Agree with that Jerry, so I guess I’m trying to find a way to explain the die flaws looking very similar on both coins (but not exact same locations), also the REG colons in different locations (the other ones may be the same).
Looking again at the FID pictures there are so many things that look the same, making it difficult to believe that they are struck from different dies, particularly bearing in mind the blocked E in DEF.
Zooming in at the borders of these two coins I now find that the teeth, and the gaps between them, seem to be identical in their shape and size. If, for example, you examine the gaps highlighted in red in the attached pictures then the one highlighted on the left does NOT have a completely curved top to it (unlike the others), and the one highlighted towards the right has a line running through the top of the gaps. This is the only gap (out of 12) where that line is obvious…..and it is on both coins! Surely that is too much of a coincidence to be on 2 different dies.
Perhaps, as you indicated, the events were that:-
a) the obvious flaw, seen on the top coin, was removed from the die.
b) this would have led to the I of FID needing to be repaired, but they entered it too high (as shown in the bottom coin).
c) the flaw later returned, as it is an inherent weakness in the die, but it returned in a slightly different location e.g. where it exits top right of F of FID.
Am I again missing something? I missed the bulge on the left of the I of FID because I was looking so closely at the protrusion at the bottom…..but Chris thankfully pointed that out.