Input wanted on 1878 Morgan dollar 7/8 TF and 7 TF hubs.
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
Gentlemen & Ladies:
In reviewing historical documents, publications, and modern photos concerning 1878 Morgan dollar hubs, I’ve noticed considerable variation in the length and completeness of the reverse arrow nock. Documents establish the Morgan offered to overstrike 8 TF dies with his new 7 TF reverse as an expedient way to get the new hub into use and improve striking characteristics. Thus, the 7 TF over-die should be the same as the one put into use on or before April 1, 1878.
The difficulty for me is that when I examine 7/8 TF coins, and the VAMworld archive images, I see that only a few varieties have a complete long nock. Most coins have a short nock consistent with the 7 TF short nock, and a short added section that gives the nock the casual appearance of being long. Some coins suggest this is either a remnant of the 8 TF under-die, or a manually added extension unique to each 7/8 TF die.
Here are two samples of 7/8TF coins borrowed from VAMworld. Notice extension of the central arrow's nock in both photos. The top is 1878 7-8 TF v30a-revMHIVSScrop
and the bottom photo is 1878_7-8 TF v41_rev
Further all 7 TF proofs I’ve been able to examine (about 70 coins + photos) have a short nock, and we know these were being made prior to May 1, 1878.
One hypothesis is that the first 7 TF reverse hub had a short central arrow nock, and a narrow rim (as explained by the foreman of the coining room in a letter).
I’d appreciate member’s thoughts. Thanks!
(I've also asked that this be posted on the VAMworld message board.)
Comments
Went over and looked at a bunch of pictures, and I agree that the long nocks on the 7/8TF dies appear to have been added by hand to individual working dies after they were re-hubbed with the new 7TF hub.
They are more or less aligned with the central arrow shaft on the 7TF design regardless of how high or low the 8TF design is under the 7TF, as indicated on some dies by the strong doubling of the olive branch. I don't see any way that it could be a remnant of the original 8TF design.
TD
Just a reminder of how the Engraving Dept. added details to dies in 1878. No other significance to this particular variety.
http://ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com/wiki/1878-P_VAM-10
The 7 TF had both a long nock B1 and short nock B2 reverse. The long nock has lower numbered VAMs and there weren't many of them, as opposed to the short nock reverses. Couldn't the 7/8 TF have used the 7 TF long nock hubs?
If I understand Roger correctly, he is saying there was no long nock hub, and the longer nocks were individually added to some dies but not others. I think that might be correct.
Almost. I'm suggesting that all 7/8 TF were made using the short nock / narrow rim reverse. Further, this reverse was continued in use until the new long nock / normal rim reverse was put into use. That is, the Van Allen-Mallis 1878 B2 reverse came before the B1 reverse, and B1 preceded the slanted arrow vane reverse.
Interesting thought. That the 7/8 TF reverses have short over long nocks would seem to support this. There is one coin thought to be a missing link between the long nocks and short nocks, and that is the 1878-CC VAM 13. It shows what could be a hub break on the nock itself, very similar in appearance to the 'r' in 'trust' on many B2 reverses.
I pulled out a few of my B1 coins to take a closer look -- VAMs 70, 82, and 84. The VAM 84 shows a short over long, while the others just show a long nock. If I think of the broken hub issues that are known elsewhere on both sides of the coin (4th right obverse star, 'o' in God, 'r' in trust), then this does look like the long nock was "put back" on the coin. Why it is so precisely squared off and yet not deep enough seems odd. There's far more touch-up that was done on the VAM 84 reverse to connect the olive leaves at the end of the branch.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Morgan had about 50 8TF dies and proposed using them by overstriking with his new 7TF die - this was a expedient to get the improved reverse/obverse into use as quickly as possible. It seems likely that VAM specialists have identified nearly all of the 7/8 TF dies scattered among the coinage mints. It is also apparent that the nock on all 7/8 TF is a composite - probably manually retouched given the variation in length, depth of cut and geometry.
@Messydesk ... Another interesting theory.
I don't know if this is helpful, or not. At least it shows that someone has thought about it before!
The following page is from this Oxman/Hartnett book, published in 1999.
(The bottom book in this photo).
Page 40:
I hope it's readable. I think that essentially he's saying that the reverse 7TF hub used was a type known as the "B1"....and all 7/8TF varieties should have the long nock. It implies that the long nock was NOT added by hand(?)
Added: Reading it more carefully, it seems that the writer isn't making the case that it takes TWO different reverses to make a 7/8? Yes, one of the hubs must be a "B1"...but the other is an 8TF, or "A" reverse....right?
Anyway....prior thoughts on the topic might be useful.
Thanks for the added info TommyType.
All of the 7/8 TF coins have a long nock; however, the nock consists of two segments. The first is part of the 7 TF design and is short; the second is a segment manually added to the design. This little segment varies in length, width, depth of cut and angle of depth for nearly every 8/7 TF variety regardless of mintmark.
Further, all known 7 TF proofs with parallel arrow vanes have short nocks - just like the over-strike design (not the short addition) on the 7/8 TF coins. The proofs and short nock circulation pieces also share a narrow rim (border) as explained by the mint machinist and foreman of the coining room.
Applying the above we get this reverse design sequence:
8 TF; 7/8 TF w/short nock and added segment; 7 TF short nock and narrow rim. For VAM folks this means 7 TF reverse B2 came first and was used for the 7/8 dies, then came reverse B1.
Once upon a time, I thought I "knew" more about the '78 Morgans than I do now. I once collected Morgans almost exclusively.
But the "narrow rim" angle is new to me.....I think. I just don't recall that attribute being discussed before. I can see how that would be a missing "clue" to the sequence of varieties.
It kind of seems like the die making process was a bit of a circus for a few weeks there. Is it possible that MULTIPLE hubs were being used? I don't know how many impressions were required to go from a hub to a die....or how many different variations co-existed at any one time (B1, B2, A, etc.).
While certainly possible, it seems odd that the nock was something they felt they HAD to add manually. I know they added lower wing feathers on various "versions", so I guess maybe adding the nock was part of their impromptu process as well.
An interesting topic, anyway.
Here's a good picture of the short nock that shows the shape of the hub break.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
A great thread!
Roger, could you please expand upon the "narrow rims" correspondence, either here or in private?
TD
A letter from the foreman of the coining room and the machinist respond to Pollock's comment about the rim of the new hub (7 TF) being thin. (This is called the "border" in mint language of the time.) Here's an excerpt from my draft and the letter:
"But new hubs had not solved all of Morgan’s problems with the new coins. Superintendent Pollock was evidently concerned about the very narrow border (or “rim” in modern terminology) and its possible effect on abrasion. He asked mint employees Albert William Downing, Foreman of the coining room, and Ambrose White Straub, machinist, to comment on the situation.
In compliance with instructions received from you we most respectfully submit the fol-lowing remarks.
The original width of border on the dies of the 412-1/2 grain silver dollar was well designed, but new hubs were made from one pair of these dies to change the radius. As all steel enlarges during the hardening process, the hub and dies from it expanded, this increased the reeded border, and as the collar controls the diameter it decreased the plain border in width. As to what the width of that border should be is a matter in which persons will differ largely in artistic taste and judgement. Viewing it from a mechanical standpoint, we are of the opinion that an increased width of border would be advantageous as there would be a better protection for the face of the coin, less liability for abrasion, and the piles would stand more firmly with the additional surface which would be given to the pieces to rest on.
The variation in the centering of the coins would be less perceptible in a wide border than in a narrow one."
[RG104, entry 1, box 112. Letter dated April 12, 1878 to Pollock from Downing and Straub.]
The origin of the new hub was William Barber's complaint that the original 8 TF dies did not have a uniform radius, thus making correct finishing very difficult. [Note: simple basining on a die with uniform radius was easy to do and required little skill. But, trying to basin a die of more than one radius, using multiple zinc laps, was difficult and required expert attention. If the radius problem was not corrected, the Philadelphia Mint (and Engraving Dept.) could never produce enough dies to meet production requirements. Woodworkers will understand immediately....]
PS: Director Linderman approved Downing and Straub's suggestion to widen the rim on April 15, but the work was not completed until a later date (not established -- yet). A guess is that this was the 7 TF, long nock version, based on comparison of rim width of short and long nock coins.
On the VAMworld message board several photos and ideas have been posted, yet the central question - what 7 TF reverse was used to over-strike the original 8 TF dies - has not been answered. When I look at the 7/8 TF detail photos and coins, most have a tiny extension of the central arrow nock. It does not look like a long nock was part of the 7TF die, nor was the nock this pronounced on the 8 TF original.
A further clarification: the 8 TF dies all had irregular radii, that's the way the hub was, and that was why Morgan had to make a new Hub. To fit his new 7 TF to the old 8 TF dies, the 8 TF dies had to be ground to a uniform radius. (Barber says this was 25-inches - but his comment was not made until early 1879.) Once the 8 TF radius was made consistent with that of the new 7 TF hub, over-striking could proceed in a way that obliterated much of the old design.
One other detail, late 1877/early 1878 experiments in abrading the face off a used die and then impressing it with a new hub (to save time and money) failed. The used dies suffered too much internal stress and quickly cracked and fell apart. So -- the 8 TF dies were probably unhardened or incomplete before they were over-struck.
There's a logical solution someplace....
Have you given any thought as to Morgan's preferences for the nock styling on the 1877 half dollar patterns, such as this J-1510
https://sep.yimg.com/ca/I/uspatterns_2270_104107609
or the J-1509
https://sep.yimg.com/ca/I/uspatterns_2270_103503258
No. Good idea. Will check my files and on-line examples.
Checked all examples of pattern eagles similar to dollar. All had 7 TF and all had a long or very long central arrow shaft and nock. Morgan's adopted version is the only one with a short nock.
This may indicate what Morgan thought was proper, and why he would have thought it necessary to touch up the working dies.
I agree. His 8 TF reverse is the only one with 8 tail feathers and the short nock on the central arrow. That he made a 7 TF version with a uniform basin, short nock supports his using the 1878 die as a new master die which would then have had a short nock. Reimpressing the 8 TF dies was then done with his "interim" hub - made for expediency to correct a major problem. A large quantity of these was also made so that all 3 mints could be supplied.
Some of the 7/8 TF coins show a chip out of the nock a lower left end - just a seen on some 7 TF short nock coins.
The next iteration was less rushed and Morgan could do some more "fixing" including returning to a carefully made long nock on the hub, and enlarging the rim. (The rim difference seems to be able 1.5mm total -- not much but evidently what was needed to conform to the first 1878 coin's rim.)
This means the 4th version had an angled arrow vane and other small changes.
Well --- maybe.
Also-- learned why the first 1879-S dollars stacked 1-coin too high. They were made using the old short nock reverse dies - per William Barber.
Let’s re-examine the process by which the 8TF reverse design was physically altered into a 7TF design.
It is difficult to remove design elements from a die without leaving a gaping hole, so logically you start by taking a working hub and removing the bits you do not want, hardening that and sinking a new master die. You then hand engrave the replacement bits and harden the new master hub.
But then what?
Morgan's problem was that he did not have time to go the normal route. To solve the radius issue (there were 3 different radii identified) he would have taken a new working die of the best quality and basined it to a uniform radius. We don't have the actual numbers. This would have affected largely the raised field (aka "table") since that is the part of a die affected by final smoothing on a zinc lap. He then would have restored relief by re-cutting or using matrix punches.
He had both the "new" master die and a "new" master hub to work with, so changes could be made in either/both. There would have been multiple back-and-forth iterations all resulting in the 7 TF with short nock as seen on all the 7/8 TF coins.
Have you done overlays to show what is the same and what has moved?
Not yet. At present I'm trying to determine if there ever was a "Long Nock" reverse hub.
Don't nock it until you've tried it!
Don't forget the Judd-1550-1553 dollar patterns.
This and the related threads on the 1878 dollars have been fascinating. Many things that we have all "known" for the past 50 years are being proven wrong. I salute you, Sir!
Well --- nothing proven as yet, but the confidence is appreciated. Mainly - the results will speak for themselves. A hypothesis is a way of testing against empirical data, and that will take more time.
