Posted 02 October 2005 - 08:25 PM
A previous posting about magazines made me take another look at what I had. I was previously thinking two productions of seymour XXX, one without periods after CO and CONN and one with periods. Then a third production was mentioned with slighly different punctuation marks so here are three of what I've got.
Top seems to be the one without the periods, middle with what appears to be a large comma after Seymour, and the bottom with a little comma after seymour. Does this apear to be two different ones, or just a worn stamp.
Middle one obviously has the elusive factory white lettering I also notice the "s" on seymour (bottom line) appears to be slanted to the left on this mag. Some pitting in its history has left it a little fuzzy, looks almost out of focus.
Anybody have any thoughts or pictures of all three of these?
Posted 02 October 2005 - 08:30 PM
Excellent research. I wonder how many more variations are out there.
Thanks for sharing.
Posted 02 October 2005 - 11:49 PM
This is cause for what appears to be the varying width of the "lines" in the stamped characters. The heavier impressive force (likely, almost certainly, combined with a less-used roll die) will "spread" the apparent character font width....notice you have plenty of depth and width to fill in there with enamel.
There are a myriad of reasons that can explain the disparity in impressive strikes, it's not just as simple as a "new roll die" vs. "a worn roll die", though in this comparison I'd wager that the middle magbody was impressed with a much newer die face then the others shown as such a recently cut die face will tend to fully expand the surface deflection more uniformly.
IOW's, I see no "small comma" vs. "big comma" going on, only one less impressed than another of the same character.
Posted 03 October 2005 - 12:09 AM
The intuitive thought is that a "new" die face will leave the more "sharp" or thin-line appearing character impressions, like #1 & #3 picture above, and that as the die "wears down" it will tend to flatten or broaden the character-font line width, as shown in magbody #2 above.
Actually, and counter-intuitively, it is just the opposite wear pattern in that when initially cut a new roll die-face is the full intended character line width and depth, and as the die is impressed and "rolled" onto the surface many thousands of times it wears against the draw line, or impression angle, and actually takes metal off the font line width, the effect is that simultaneously the impressed lines of imprint get "thinner" and of less strike, or depth, as the die-face wears off.
The middle pictured mag was impressed with an almost fresh die-face, the first and last mags pictured shows evidence of being impressed with a well-worn die.
Posted 03 October 2005 - 09:06 AM
The mag on the top is actually the no punctuation version. The no period version still has the comma between SEYMOUR and CONN on the second line. That version is not shown in your pictures.
I agree with Tom on the differences between the middle and bottom pictures. These are the same version with different applicaitons of the roll dies. There are also a number of mags (e.g., Seymour XXX and A-O XX) that have light or non-existent stamping at the beginning or end. I do not consider those true variations, but rather production variances with the dies.
I have an example of the die wear difference that Tom mentioned on the width/depth of the letters. The W.P.S. mag that I mentioned in the other post that is NOS has deep, broad letters. Another one I have has shallow, narrow letters. The font looks different, but is not. Either the dies for the latter were worn or they were impressed with less force.
I just love this stuff.....Advil anyone?
Posted 03 October 2005 - 09:11 AM
1) mag with no punctuation at all of any kind
2) mag with no periods but does have the comma mark
3) mag with periods and comma marks
Can anybody post a picture of #2