What causes these marks
savitale
Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭✭✭
These two coins appear to have identical marks across Liberty's hat, like they went through a machine of some kind. It seems given their age, it seems unlikely to me that there was some kind of automatic coin counting machine in use. Does anyone know if these marks are common, and if so what causes them? They do not appear to be the same coin to me.
Coin 1
Coin 2
0
Comments
Reeding?
HAPPY COLLECTING
Clashing from the reverse shield
My Ebay Store
its not known for sure. There is a theory that a screw fell on to the die and got stuck between the die and where the planchet is struck.
Dosent look like the same coin to me but I could be wrong of coarse
You have got to be kidding. Who came up with that one, Walter? Will someone please do an overlay so I can apologize immediately to both Breen and Regulator!! That "screw" must have fallen out on all those Capped Bust half dollars too!
I know you are really kidding but when someone agreed with you it set me off. Sorry.
The OP more or less states they are different coins (1 and 2) - he is inquiring why they have the same marks coming from the cap - the reason is because they were struck with the same die.
Now, what caused THAT anomaly to the die, is being debated.
They are different coins. The damaged die struck numerous coins which all bear the same quirky lines.
It doesn't look like the columns of stripes from the reverse shield so I don't think it's clashing (though they are properly spaced and in the generally correct location for an 1801 eagle, so who knows).
In the bust half series of this era there are unusual dies with series of marks which have been attributed to foreign objects, like screws. Speculation but best educated guesses.
Lance.
(edit dumb typo)
Those are teeth marks made by Emma Konkase, the Philadelphia Mint's finest adjuster. She was so precise she could line up the teeth on each coin perfectly, and get the coin weight exactly within tolerance. When Emma died from an intestinal obstruction, she was cremated and all the gold filings in her ashes were returned to the Mint and made into quarter eagles.
Different coins from the same die. Nice coins. Just the way the die was made. Old coins old technology.
I made a quick overlay using an eagle from the PCGS library. It appears the marks on the hat were made by the outer columns of the pales when the obverse and reverse dies clashed. The remaining marks, are not exactly parallel to the others, although spacing is the same. These might have been made by a second clashing after the reverse/obverse die had shifted slightly. (Three clustered arrows to right.)
If we take into account the inconsistent and rather crude die sinking at this early stage of mint mechanics, surface irregularities, such as those proposed above, could have occurred with little notice being taken by the Coiner. (At this time, working dies were made by the Coining Department, not the Engraver.)
PS: I saw no hint of screw cutting/filing profile on the coin's obverse.
Funny...I built the same thing, Roger. Which is why I noted that the spacing and location was generally correct for a clash. The absence of other parts of the stripes, as well as lack of clashing elsewhere, made me question it.
Stuff like this make the study and collecting of early bust coinage so much fun.
Lance.
I had assumed that the lines were incuse, and thus some form of damage. But based on the above comments I take it the lines are raised. That would be consistent with damage to a die, which explains why the exact same lines would appear on multiple coins. That makes a lot of sense.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
CLASH MARKS
From a Heritage auction:
"Bass-Dannreuther Die State a/a, unclashed and unlapped. The vertical spines in Liberty's cap are a die anomaly other than clash marks whose origin has long puzzled numismatists. One of the more plausible explanations submitted in recent years is that a small set screw fell onto the die face and became struck between a planchet and the die, producing the equally spaced, slanted spines."
https://coins.ha.com/itm/early-eagles/eagles/1801-10-bd-2-r2-ms61-ngc/a/1271-5065.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
I don't believe it. I respect JD's opinion and I shall do some research on something I never had occasion to ever question. The only difference between the marks on the OP's coins and Bust Half dollars is generally their width. This whole thing is crazy!
PS I've read so much BS in auction catalogs over the years that.....LOL!
I have seen this before. These are clash marks which were caused when the obverse die was injured when the two dies came together without a planchet between them. After this happened, all of the subsequently made coins would show these marks until the dies were taken out of service an re polished. Even they might not have disappeared if the injury was severe.
For the 1801 $10 gold, this is a known die state.
So far you
and I 
are incorrect Bill. There was 19th Century loose screw somewhere at the Mint.
Even Ray Charles can see that it's from a clash.
Hoard the keys.
And Nice coin....
Hoard the keys.
Well that was an interesting read. Carry on...
Thus far, the die clash (or maybe 2 clashes at different times) seems the more plausible explaination. If the obverse lines showed evidence of the kind of cutting used to make screws in 1800, then that would also be an option. But, there is nothing with an 18th century screw profile nor is there any sign of screw thread pitch.
Accuracy of the Heritage description should be reexamined. Auction lot descriptions are usually derivative and not original authoritative research.
PS: It would be helpful if there is an 1801 Eagle reverse with the pales cut to variable depths. It might not be the exact reverse to match the posted coin, but it would illustrate the principle.
Here is a CBH example that illustrates similar damage perhaps due to a dropped screw...along with a fun discussion.
As I said, no one can know the truth. But it would be ignorant to discount the possibility.
Lance.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/951034/capped-bust-half-var-question-how-did-this-happen
The problem with a "screw thread pitch" is like a double struck coin showing denticle marks. If the two are not perfectly parrallel then the radius of the denticle marks is skewed. It all depends on the angle of the impact.
I'm not smart enough to know if this could be the case. Roger knows a lot more than I do.
Lance.
Another case of short parallel lines on a die, and trying to figure out what caused them:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/984250/whats-the-cause-of-these-marks-on-a-shield-nickel/p1
The reverse working die of 1801 BD-2 $10 was also used on 1803 BD-3. This reverse working die endured several clashings and was lapped at least twice. It is the last of the four working dies made from Eagle Reverse Hub of 1799A.
In the second and last usage of the reverse working die on 1803 BD-3, it also clashed within Liberty's Cap, in the same place, but at a slightly different angle from a slightly different rotation of the obverse and reverse dies. Since the reverse die had been lapped a couple of times, the clash marks were not as sharp as on 1801 BD-2 (the OP coin).
The Round End Tail Feather Working Hub of 1799A sunk working dies that made these clash marks as faintly seen on 1799 BD-1, BD-3, BD-6.
Definitely clash marks, and lapping would not have completely removed the marks within the crevices of the cap/hair. The 1801 BD-2 example is just the most visible of this clashing.
Also, JD did not mention a fallen set screw in his early US gold book, that came from another source. In his notes, Bass mentioned "nine vertical spines in cap" without explanation.
Great discussion... and leads to the conclusion the marks are from a die clash. Very interesting...Cheers, RickO
titled dies and/or o/c dies(misaligned) is my first suspect. we see it A LOT on vams. i also see a lot of "inconsistent" clashed on many other coins. many seem to defy the laws of physics. my guess is some clashing happens prior to dies being put into the machinery. something like hub to die or master die to working die.
i do see things where i have to contemplate that process. like a mint mark area sunken around the mm.
has to be raised on the die to be sunken on the coin and we know punching mm doesn't cause a raised area around the mm, which means it happened before the die. so sunk (hub/master die) raised (working die) sunk coin.
i think it is plausible to have something like that for clashing as i've seen parts of the design on the high parts of a coin (low on the die) where defying physics comes into play. the dies don't bend THAT much. lol
fwiw
.
lkeigwin - Quarternut's comment seems applicable. The lines on the half dollar have clear screw thread profiles, spacing and pitch. Further there is no clear displacement between any of the lines. Would have to examine the coin to say more.
Those are not clash marks. I think they are file marks or gouges that for some reason were on the blank die that were not effaced when the liberty head was punched into the die. Whatever the reason for the gouges, they were on the die prior to the Liberty head.
These clash marks are common.
This is a 62 early Ten with them. I didn't keep it as it looked "too" perfect and I wasn't happy with it.
Common on a 1801 $10. Its the only die with them. BD-2
Here are few points I want to show:
Notice how the spine runs though a ridge (#1) in the coin, which is a valley in the die. This can happen after the die is finished, but can also happen prior to the Liberty punch being sunk. Remember that the die would have to be soft for these marks to be able to be made. It might be work-hardened enough to prevent marks after the Liberty head is sunk.
If the marks were on the die prior to the Liberty head being sunk, then the die would certainly be in a softened state. Not so sure afterwards.
Part of the spine is flattened (#3). This could be because it was not deep enough to fully survive the sinking of the Liberty punch.
The spine to the left (#2) is deformed. Possibly due to metal movement during the sinking of the Liberty head punch.
The spine on the right (#4) shows a sharp termination on both sides. This would be inconsistent if the spine was applied after the Liberty head was on the die.
The places that show spines are shallower areas of the die that would not therefore get as deeply impressed by the Liberty head punch. The spines survive here, but not where the design sinks deeper into the die.
OK, let's think about this together. Look at the coin. The raised design is sunken into the die. The highest part of the design is the deepest part of the die. Some-ting-wong? And why would so many of these coins have these marks in the same location? Seems there are lots of screws falling on to the Obverse dies of lots of coins without affecting the other die with similar indentations.
shows that the reverse shield lines would hit the obverse die in nearly the right location,
but as he and @lkeigwin noted, the spacing is wrong for the lines on the right.
The low gaps between each group of 3 vertical shield lines are what would yield raised lines on the obverse,
because they are raised on the reverse die and would create wide lowered lines on the obverse die.
But the raised lines on the coin obverse are much too narrow.
This analysis is similar to how the theory of clashing was rejected for the parallel lines on the 1868 5c in the thread I linked in my prior post.
So I am liking @EagleEye's theory more:
Some kind of tooling to the blank die left some parallel lines that had not been smoothed before the hub was pressed into it.
One possible problem with the theory is that the hub is not pressed all the way into the blank die (seems unlikely?).
This theory could work for the 1868 5c as well, where the lines occur in multiple locations on the coin.
It is probable that the lines were part of an earlier engraving on the die that abandoned and was hoped to be obliterated but wasn't totally effaced. It is not a clashed die. Also, we need to know what parts of the design were sunk with a device punch and which elements were engraved after the device was sunk. I think the lines in the shield may be engraved after the eagle device was sunk into the die.
Let's try and resolve this as best we can once and for all as there is a group of knowledgeable folks here. I withdraw anything snarky that I posted previously. Posters know my thoughts. In the 1970's, was told that they were clash marks, but I'm starting all over with a clear head.
So.... I believe the dies for these coins were made as Large cents. Starting with a planchet;, starting with making a HUB for the central design; OR starting with a die blank (cone shape or flat?) - let's forget what we think and figure out anything during the process that would have left these marks.
Perhaps Mr. Carr can produce this effect.
I was just going back to the 50c. Suppose there was a Screw shaft with a crank that moved a plate or part of the press that was near the die chamber. Suppose that when setting the top die, it was dropped from almost a foot an hit the screw? Suppose that the die had just been annealed and was dropped while being hubbed again? I'm just throwing stuff out. Suppose an unhappy mint worker did it.
Link
We see on the 1865 Fancy 5 Snow-14 Indian Cent (above) there is a circular lathe line that was engraved a bit too deeply into the blank die. When the die was later hubbed, the design pushed the metal down, but in the recesses, the lathe line survived.
The 1801 Eagle was made differently in that the stars and minor touch-ups were added later or prior. However, they did use a device punch for the Liberty head. In that respect, the die making process is similar to 1865.
A lathe cuts at the same depth for the entire cut. It also cuts spiral unless specially set up to cut a circular groove or concentric circles. Producing a single arc (or maybe two) would have required intent.
For the Eagle, I have to remain with the clash theory - it's the closest to what is observed, even though it requires two clashes to make the two sets of marks. Spacing of the coin lines is too close a match for other things.
Positing that"something happened" is a non-starter -- it's obvious "something happened," but what?
I will post an image later today that will add evidence. After Dannreuther's book on early gold was released, I wrote an article for the JRJ that identified all reverse master dies and working hubs for 1799-1804 $10 Eagles, and 1801-1807 half dollars - it was peer reviewed by Dannreuther and Craig Sholley prior to publication. For those who want to learn how these die families were fabricated, the article is on the NNP under the JR Journal for June 2007.
The origin of the OP marks cannot be solved without also looking at the 1803 BD-3, which shares the same reverse die as the OP coins, 1801 BD-2. Dannreuther's early gold book has an excellent image of this, which clearly shows similar marks within Liberty's cap (can someone post a partial image? I can't right now). The angle is just slightly different with these marks, explained by die rotation.
The vertical stripes (gules) on the shield were engraved on each working die, some were deeper, and they were not consistent. Lapping reduced the sharpness and depth (relief on coin) of the shield lines, as is evident on the second usage of the reverse die.
So, someone engraved these lines on the die **that have nothing to do with its design as found on all the dies for other dates. Interesting and makes sense. The Chief Engraver wished to strike some curiosities.
The marks do line up with the gules of the reverse when a proper overlay is done, making sure the die orientation is correct. I tried it with images that had the prong holder, so that the orientation is corrected. So a clashed die is not out of the question.
Great thread!
My YouTube Channel
I agree clashed dies. AFAIK, always been clashed dies and never questioned. You raised some good points as have others. Let's think outside the box. Die clash on the table, screw marks, playful engraver, What else?
I'd like to see someone who knows how these coins were made EDUCATE ME and others. How were the dies made? How they think the marks happened during the process?
This could be evil spirits. Remember, in those days they were still burning witches.
I would like to submit this "explanation" as gospel.
Well, it looks like this thread is going to be "toast" real soon and everyone will keep their original opinion. I was hoping Mr. Carr would have commented and possibly tried to make something similar.
Great methodical, mechanical and design explanation to the artifact. That overlay view is very nice. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
The OP coins are 1801 BD-2. The same reverse working die was also used for the second and last time on 1803 BD-3, the obverse pictured in two examples below. This die marriage clashed at least twice according to Dannreuther and Bass.
The vertical marks in the cap of 1803 BD-3, in the same place as the OP coins, are from shield gules clashing with the portrait. They are not as sharp as the OP coins because the reverse die was lapped several times.
Is there anyone who believes these are not clashmarks?
edit - there are also horizontal shield lines in the 1803 BD3, below the cap, within the hair - which absolutely proves, without any doubt, they are clash marks
When I wrote the JRJ article identifying the different reverse hubs used for Heraldic Eagle half dollars and $10 Eagles (some are used on both .50 and $10), the hubs were identified with overlays of E PLURIBUS UNUM. Since the EPU is incuse on coins, it has hand-punched into the working hubs, and each hub used had slightly different lettering positions of EPU.
Great thread! So...anyone care to dispute the fact that the discussion about ONLY the gold coin is settled? Does anyone still think they NOT clash marks?
Then, if no one replies we can consider this particular characteristic to continue to be called a die clash AS HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR DECADES!