Options
Help with research on Mintmark punch
Intueor
Posts: 310 ✭✭✭✭
I am doing some research for Franklins. I am trying to find a close-up image of either a “D” or an “S” mintmark punch from that period of Mint production. Wexler’s site has a great vintage shot of a Die Maker adding the mintmark with the steel rod punch. However, I am looking for a close-up image of the “business” end of the punch. Any suggestions?
Thanks.
unus multorum
0
Comments
I do not recall ever seeing an image of the business end of a U.S. Mint mintmark punch.
You can illustrate the concept with an ordinary letter punch like you get at Sears or a second hand store.
Thank you for the suggestion. Actually, I did just that at the local hardware store that stocks "Initial" punches. That gave me the general idea of the process but left me with some questions. What was the distance from the relief MM letter to the hilt of the punch? In other words, how high is the top surface of the letter elevated from the surface of the steel base? In addition, is the letter beveled to a "sharp" leading edge to facilitate accurate penetration into the field of the annealed Working Die steel?
In recent years the Mint has been cataloguing a number of artifacts in their possession, and it is possible that they have a punch or two. Since mint mark punches are no longer used on dies they might not consider them to be "trade secrets" to be secretive about. Contact them and ask if they have one OR an old picture of one.
Thank you for another good suggestion. I will follow up on that this week. As usual, I was looking for the "easy" way but legwork is the only true method of good research.
I'd email Dr. Robert Gohler, Curator of the US Mint Collection - Robert.Goler@usmint.treas.gov. If they have any punches in the collection, you may be able to get him to photo.
The punches used by the mint would be no different from those used in industry - the mint records do show that they ordered punches from commercial sources. I'm sure they specified the height and width, but still they were the same as those used by commercial enterprises.
The height of the letter or numeral is approximately the same as seen on a coin. I say "approximately" as the dies are lapped and polished after hubbing and punching to remove any metal pushed up during those operations and to set the basin of the dies. So, a few thousandths of a mm would be removed.
The punches do have the numeral or letter beveled, but that is to prevent the punch from sticking in the die and to facilitate ejection of the struck coin. The leading edge is not sharp. Sharp edges in hardened steel are not a good thing, it leads to chipping and fracturing.
Hope that helps.
>
What you said reminded me that on this particular 1932-D quarter die
http://websitepicturesonly.coinauctionshelp.com/WashingtonQuarter_KeyDate_Identification/1932-dWashingtonQuarter.jpg
the Engraver did not properly dress the metal crater thrown up around the mint mark when it was punched. The raised metal on the die left a shallow depression around the mint mark on the coins struck from it, which over the years has caused many a genuine 1932-D to be accused of being an added mint mark.
I agree that the height of the mint mark on the punch would be very nearly that of the height of the mint mark on the coin, unless of course a particular die were to become overpolished. By removing die metal around the mint mark you make the remaining impression shallower and shallower. Think of the 1922 "Weak D" and "No D" cents.
Someone ate their Wheaties that morning. Fairly common defect. You'll also see doubling and shifting from punch bounce, one side shallow and the other deep, etc. All kinds of things can go sideways with a hand op.
And, yup, comment about height only applies to typical, freshly-made dies. Over-polish, wear, clashing, strike, etc. can affect the height of any feature. If you wanna do a study of what the punch looked like, you need well-made dies and sharply struck, early state coins. Since the OP is doing Frankies, that should be no problem.
The OP should also PM Roger B. If anyone has records on punch suppliers for that time period, my bet would be Roger.
@Rittenhouse, @CaptHenway
Please do not think me rude.
Unfortunately, I will be occupied for a few hours painting the kitchen! Both of your posts are exactly what I need for my research. I need to process your information for a while to integrate with my research. The image of the 1932-D quarter was spot-on to the hypothesis I am working to prove. The shape and depth descriptions of the actual punch also fall in line. As suggested, I will contact the Mint hopefully to get further validation. The fact that the Working Die is “dressed” after the punch may be what creates the “work hardened halo effect” around some Mintmarks. I have observed this phenomena many times but could not quite put together the sequence of events that contributed to the halos creation. I initially concluded that the punch was struck too hard and the halo was a result of the hilt penetrating the field, thus my questions. However, if this were true the MM relief on the coin would be a mound not a cavity. That was my confusion. The polishing of the Working Die to grind down the displaced metal around the MM is the piece information that is germane to my research. It explains why the MM appears to be in a “valley” instead of on top of a mound. My hilt scenario is a dead end but something to look for in the future, since it must have happened occasionally. I am going to integrate your information and try to create a JPG to show the processes mentioned above. However, for the next few hours…the kitchen calls.
PS. @RB1026 dually flagged.
There are hundreds of individual punches among the U.S. Mint artifacts. Letter and numeral punches were usually made by outside contractors to specifications provided by the Mint. This goes back to the 18th century and includes many well-known artists include Anthony Paquet, CC Wright, etc., and lots of now-unknowns. Making these was a very meticulous task: They had to be actual size and "perfect."
Here is an undated description, but probably pre-1836. Sadly, the illustrations are missing:
An explanation of the draft.
Figure 1 is a letter punch, this punch when hardened and properly tempered, is struck into a piece a
steel quite soft, and after this piece a steel (called matrice) is well hardened and other piece a steel is
struck into the matrice, which will have the shape of Figure 3; the face of the letter will be raised and a
flat smooth shoulder will appear. After this done, the shanks of the letters are adjusted to its proper
thickness and put into a form, where the coins are to be milled
A. Figure 4 is the place for the punch.
B. for the matrice Figure 2 etc. are two screws to tighten the matrice from the sides and F a screw for
the same purpose from the front. d is a screw to tighten the punch and to keep him perpendicular.
Frederick Guyer
RG104 entry 14
For a little more information see:
Breen, Walter, “Robert Scot’s Earliest Device Punches,” America’s Copper Coinage 1783-1857. ANS 1984. p.9.
I have a photo of a punch for the letter “A” made by Ron Landis. I’ll scan and post tomorrow.
There is virtually no shoulder area, the shank tapers into the sides of the letter. That form pretty much eliminates the shoulder creating a depression in the die if the sinker punches a bit too aggressively. This taper may well be what the section stating “the shanks are adjusted to its proper thickness” in Roger’s above quote refers to.
@Rittenhouse
That supposition of tapered punch is supported by my research. Every MM I have ever examined has never shown evidence of a raised dome background or mound. That was my dilemma; why? The tapered punch is the plausible answer. There is no hilt/shoulder at the base of the letter. It was “dressing” the Working Die that I did not know until @CaptHenway clued me in. In hindsight, it is obvious but I was so fixed on the hilt scenario, I did not take the next logical step. Your revelation of the tapered punch combined with polishing out the displaced metal around the MM of the Working Die explains how a relief MM can be within a depression and explains the “halo” effect. Not bad for a few simple questions! What a great forum to exchange ideas, learn, and piece together the very convoluted process of MM punching.
I will be very interested to see your image tomorrow. Thanks!
Here's the image. Yeah, tapered punch really does explain it all. Swat one of those a bit aggressively and a good bit of metal gets pushed up surrounding the figure - viola! - a mm sitting in a hole.
I assume (with the usual caveats over that word) that there are two ways to make a letter or number punch. The first method would to be to put a heat-softened blank punch bar in a holder like this and hand cut away everything you don't want, leaving just the raised letter of number. The second would be to take a block of heat-softened steel and hand carve the letter or number in reverse into the block, heat harden the block of steel, and pound the end of a heat-softened blank rod into the recess to form a positive letter or number.
Anybody know which technique the Mint's engravers used? Perhaps they used the block of steel method and then, after raising up the letter or number, hand finished it similar to what the picture shows. I don't know.
Pictures of some of my gravers
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
First Apologies. I did not abandon this thread. Having company this weekend and had to finish painting the kitchen and dining room. Not my favorite job. I am a very messy painter. It took more time to clean up than to actually paint. How did I get paint in my hair?
@RogerB
I read your post “An explanation of the draft…” several times. Then I skimmed “Robert Scot’s Earliest Device Punches”, America’s Copper Coinage 1783-1857. ANS 1984” as you suggested. What I came away with was an epiphany. It may seem obvious to others but I never considered that there must be a “Master” mintmark punch that creates “Working” mintmark punches. This is going to take some serious thought.
@CaptHenway
The above sources suggest, at one time or another; both of the methods you described to create a punch where probably used to make the “Master” punch and then the “Working” punch.
@Kkathyl
. They show how a tapered point ensures no interference from the shaft of the bit.
Thank you for taking the time. The images of your gravers were on "point"
@Rittenhouse
Thank you for going the extra mile to create the high-res image of the “A” punch. I enlarged it and studied the detail. It is exactly as my research suggests and you predicted. There is no hilt/shoulder. A hard whack by the sinker deep-sets the MM and throws up a work-harden ring around the MM. The die would then be “dressed” by abrading and polishing the displaced metal to “level” the raised field around the MM.
This provides the explanation for a curios observation that is integral to my research. In almost every EDS & MDS of a Franklin half reverse with a MM in a depression, there are moderate to heavy die polishing lines in some portion(s) of the field surrounding the MM. I cannot believe that I was so blinded by my fixation on the “dome” scenario that I failed to take the logical progression of the “dressing” on deep mintmark Working Dies. Sure does help to have input from other intellects to see something other than the trees in the forest. This exchange provided a cohesive link to much of my research. In a sense, suddenly all the pieces came together. I cannot thank all you posters enough for helping me.
No apologies necessary. Most people on here have lives in the real world.
You are doing your research methodically and in the right way. Keep up the good work.
Given that the mint records clearly show that they purchased letter and numeral punches, along with the usage of damaged punches, particularly on 19th century dies, I doubt very much the mint's engravers engraved letter or numeral punches to any significant extent. It was simply easier and more cost effective to purchase them.
That does open the question as to how the mint's suppliers made the punches. In the early 1790's, when the mint purchased punches from one of the workers, the punches were apparently individually engraved as there are significant differences in appearance. By the 1800's, the figures have taken on a more standardized look, so it's likely the suppliers were creating master figure punches, using those to sink matrix plates and, after hardening the plate, using that to raise the working punches sold to the mint. I'll post an image of a matrix plate later today.
Be aware that most of Breen's suppositions in his COAC article have been superseded by more recent research. In particular, it has been well documented that Wright never engraved the Lib Cap or any other design actually used on US coinage. Prior to Scot, Voigt engraved all of the dies.
Likewise, Breen's concept of grouping dies and proposing emission sequences based on those groupings is incorrect. While the dies were completed roughly in that order, die stating clearly shows they were not used in that order. Not surprising since the mint records show that completed dies were under the control of the Director and the Chief Coiner had to request dies from him or his clerk. Lightly damaged dies were returned, via the Director, to the engraver, repaired, and placed back in the "die locker" for reuse. This resulted in much mixing, thus obviating Breen's grouping idea.
I know that the early Mint purchased privately-made punches, but it is possible that later engravers made their own date and/or mint mark punches and used them personally when working on dies. This could explain anomalies such as the Upright and Slanting 5's of the 1850s, and the wild assortment of mint mark sizes used on Liberty Seated coins in certain years.
The 1916-Large D over Small D quarters are fascinating. The Small D was used on the Minor coinage dies from 1911 on, but when somebody used that punch on a Barber Quarter die either he or somebody else felt the need to "correct it" with the Large D punch.
I very much doubt that engravers did drudge work like punching mm's and dates. The anomalies are far more suggestive of lower level workers mindlessly punching their day away.
If we are talking about the actual application of a Mintmark to a die, then I have to agree. There were, IMHOP dedicated individuals whose job it was to apply the mintmark.
This also seems to have been an acquired talent, with all the variable impressions, locations, and actual look of the punch subject to noticeable repunches, mistakes, and sloppy work.
There probably was what could be called an apprentice "die puncher" who trained under supervision to acquire the talent.
Most likely there was no title, but if a trainee was needed, the Mint knew who to go to at least on a supervisory level.
This whole operation is extremely interesting to me. One can look at a coin, and know what it is.
But to look at a coin, and then know why it was MANUFACTURED like that is the beginning of serious numismatic research.
Pete
As I have said before, procedures changed slowly and over time, and as a rule we do not know when this person started doing this and that person stopped doing that.
In 1834 an Engraver was punching multiple letters and date digits into multiple working dies. Over the next several years Gobrecht perfected the process for hubbing nearly-complete dies that only needed dates and/or mint marks. Freed of the necessity to punch 13 stars, 21 letters of USA and a denomination into each die pair, the same Engraver could date and mint Mark multiple working dies in the time it used to take him to punch one die pair.
Eventually as production increased one or more Assistant Engraver would be hired, but why would the people previously punching dies stop doing so until demand continued to increase?
My comment above was more in reference to "modern" stuff, like 20th Century coinage. No doubt procedures changed over the years.
Pete
Great information glad you asked the question. Gave me an excuse to show off my home made graver. LOL
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Here's a matrix plate. From Cooper, I think.
Who knows? Perhaps under the reigns of Prince Longacre and William the Barber applicants for the position of mint mark masher were required to show some, I don’t know, engraving skill by actually engraving something such as a mint Mark punch! Get enough of these people on staff and you have a great variety of punches in use! I believe the record is four different S punches used in 1864 and again four different used in 1875.
Prince Longacre and William the Barber.
I like that.
How about Charles Barber the Buffalo Butcher?
Pete
I wish I were as knowledgeable about “minting” history as @CaptHenway, but thanks, I do learn with each post. My research necessitated that I specialize to a narrow band of years (1947-1964) when the Franklin Half was in production. I have spent hundreds of hours reading and viewing every document and image I could “Google” on minting practices of the 40’s & 50’s. What I learned is that there are literally 2,071.818 cu. ft. of documents in the Mint archives that could probably answer what the Philadelphia Mint custodian had for lunch on 02/29/1952. The problem is I just do not have the time to undertake such an endeavor. What I noticed during my research was that the Mint kept meticulous financial records of every cent (literally) they spent. A summary was attached to the Director of the Mint Report to Congress each year. Therefore, I did the next best thing to wading through millions of pages; I followed the money! These reports are available on-line. This tact provided a wealth of information including, cost of designing (Galvano, trial die, etc.), metallurgy tests, blanks, and striking Franklin trial pieces. For instance, the reports showed that the Mint was testing Proof Franklins in 1949, before the official release in 1950. This, in and of itself, is fascinating since the Type 1 Proof reverse did not exist until early 1950 when, by order of the Mint Director, the original 1948-49 Reverse Master Die was re-engraved to create the 1950 Type 1 reverse. Do those R49 Proof trial strikes still exist is a topic for another post.
@Rittenhouse
In the reports I skimmed, there was never any mention of contracting out for Mintmark punches. This does not mean the Mint did not subcontract for the punches, it just means they did not directly account for it under a specific contract between 1947 and 1956.
@BuffaloIronTail
___“This whole operation is extremely interesting to me. One can look at a coin, and know what it is.
But to look at a coin, and then know why it was MANUFACTURED like that is the beginning of serious numismatic research.” ___ That is a fantastic statement. May I quote you someday?
As to the “Sinker”: During my carrier, I interacted with dozens of Tool & Die Makers and Machinists. To say that they were perfectionist and slightly OC is an understatement. The skill of hand and eye to whack a six inch tapered punch with a 1mm letter point that is exactly placed 0.4mm above a 3mm field between the two top center bolts in a 25mm incused image of a Liberty Bell in is not a job performed by a trainee. I suggest the “Sinker” was a highly skilled technician who specialized in MM punching. To our joy, he/she occasionally had a bad day. Remember one thing. All Hub & Die work for all three Mints was exclusively done at the Philadelphia Mint Die Room. There is considerable evidence and antidotal data that suggests that the branch Mints were frequently treated like stepchildren and sent inferior or older equipment and supplies from the Philly Die Room. Philadelphia exclusively punched Mintmarks into every Working Die destined for the branch Mints. For the record, any aspersions to “sloppy” punching is a mark against the Philly Die Room’s quality control and not a reflection of the branch Mints.
You won't find it in the "Mint Reports." You have to go into the working records, which is what Roger B. quoted from.
___“This whole operation is extremely interesting to me. One can look at a coin, and know what it is.
But to look at a coin, and then know why it was MANUFACTURED like that is the beginning of serious numismatic research.” ___ That is a fantastic statement. May I quote you someday?
Intueor: Sure you can.
Pete
Making letter and numeral punches was specialized work and not done by the US Mint Engraver or Assistant Engravers. Several former Assistant Engravers, particularly Anthony Paquet, made punch sets under contract with the Mint. Payment was usually made out of contingency appropriation funds. From the 1870s until his death, Assistant Engraver Key kept busy making small logo punches such as IGWT for the 1878 silver dollar; he also made wreaths, stars, and other ornaments and did a lot of die retouching and repair.
The basic approach to mint-use punches was identical to making original letter type for printing and that is where the OP will likely find the most complete discussions.
@RogerB said:
“Making letter and numeral punches…..”
My original quest was to determine the shape, dimensions, depth, etc. of the MM punch. This information is a crucial variable to my research. An actual photograph of a punch is hard to find. As @Rittenhouse suggested, I have Emailed Dr. Robert Gohler, Curator of the US Mint Collection - Robert.Goler@usmint.treas.gov., and await his response. If Dr. Gohler does provide an image, I will post it immediately. Related images provided by Rittenhouse & @Kkathyl along with your excellent historical data seem to support a tapered punch. Your data clearly indicates that for over a century, the Mint contracted out punch production. I have yet to verify if this was the case between 1947-1964 production years but there is little evidence for doubt. Based on the information you provided, the subcontracting line item budget entry for this type of outsourcing is not delineated nullify my “follow the money” tack for MM punches. As you suggested, I will continue the research from the sources you indicated.
What would account for the multitude of styles and sizes used for the mint mark punches in the 1850s through 1870s?
Roger, Isn't that the main reason Paquet left the mint - not being one of the "favored sons," he was largely ignored and found he could make far more money in private practice, including contracting for punch sets, etc. Sad, 'cause he was arguably one of the most talented US engravers of all time.
Not sure of his reasons for leaving the Mint, although boredom might have been part of it....
Paquet's name appears regularly in Mint documents as a provider of designs, or punches or hubs and other things. Curiously, he does not seem to have been a frequent user of the Mint's medal department - Henry Mitchell, William Barber and others are often listed as customers for having medals struck. In several letters Paquet appears to be "begging" for work from the Director.
RE: "What would account for the multitude of styles and sizes used for the mint mark punches in the 1850s through 1870s?"
Many providers, multiple orders and very minute scale hand work.
Yup, and add in multiple denoms and designs where they made the figures just a little bit larger or smaller or different and you got a recipe for problems.
There are several entries in Medal Department account about William Barber being paid for die cutting and related work. Evidently he also cut certain lettering as in these sample payments:
"Dec 3, 1867 Cash paid William Barber for letters for Field medal. $34.00
Dec 27, 1867 Cash paid William Barber for letters for Field medal. $16.50"