The 1888/7 overdate question, as posed by TDN

[shylock]

A previous post of this coin made me think, which is always a dangerous thing. I have a tough time imagining/recreating the Mint process when it comes to complex errors/varieties. It took me two years to understand clashed coins completely, and those are fairly easy.

 

TDN questioned the Snow 1 1888/7 IH cent variety in a PCGS post a while back -- with no good answers -- and mentioned it again on a recent post here. The coin in question (finest known, ex-Tim Larson and imaged by Tim):

 

 

TDN's question: If you think about how dies are created, you will wonder like I do how in the world it could be possible to eradicate the stem of the 7 that should show through the bottom loop of the 8, yet leave the butt showing so strongly.

 

My secondary question: What caused the butt of the 7 to show so strongly under the bottom loop, as well as faint traces of it in the upper loop and above the digit?

 

I think this is a true overdate since I have no answer to my question and a very weak answer to TDN's -- metal from the new die partially or completely obliterated the interior details of the 8. But if he asked me to explain exactly how this happened I would stall for time until someone smarter than me about the minting process budded in.

 

So please, bud in

[Die Varieties]

I took the liberty of doing an overlay with a digit "7" from an 1887 IHC. I utilized the above pic that showed the complete 1888 date. This would afford viewers a more overall analysis especially with how the "7" relates to the complete date punch. I hope noboby gets upset in my doing the overlay but I thought it would be helpful for analysis purposes in this topic.

 

It appears to me the "7" falls right in place over the remnants as well as with its relationship with the date. IMO -- I believe the Ruddy variety is an 1888/7 genuine overdate. It could be the removing of the digit "7" only left those remnants we see. However, other than that guess -- I really don't have an explanation of why so strong the lower tip of the "7" shows while nothing in the lower loop of the digit "8" is visible. Very faint remnants are visible in the upper loop of the digit "8" and we can see the "flag" of the upper left corner serif of the "7" matches quite nicely with the overlay transparency.

 

This is without the overlay:

 

 

This is with the "7" overlay:

 

[shylock]

Die Varities -

 

All due respects but I could take a real 7 from an 1887 and overlay it perfectly on this variety. The technical aspects of this variety match up perfectly. And like you I believe it's a genuine overdate. I just can't expain the entire process, as can't you.

 

Post your answers to TDN's interesting question.

[Tradedollarnut]

Die Varities -

 

All due respects but I could take a real 7 from an 1887 and overlay it perfectly on this variety.

 

Paul: please do exactly that - I'd like to see it.

[shylock]

Okay. If I had a large scale 1887 image at hand I could do a better job.

 

 

Actually, this answers some of TDN's questions. The stem of the 7 actually is as wide as the bottom loop of the 8. Maybe a tad wider -- I may not have sized my overlay of the 7 to the exact proportion to the 8 or at the precise angle. Overlays always have a degree of inaccuracy, give or take 5% if they're well done well, 10% on a bad day.

 

This answers the bottom loop question as posed by TDN. The 7's stem doesn't show there because it's as wide, or I think slightly wider, than the bottom loop of the 8.

 

Now we're getting somewhere with this thread.

[Tradedollarnut]

Now we're getting somewhere with this thread.

 

Not yet!

 

This answers the bottom loop question as posed by TDN. The 7's stem doesn't show there because it's as wide, or I think slightly wider, than the bottom loop of the 8.

 

No, it doesn't. The body of the stem still would show on the coin as the same depth as the butt - which is practically as high as the body of the 8 [remember that it's punched INTO the die, which results in a high relief on the coin]. The lower inside area of the 8 would appear filled if this were the case [as would most of the top inside area].

 

In order to believe that this is an overdate, the vast majority of the 7 had to be eradicated, except for the butt. If the 7 was eradicated, then why is the butt still there? And in your overlay, the spine at the top of the 8 does NOT line up with an edge of the 7 as I would have expected. This is troubling to me as well.

 

If it is indeed an overdate, the only possible explanation that I can think of is that the die was lapped to the depth of the date, removing the 7 [and the rest of the date as well - in addition to all of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA] as much as possible. Then the date and legend were repunched, including a new 8 over the eradicated 7, but the metal failed at the butt area and chipped away. If this is true, the Indian should be in shallow relief OR the last digit of the date was only punched very shallow - which would call into question why the metal failed at all.

 

I find this all a stretch of the imagination. I think it much more likely that it's not an overdate - just a die chip at a coincidental location. People look at it and say it looks like the butt of a 7 and the top left thing looks like the top of the 7, but it really isn't.

[Tradedollarnut]

I suppose another explanation is that the original 7 was completely filled with some material and then was punched over with an 8. The material held in every spot except for the butt, which broke away, and slumped a bit in the center end of the top wing of the 7.

 

This is slightly more believable than the above explanation, but still requires some imagination. Note that other accepted overdates of 7's show the right wing junction of the numeral ... this one shows no trace of that at all.

[IGWT]

This one is a true puzzler. Proper proportions for an overlay, as you say Paul, can be very difficult to achieve. The "7" appears quite a bit too large relative to the rest of the date. Even if it's correct, though, I agree with TDN that holes of the 8 would appear to be plugged unless that portion of the 7 was effaced from the die. On the one hand, I can't think of a process that would remove all of the 7 except its butt. On the other hand, what appears to be the butt of a partially effaced 7 doesn't look like any die chip that I've ever seen.

[shylock]

No, it doesn't. The body of the stem still would show on the coin as the same depth as the butt - which is practically as high as the body of the 8 [remember that it's punched INTO the die, which results in a high relief on the coin]. The lower inside area of the 8 would appear filled if this were the case [as would most of the top inside area].

 

In order to believe that this is an overdate, the vast majority of the 7 had to be eradicated, except for the butt. If the 7 was eradicated, then why is the butt still there? And in your overlay, the spine at the top of the 8 does NOT line up with an edge of the 7 as I would have expected. This is troubling to me as well.

 

Back to the drawing board, I agree with you about the body of the stem not showing the depth it should. The lower loop should look "filled". That's why you're a smart collector TDN.

 

But don't take my overlay too serious when it comes to how it aligns to the top of the 7. I need a quality 1887 imaged at a large size to extract the 7 from, I blew up a lousy Heritage example in hast to your challenge. Lake's hi def large image demands an equally well imaged 1887, at large size, to compare it to.

 

It's the details of a 7 above his amazingly crisp, huge image of the 8 that make your die chip theory hard to swallow.

 

TDN: You're telling us, with a straight face, that a die chip resembling the base of a 7 appears in the exact place the base of a 7 would. How do you explain the faint traces of a 7 above the 8, in the exact places you'd expect to see them?

 

Admittedly I still can't explain it. But I have a much harder time understanding how this isn't an overdate than I do accepting the fact that is.

 

Additional posts would be appreciated.

[Tradedollarnut]

TDN: You're telling us, with a straight face, that a die chip resembling the base of a 7 appears in the exact place the base of a 7 would. How do you explain the faint traces of a 7 above the 8, in the exact places you'd expect to see them?

 

Yes. I think the butt is coincindental. It's not the exact shape, either. What other faint traces of a 7 in the exact places? I see a little spine of something, but it's not in the right spot and it doesn't resemble anything on a 7. And then there's nothing where other 7 underdigits show something - the connection between the stem and the upper wing.

 

Our eyes tend to fill in what they want to see. I think that's exactly what's happening here. Until someone can tell me why there's no other traces of the 7 under the 8, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

[shylock]

TDN: Let's get real. I've looked a lot of IH cent errors/varieties over the years and never have I seen a die chip even close to this. You lost me when you tried to answer my original question to this post: What caused the butt of the 7 to show so strongly under the bottom loop, as well as faint traces of it in the upper loop and above the digit?

 

I don't think you've really looked closely at Lake's large image of the 8 on this coin. It didn't sell for $85,000 on a whim. I see the clear upper edge of a 7 above the 8 in Lake's pic.

 

[Tradedollarnut]

I see the clear upper edge of a 7 above the 8 in Lake's pic.

 

The little thingy on the left? That doesn't line up with anything in your overlay pic?

 

Here's an idea - let's 'Ask NGC' and maybe an expert can provide a theory that fits these fine pictures!

[IGWT]

On the other hand, what appears to be the butt of a partially effaced 7 doesn't look like any die chip that I've ever seen.

That point sounds so much more authoritative now that you've endorsed it in these words:

 

TDN: Let's get real. I've looked a lot of IH cent errors/varieties over the years and never have I seen a die chip even close to this.

Kindly let us know in advance if you intend to ignore other posters or to belittle their contributions (see your response to Billy's good post). I ask for that courtesy simply so others don't unintentionally crash your party.

[Tradedollarnut]

I don't think you've really looked closely at Lake's large image of the 8 on this coin. It didn't sell for $85,000 on a whim. I see the clear upper edge of a 7 above the 8 in Lake's pic.

 

The spine above the left side of the 8 doesn't line up with anything in this overlay. It'd be much more convincing if it lined up with an edge or something.

[Tradedollarnut]

It does appear, however, that in this overdate the stem of the 7 was eradicated. Perhaps Paul can do an overlay on this flying eagle cent?

 

[Newmismatist]

The answer may be simplier than we all realize: When you "punch" a date into a die, you displace metal - you compact some and some displaced metal "moves". Where does it move? To the sides and UP. After the dies is punched, it is probably litely basined (polished) to remove the "lip" created by the punch - going back to those inner loops of the "8" the metal would have been pushed from the inner sides of the 8 inward towards the center and UP - basically "filling" any remaining depression from the 7. Then when the die was basined, the metal that was pushed inward and upward would be polishised "flat" and the remaining evidence of the 7 in that location would be removed. The new 8 punch did not move enough metal to fill in the bottom loop of the 7, which is why it is still so bold. Try punching an 8 in hard clay and you'll see what I mean regarding "movement"

[Tradedollarnut]

The answer may be simplier than we all realize: When you "punch" a date into a die, you displace metal - you compact some and some displaced metal "moves". Where does it move? To the sides and UP. After the dies is punched, it is probably litely basined (polished) to remove the "lip" created by the punch - going back to those inner loops of the "8" the metal would have been pushed from the inner sides of the 8 inward towards the center and UP - basically "filling" any remaining depression from the 7. Then when the die was basined, the metal that was pushed inward and upward would be polishised "flat" and the remaining evidence of the 7 in that location would be removed. The new 8 punch did not move enough metal to fill in the bottom loop of the 7, which is why it is still so bold. Try punching an 8 in hard clay and you'll see what I mean regarding "movement"

 

If this is the case, where did the metal come from to fill the upper loop? You will note on the overlay picture that the majority of the area where the upper half of the 8 is punched in is area where the 7 would have been already punched. Thus the metal would have been down to the numeral depth in this area. It's a stretch to believe that enough metal moved, as you say, to fill the upper loop of the 8.

 

We need someone with intricate knowledge in how dies are prepared to be overpunched. NGC?

[DWLange]

Newmismatist has the right idea. Imagine drawing a small circle in the dirt with the point of a stick. Then, push the stick right into the center of the circle. Much of the dirt displaced by the second action will fill the circle, while some dirt will form a ridge around the punch hole.

 

When an overdated die is basined (for its initial use), this ridge will be removed by the friction of the basining wheel, obliterating most of what remains of the original circle and leaving just the peripheral image. Subsequent polishings of the die to remove clashmarks, signs of erosion, etc. will only further weaken the original punching.

 

Bear in mind that any overdating of a die has to be done before it is hardened for its initial use. Once hardened, the die is never re-annealed, or softened. There is just one example of a previously used die being overdated at a later time, and that was during the Mint's earliest years.

[Tradedollarnut]

Newmismatist has the right idea. Imagine drawing a small circle in the dirt with the point of a stick. Then, push the stick right into the center of the circle. Much of the dirt displaced by the second action will fill the circle, while some dirt will form a ridge around the punch hole.

 

When an overdated die is basined (for its initial use), this ridge will be removed by the friction of the basining wheel, obliterating most of what remains of the original circle and leaving just the peripheral image. Subsequent polishings of the die to remove clashmarks, signs of erosion, etc. will only further weaken the original punching.

 

Bear in mind that any overdating of a die has to be done before it is hardened for its initial use. Once hardened, the die is never re-annealed, or softened. There is just one example of a previously used die being overdated at a later time, and that was during the Mint's earliest years.

 

Conceptually, I'd agree with this. But, looking at this image I still have specific questions:

 

 

How is it that the huge upper wing of the 7 that extends past the top loop of the 8 is eradicated but the butt of the 7 [which is closer and smaller] is not? Further, since the 7 was already punched into the die thus displacing lots of metal in places indicated by the overlay, where did the metal come from in the upper area to eradicate the upper wing?

 

Perhaps one answer is that the 7 does appear to be larger than the 8. If it was resized, perhaps my questions would be moot. In fact, it appears to me that if the 7 was dropped by appx 20%, then the wing tip might line up exactly with that little spine, which would then make a lot of sense. Shylock?

[Newmismatist]

 

 

Perhaps one answer is that the 7 does appear to be larger than the 8. If it was resized, perhaps my questions would be moot. In fact, it appears to me that if the 7 was dropped by appx 20%, then the wing tip might line up exactly with that little spine, which would then make a lot of sense. Shylock?

 

That superimposed "7" is WAY too big - shrink it to it's proportional size and most of what would be there disappears.

 

Also, there MAY (not is, but May) be another factor involved. When a die sinker aligns his punch, he might first position just the tip of the punch on the metal surface to make sure he is positioning it correctly. As it was done by hand, the perpendicualr alignment of the punch to the metal is done by eye and feel - thus the punch could be slightly skewed (ie off a perfect 90 degree alignment). Thus when actually "punched" it could have been punched "deeper" at one of the 4 sides, depending on the actual alignment - in this case deeper at the bottom of the 7. IF that were the case, the depth of the bottom of the 7 would have been deeper than the top on the die itself - note the bottom of the 7 is the "pointed" part of that particular punch and if you've ever punched something onto a hard surface, to keep it from slipping when struck you will always try and have the "pointy" part of the punch firmly on the surface of the metal into which you punch - think of a dull drill bit starting to drill into steel - it slides all over - even when pressure is applied, whereas a "sharp" drill bit will more likely drill into the metal without sliding all over the place. The last thing a die setter wants is his punch to move or slide when he strikes it - that could ruin his day - the way to avoid that is to position the punch slightly skewed so that the surfarce most in contact with the metal acts like a "point". On the "7", the "Point" is at the bottom. Again as all this was done by hand, with the alignment by visual sighting, IF the die setter felt his first striking was sufficient, he might not bother to re-set the punch to strike it again to insure that the depth of the entire letter was equal - Think of a footprint in the sand - the heel is generally the deepest indentation - followed by the toe.

 

This is just a "theory" as I'm not a die setter and certainly did not work in the mint in 1888! But the physical mechanics of how that 7 was punched into the metal, what happened afterwards (die polishing to remove as much of the 7 as possible), repunching the 8 over the 7, where and how the metal moved after the second punch, and how the die was treated after the second punch, all have to be considered to understand the end result - what we do know is that the mint did NOT discard the dies just because the dates were re-punched - there are just too many definative examples of re-punched dates in 19th century coinage. (Bust halves are prime examples)

[shylock]

That superimposed "7" is WAY too big - shrink it to it's proportional size and most of what would be there disappears.

 

Agreed. The angle is off too. Please don't put too much credence in this overlay. If anyone has a nice 1887 image, at large scale, please email it to me. My overlay, well intentioned, actually swayed this discussion off course.

 

DWLange - Your post, on top of Numismatist's, is the first that makes sense to me. I had to read it several times before it sank in, but now I get it. In a few sentences you did a better job of explaining the complex series of events that create overdates than I've been able to find anywhere else.

 

Thank you. I had a feeling posting this here would get a good answer. I just didn't expect it to come from NGC. I'm use to posting on PCGS's site where they keep us in the dark until we start nibbling on each others toes

[Tradedollarnut]

I remain unconvinced.

 

How come the metal flow from the 2 didn't efface any of the 1 in this overdate?

 

 

Why does the stem of the 5 show inside the loop of the 6 on this overdate but the stem of the 7 was supposedly eradicated by the 8 for the coin of debate?

 

 

Now THIS is what I'd expect to see from a true 8 over 7. Note the traces of the wing and the stem from the 7 inside the loops of the 8:

 

[Newmismatist]

Bruce Answers to your ?s:

 

The 1942/1 - a very lazy die setter - he simply punched a 2 next to the 1 no attempt whatsoever to remove the 1 - probably occurred 2 minutes before quitting time - or just before lunch and he had a production run to complete - Probably figured no one would ever notice - Also, unlike the internal holes in the 8 where the metal is displaced in all directions internally, the displaced metal in the 2/1 is only along 1 side and only "fills" from 1 direction.

 

The 6/5 bustie - a huge hole in that 6 - whereas the 8 has tiny holes forcing the displaced metal inward and because it has no where to go, it "moves" up and fills the depression. Remember the geometry; if you double the size of the "hole" the area is increased by 4x - Conversely if the hole is only 1/2 as big, the area left to be displaced is only 1/4-th - 1/3 as big the area is 1/9-th Those internal holes in the IHC 8 are very small.

 

Same is true with that last bustie with the 8 - the larger the internal "hole" in the 8, the less the metal moves up -

 

The "8" punch in that IHC is much smaller than the 8 or 6 punches on those busties and that makes a huge difference in the metal displacement - with a small internal hole the metal inside he loops has nowhere to go but "UP" and that fills the void left from the underlying punch - which is then flattened from any subsequent die polishing to remove the "burrs".

 

Just my thoughts - I'm not a die setter (but I have punched numerals and letters in wood and metal in my hobby workshop, and sanded/smoothed off the burrs)

[shylock]

I would bet every overdate in US coin minting history has a distinct mystery about it. I made this post because I appreciated TDN's inquisitive nature, he's not satisfied with generic explanations about supposedly rare varieties.

 

But as a great poker player TDN made his last bid with:

 

Here's an idea - let's 'Ask NGC' and maybe an expert can provide a theory that fits these fine pictures!

 

DWLange posted but TDN is still not folding. I love this place

[Tradedollarnut]

Bruce Answers to your ?s:

 

The 1942/1 - a very lazy die setter - he simply punched a 2 next to the 1 no attempt whatsoever to remove the 1 - probably occurred 2 minutes before quitting time - or just before lunch and he had a production run to complete - Probably figured no one would ever notice - Also, unlike the internal holes in the 8 where the metal is displaced in all directions internally, the displaced metal in the 2/1 is only along 1 side and only "fills" from 1 direction.

 

The 6/5 bustie - a huge hole in that 6 - whereas the 8 has tiny holes forcing the displaced metal inward and because it has no where to go, it "moves" up and fills the depression. Remember the geometry; if you double the size of the "hole" the area is increased by 4x - Conversely if the hole is only 1/2 as big, the area left to be displaced is only 1/4-th - 1/3 as big the area is 1/9-th Those internal holes in the IHC 8 are very small.

 

Same is true with that last bustie with the 8 - the larger the internal "hole" in the 8, the less the metal moves up -

 

The "8" punch in that IHC is much smaller than the 8 or 6 punches on those busties and that makes a huge difference in the metal displacement - with a small internal hole the metal inside he loops has nowhere to go but "UP" and that fills the void left from the underlying punch - which is then flattened from any subsequent die polishing to remove the "burrs".

 

Just my thoughts - I'm not a die setter (but I have punched numerals and letters in wood and metal in my hobby workshop, and sanded/smoothed off the burrs)

 

Hmmm - here's a problem I'm having with this theory. If the metal moves around the punch, then why isn't the underdigit blurry around the edges of overpunch number in any of those pictures? If the new punch moves the metal up but the holes are too big to completely fill, the die maker would still have to smooth out the uplifted metal which would remove the underdigit near the overdigit. I see no evidence at all of metal flow from the 2 into the 1 on the dime, nor such evidence where the overdigit touches the underdigit on the other two coins.

 

Is it possible that they usually added metal to the old numerals in order to fill them in before the overpunch? This doesn't seem likely, tho as the metal would surely break away under coinage pressures.

 

ps - great discussion from all involved!

[DWLange]

The 1942/1941 dime is not comparable to the 1888/7 cent because it is the result of dual hubbing, rather than a punching action. USA coin overdates in earlier years occurred when hand puncheons were used to place all or part of the date as a separate operation from the hubbing of the die.

 

Beginning with the 1909/8 double eagle, all subsequent overdates occur from two complete sinkings of the die from hubs of different dates. Thus, the entire design is impressed into a die a second time, only the date varying, as this was part of the working hub after introduction of the Janvier machine in 1905.

 

The net effect of dual hubbing versus simple punching is quite different with respect to metal displacement.

[IGWT]

Newmismatist has the right idea. Imagine drawing a small circle in the dirt with the point of a stick. Then, push the stick right into the center of the circle. Much of the dirt displaced by the second action will fill the circle, while some dirt will form a ridge around the punch hole.

 

The theory doesn't bear out in practice. The underdate clearly shows not just in one loop of the digits in the 5c FS-001, but in all four loops found in the date (plus the two partial upper loops of the 6s):

 

 

There are many other examples of underdates evident in the loops of repunched digits. The theory doesn't seem credible to me because of all the evidence that contradicts it. Or, at the very least, the theory needs to explain the exceptions.

[goose3]

Great Thread!!!!!

 

That's a killer 1806/5 quarter in that pic!

[Tradedollarnut]

Newmismatist has the right idea. Imagine drawing a small circle in the dirt with the point of a stick. Then, push the stick right into the center of the circle. Much of the dirt displaced by the second action will fill the circle, while some dirt will form a ridge around the punch hole.

 

The theory doesn't bear out in practice. The underdate clearly shows not just in one loop of the digits in the 5c FS-001, but in all four loops found in the date (plus the two partial upper loops of the 6s):

 

 

There are many other examples of underdates evident in the loops of repunched digits. The theory doesn't seem credible to me because of all the evidence that contradicts it. Or, at the very least, the theory needs to explain the exceptions.

 

The picture above goes straight to the heart of the matter. If it's claimed that the metal flow raises up and destroys the underdigit near the overpunch, then why is there absolutely no blurring or other impairment of the underdigit near those overpunches???

 

Which brings us back to the original question - how is the butt of the 7 so strong but there absolutely no trace of the stem inside the loops of the 8?

[Newmismatist]

Newmismatist has the right idea. Imagine drawing a small circle in the dirt with the point of a stick. Then, push the stick right into the center of the circle. Much of the dirt displaced by the second action will fill the circle, while some dirt will form a ridge around the punch hole.

 

The theory doesn't bear out in practice. The underdate clearly shows not just in one loop of the digits in the 5c FS-001, but in all four loops found in the date (plus the two partial upper loops of the 6s):

 

 

There are many other examples of underdates evident in the loops of repunched digits. The theory doesn't seem credible to me because of all the evidence that contradicts it. Or, at the very least, the theory needs to explain the exceptions.

 

The picture above goes straight to the heart of the matter. If it's claimed that the metal flow raises up and destroys the underdigit near the overpunch, then why is there absolutely no blurring or other impairment of the underdigit near those overpunches???

 

Which brings us back to the original question - how is the butt of the 7 so strong but there absolutely no trace of the stem inside the loops of the 8?

 

Some thoughts:

 

1. My comments are a theory based on the practical aspects of the movement of metal - which is a Physically demonstrated fact - On the IHC, whether the die setter at the Mint, before and after the 2nd punch, tried to obliterate the underdate - I don't know.

 

2. Different metals - bronze is softer than Nickel, don't know the comparison to silver, but I think its also softer than silver.

 

3. - Remember that IHC is made many years AFTER those overdate Busties AND the mint was using different technology (Steam presses vs. Screw presses - much different striking pressures involved, etc); and the IHC is made 20 years after the Shield nickel - whether they were doing things differently is not known to me - BUT everyone is assuming because they are over-date coins that everything was done EXACTLY the same - That is NOT (IMHO) an accurate assumption - Here's why:

 

A. different die setters.

 

B. Perhaps radically different technology

 

C. perhaps the IHC die setter was trying to obliterate/correct the under-punch and the die setters on the earlier coins made no effort to correct the error as they viewed over-dates and re-punching as std operating proceedures.

 

D. THere may be other factors involved with regard to the physical preparation of those different dies - but to use over-date coins (ie over-punchd numerals) made 60 years later and 80 years earlier to disprove the "theory" has to rely on a series of ASSUMPTIONS: that everything was done exactly the same over the course of that 140 year period AND that the die setters did the work exactly the same AND that the proceedures - the working instructions from those who set quality control standards in that working factory - as to how dies were prepped fro use were EXACTLY the same, coupled with the assumption that the different die setters performed their functions in exactly the same manner - that's like assuming that the same person made all of those dies.

 

I think the theory explains SOME of how that 88/87 happened -but it is not a one size fits all for all over-date coins because their are many other factors involved: Perhaps the most important of which is whether the die setter (or someone else) deliberately tried to "erase" the under-punch - I have a sneaky suspiscion that some die setters did (the perfectionists) and some didn't (the "hey shlit happens" guys) - Remember the mint is a factory - to produce coins for commerce - lots of employees have different attitudes as to what's an acceptable product and what isn't. Who knows what SPECIFIC QUALITY CONTROL standards existed on THAT SPECIFIC SHIFT on the SPECIFIC DAY that those different dies were produced? - and then again - who knows whether the specific rules were even followed by that particular die setter.

 

Metal movement and displacement are physical characteristics that are replicatable - What else was done (or NOT done) by the humans making those dies and making those coins is a little harder to quantify.