Do the 1907 High Relief $20's REALLY not stack well? Let's find out.

DaveWcoins

As some of you may have gleaned from another thread I posted here, last week a collection came in that contained three high grade 1907 high relief $20's.

It was suggested here on the forum that I should try to see if they stack, since that was mentioned as one of the reasons the mint switched to the low relief design later in 1907.

Good idea -- so I did so.

I carefully stacked each coin. First, I stacked all the obverses:

Secondly, I stacked reverse/obverse/reverse:

While far from a definitive test, they seemed to stack about as well as the later Saint Gaudens $20's do.

Was this myth busted? Maybe so.

PS: Yes --I was a bit sloppy in how I stacked them. But I didn't want to slide one against the other.

mvs7

I'm liking that toned one even more after seeing the stack

RogerB

As noted elsewhere, "stacking" refers to the height of a pile of coins, not to the coins "wobbling." A pile of 20 DE was the informal standard.

oih82w8

Looks like some "air gap" in between the bottom and 2nd coin, on both images. I would still say "no", they don't stack well, based on these three.

originalisbest

It's a pleasure to see the bold, starred edges of these. I can say this is the first time I've ever seen that particular view of a high relief!

ChrisH821

This thread gives me a strange sort of anxiety. Thanks for testing!

divecchia

Wow, they look amazing stacked like that!!!

Thanks for sharing photos of the edges.

Edited to add: You really get a feel of the height of the relief from these photos. Unfortunately you don't get that when they are inside a slab.

Donato

Insider2

Based on this, I'll continue to believe the "old myth." I wish you would have made the overlap perfect (as on two pieces). There appears to be a space that looks more than just an offset. Eventually, slabs will eliminate the opportunity to do experiments such as this with MS coins.

panexpoguy

@oih82w8 said:
Looks like some "air gap" in between the bottom and 2nd coin, on both images. I would still say "no", they don't stack well, based on these three.

That is referred to as numismatic ‘thigh gap’

WinLoseWin

@RogerB said:
As noted elsewhere, "stacking" refers to the height of a pile of coins, not to the coins "wobbling." A pile of 20 DE was the informal standard.

Better grab 17 more raw ones.

Would it make any difference between Flat Rim and Wire Rim?

Justacommeman

@RogerB said:
As noted elsewhere, "stacking" refers to the height of a pile of coins, not to the coins "wobbling." A pile of 20 DE was the informal standard.

High Relief Jenga

m

msch1man

Ho hum, just another day in the office stacking up raw high relief $20’s.

asheland

Very cool!

Lakesammman

Man, not sending you my UHR Saints!

Jimnight

Nice.

RogerB

This letter might help. It is part of a much longer US Mint discussion of problems with the new Eagles and Double Eagles. Dimensions are in inches.

jwitten

Very cool, but far from busted. You would need to make sure the coins are lined up properly, AND rotate each coin a full 360 degrees to see if there is a certain rotation that does not stack well. Man, I really want that toner.

CaptHenway

@RogerB said:
As noted elsewhere, "stacking" refers to the height of a pile of coins, not to the coins "wobbling." A pile of 20 DE was the informal standard.

This.

Timbuk3

Sweet, thanks !!!

ChrisH821

"Difference in height nearly one piece"
I can see how that was a major concern. Great document!

topstuf

Here I thought "stacking" was acquiring bags and bundles of the subject coins.

I'd have real respeck for anyone who was stacking HRs.

Insider2

Thanks Roger and Tom. Here is the thing about stacking. I can see both arguments. We do know for certain that the HR design was abandoned. I believe that bankers complained. So, the problem had to be with regard to counting the coins efficiently. That is "stacking." I also believe that a "stack" of these coins would wobble. Until we see a column of twenty HR Unc's that is straight as a rod....

topstuf

At the shop, they always jammed the coin counter when folks brought in bags of em.

RogerB

There is no "second argument" concerning wobbling. The only contemporary usage at the Mint, sub-Treasuries, and banks was stacking height of a pile of coins. That is how tellers and others counted coins when dealing with normal quantities. The Barber letter is direct and explicit.

The "wobbling" approach is a modern error in understanding - possibly promoted by earlier coin writers not explaining what was meant by "stacking" or ignorance on their part. (Wally Breen was a master of this kind of incomplete understanding, but I don;t feel he was responsible for this one. Now about those 'Roman' proofs....)

PS: The only references at present to DE or other US coins wobbling are, 1) 1849 DE and first 1850 pieces (not issued); and, 2) 1877 DE where the new obverse hub was in excess relief and coins with heads facing wobbled. A new hub was made. The problem was a rim that was lower than the portrait....design height/depth above the field or between planes is immaterial.

DaveWcoins

@RogerB said:
This letter might help. It is part of a much longer US Mint discussion of problems with the new Eagles and Double Eagles. Dimensions are in inches.

Wow -- great document. You are the best, RogerB!

That clears up the contemporary objections to them completely, in my book.

It's a real shame though. Just imagine putting together a date and mint set of $20's from 1907 to 1932 -- all high reliefs... and at today's prices for the common ones. That would have been the world's coolest (and most beautiful) coin set.

BAJJERFAN

@CaptHenway said:

@RogerB said:
As noted elsewhere, "stacking" refers to the height of a pile of coins, not to the coins "wobbling." A pile of 20 DE was the informal standard.

This.

Except that you could likely create a higher stack if you used coins that didn't cause wobble.

RogerB

Coin handling in that era was a matter of practical use and training. Stacks of 10 or 20 larger coins - halves, Eagles, DE and dollars were practical and universally used (except at the Mints where counting boards were used). Smaller coins were piled in units, such as quarters in $1 stacks, or flat piles for most others. A teller or cashier was trained to handle only one denomination at a time, and never mix minor and silver, or silver and gold on the same counter-top for review. Every cashier was personally responsible for their till - a discrepancy had to be made up immediately from the teller's own funds.

Insider2

@RogerB said:
There is no "second argument" concerning wobbling. The only contemporary usage at the Mint, sub-Treasuries, and banks was stacking height of a pile of coins. That is how tellers and others counted coins when dealing with normal quantities. The Barber letter is direct and explicit.

The "wobbling" approach is a modern error in understanding - possibly promoted by earlier coin writers not explaining what was meant by "stacking" or ignorance on their part. (Wally Breen was a master of this kind of incomplete understanding, but I don;t feel he was responsible for this one. Now about those 'Roman' proofs....)

PS: The only references at present to DE or other US coins wobbling are, 1) 1849 DE and first 1850 pieces (not issued); and, 2) 1877 DE where the new obverse hub was in excess relief and coins with heads facing wobbled. A new hub was made. The problem was a rim that was lower than the portrait....design height/depth above the field or between planes is immaterial.

Better get the word out to a much wider audience in a short article with the letter. You changed my mind!
Is it in one of your books?

topstuf

I know this is heresy, but ...maybe... the mint just had a harder (read "more costly") time striking decent coins with such nice detail.

Witness the later designs and their ...um... plainness.

Swampboy

They're beautiful

RogerB

RE: "Better get the word out to a much wider audience in a short article with the letter. You changed my mind! Is it in one of your books?"

Nope. There is a lot of information scattered throughout US Mint materials. Publishing it is a problem since there is no clear focus. There are 12 pages of related material on piling and stacks (including volunteer transcriptions), and several other comments over a 100-year period. There's a group of documents on Henry Mitchell's coin designs; other documents about the Philadelphia Mint site and questions about the deed, drainage, etc. There's all the testimony in the Dimmick trial; and hundreds of pages of legal depositions about the New Orleans mint and San Francisco Mint....and on and on. What is of interest and what is not - what about future interest?

Material derived from these and other sources is in most of my books and articles. It's normally references in the footnotes and bibliography.

@topstuf said:
I know this is heresy, but ...maybe... the mint just had a harder (read "more costly") time striking decent coins with such nice detail.

Witness the later designs and their ...um... plainness.

There's considerable difference between the detail that can be brought up with one blow of a toggle press (or a modern Schuler press), and three blows from a medal press.

mustangmanbob

To ensure objectivity, please send the 3 coins to me, and I will rerun the tests to determine if the difference in gravity due difference in altitude and latitude is a significant factor.

Insider2

The letter is the best part that "proves" the case.

blitzdude

Appears to stack fine to me. Congrats.

PS if you don't want them I will gladly take off your hands at these bargain prices.

Coinosaurus

Stacking high relief $20s - you are a brave man.

Thomas Elder described these as "kind wouldn't stack." He wasn't worried about a nick on a coin costing him thousands of dollars, so I'll take his word for it.

BustDMs

Now you need to stack them edgewise

SeattleSlammer

@Swampboy said:
They're beautiful

I’m drooling on my iPhone. So meaty looking and raw!

Smudge

That would be a nice problem to have.

ricko

I can honestly say, I have never tried to stack high relieve double eagles... Of course, I have never had enough of them to even consider the task. I do appreciate the contribution of @RogerB... since this puts the old belief to rest... Though I also like the OP images....Cheers, RickO

CoinRaritiesOnline

I think you need to stack at least 5 or 6 of these to be sure.

Insider2

@CoinRaritiesOnline said:
I think you need to stack at least 5 or 6 of these to be sure.

12 to 20 would prove if both opinions are correct.

johnny9434

nice stack

Paradisefound

Thrice the LIKES .... I love them whether they would stack or not
Congrats on the beautiful lot

Athena

Remarkable. Thanks for sharing!

Broadstruck

Since they are now marred with stacking marks how about a giveaway?

53BKid

DaveWCoins: Wow, what a great experience to share with us mortals.