Gemini I needs facts and details not waffle - although being a Gemini I am also pretty good at spreading waffle!! ha ha

[Fulvio]

facts and details not waffle

Of course. But there's nothing wrong with a little conjecture.. unless it gets passed off as 'expert' opinion graven in stone. That's when it becomes bovine organic fertiliser. :angel:

[robbiegal]

ha ha you are funny  

we have a great assortment of engineers and chemists in this forum so I reckon the waffle is well and truly based in solid scientific knowledge