Curious about average die life in the 1870s?

RogerB

Here's a table summarizing die life for 1878 and 1879 at the Philadelphia Mint. Similar tables once existed for the other US Mints for each year and every die. A higher resolution image has been forwarded to VAMworld administrators for their use.

[Images from NNP, NARA RG104 entry 1, box 120]

These lists usually make no mention of collars manufactured, used or destroyed. In 1878 the first sets of silver dollar collars were made at Philadelphia and distributed to San Francisco and Carson (as well as New Orleans in 1879). Only in later years did each mint make their own.

jabba

They pushed those dollar dies to the limits!

ReadyFireAim

Those double eagles really used up a die a lot faster.

TommyType

Makes me wonder...

Why were they getting better die life, across the board, on silver coins versus gold coins?

Added: Not really true in 1979...

KindaNewish

Wow. I'd love to see that for 1875 if you ever come across that. I'd like to know if my search for new die varieties of 20 cent coins is a futile venture or not.

RogerB

I'll take a look.... hold on.

At NARA College Park, Md look in E-235-vol-007 through 009.

Here is the 1875 die destruction list for the Philadelphia Mint. Not sure if I have the others.

SaorAlba

I've wondered how the results could have been skewed by striking significant quantities of 3 and 5 cent cupro-nickel coins - nickel was a lot harder on dies - a comparison with 1867 would be very cool.

RogerB

Also look in RG104 E-229 box 16 of17 (all Carson Mint files)

I have destruction lists for 1874 and 1876 but not 1875.

KindaNewish

Again, wow.
3 Obverse dies, 3 reverse.
We know of the three obverse dies (3,1, & 2) and two of the reverse dies (A &B )
I guess I'll keep looking for reverse C, or maybe the last one that was returned was the first reverse used in '76.

edit
a quick look at doubledimes.com (thanks @astrorat) shows that the 1875 Philly 20c reverse "B" was used for the 1876 BF-3, so that must have been the one returned to the coiner as noted above.
That means that there might be another new reverse to be found!

kbbpll

I'm intrigued by the wild swings in "number of pieces" from one year to the next. Halves, quarters, dimes went from millions to almost none, while simultaneously cents increased by over 10 million and dollars by over 4 million.

Sorry for not following along on here, but where are you getting this stuff? I'm specifically curious about anything relating to Barber coins in the 1899-1905 period. Dime, quarter, and half all saw hub changes and there seems to be a lot of odd stuff with the older/newer dies being used across years that has never (to my knowledge) been looked at.

Coinosaurus

I thought gold was softer than silver?? But the dies for gold pieces seem to have lasted less time. Great documents.

messydesk

@Coinosaurus said:
I thought gold was softer than silver?? But the dies for gold pieces seem to have lasted less time. Great documents.

Gold wasn't quite so soft once alloyed with copper. It's also far more dense, which could have also had an effect on die life. Looking for a metallurgist to chime in.

ricko

Very interesting.... I wonder how much effect different operators had on die life... likely such information was not recorded. However, in my professional experience, we often noted the effect of different operators on machinery...they tended to 'tweak' the settings and thus affect the 'life' of dies or blades or molds. Looking at those figures, I would bet that there was some 'operator induced' effects present - though we will never know. Cheers, RickO

RogerB

Maybe these comments will help:
1. Standard US gold alloy is about the same hardness as standard silver alloy. But, gold struck under high pressure and subject to extensive deformation - as in coining - has a thin very hard layer that resists abrasion better than a silver coin.
2. Shorter die life for gold was likely (but not documented) related to an emphasis on product quality. These were scrutinized by financial people in Europe and defects were not tolerated.
3. "Wild swings" in output represent the effect of Treasury policy and the Treasurer's orders for gold for export versus small gold, silver and minor for domestic use. Treasury's mechanism for collecting coin demand data, and predicting future demand, was slow and as much guess work as fact. The result was that the Philadelphia Mint, because of it's location and large service area, saw large fluctuations in coin production orders.
4. Another factor was that some demand for some coin denominations was nearly zero. But the Mint director had small quantities made to avoid having annual proofs become the subject of speculation and high prices. Gold dollars and $3 were primarily jewelry pieces.
5. Something not asked, but I'll mention, is that there was no efficient mechanism for getting minor coins back into circulation. Banks and businesses wanted bright, new cents, 3-cents and nickels - that's what their customers wanted. Circulated minor coins were perceived as "dirty" or "unfit." Additionally, Treasury redemption policy inhibited recirculating minor coins, yet also restricted melting the pieces due to reverse seignorage.

jabba

22K melt point is over 1900F so it with stands heat very well so you need a lot of PSI to press it more pressure harder on dies

RogerB

For those interested in die numbers for various years, I'm collecting the raw data in a single PDF and will make it available to members when completed. I presently have 1876-1896 assembled. It might take a couple of weeks to finish.

RogerB

For now, the folder is:

Will have to reduce the file sizes for distribution.

messydesk

@RogerB said:
For those interested in die numbers for various years, I'm collecting the raw data in a single PDF and will make it available to members when completed. I presently have 1876-1896 assembled. It might take a couple of weeks to finish.

WANT!

dave700x

Great information for us die junkies....

RogerB