Help Needed from Franklin Variety Collectors & Specialist
Intueor
Posts: 310 ✭✭✭✭
One of the problems encountered when doing Franklin half research is the availability of variety specimens. While my Franklin collection has over 100 varieties, I cannot afford or find some very specific examples. For those pieces not in my collection CoinFacts, Vista Variety, and Wexler sites are excellent high-resolution image resources as are occasional offerings from auctions. However, the isolation and/or resolution of detail or conflicts in the attribution of published imagery sometimes create a problem. If you have the capability, inclination, and have access to any of the Franklin varieties mentioned below, please post a high-resolution of the REVERSE, slabbed or raw.
Franklin 1951-S DDRs 004, 006, 007, 008, and 009
Your help would be greatly appreciated to close the current gap in my research. 
Thank You!
Comments
Must be rare beyond words... nobody has any!
Are you writing a book Intueor?
Wasn’t @Aspie_Rocco doing something with Frankies?
I have been hunting Franklin varieties here and there in the unending variety quest, but I have not searched for the 51S ddr examples. I will look into these.
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
@georgiacop50 , @Hemispherical , @Aspie_Rocco
Interesting question.
It did not start out that way nor was it the original intent. I became interested in Transitional Reverse 1950-51 Franklins a few years ago after learning how to distinguish between a (Reverse Die Variety) RDV-001a (1948-49) and the RDV-001b (1950+) also commonly known as Type 1. However, there was no online or published reference material available. Therefore, I began researching on my own. One thing led to another, and over the years, the research is now over one hundred pages of notes and more images than I can count. Years ago, I would go to coin shows and dealers with a 10x loop. Every Uncirculated or Proof Franklin I examined that did not look “right”, I bought (within reason) and threw in a “someday” cedar box. Over the years it turns out, I had accumulated 367 “off” Franklins. When I retired (2008), the “someday” box was on my bucket list. Not all were varieties but I am still analyzing, categorizing, and researching some of those original Franklins and have acquired several more variety specimens.
Truthfully, my post is both a request for images of the Franklin 1951-S DDRs and a fishing expedition. There are probably less than a hand full of these DDRs in collections and few have been attributed. Of the nine 1951-S DDRs in the CONECA files, the FS-801 is the only variety recognized by the TPGS and only ANACS additionally recognizes the DDR-001. Any other DDRs are listed as “DBL DIE REV” by ANACS with no other attribution.
In order to attribute some obscure Franklins I submitted to James Wiles, I included a section of my research on Transitional Reverse Franklins to verify my observations. To his credit, Mr. Wiles conducted his own exhaustive research and agreed with my conclusion that most 1950-D and 1951-S DDR’s are Class III Design Hub Doubling. Most are the RDV-001b OVER the RDV-001a reverse. The DDRs in my query above may be other possible Hubbing permutations, hence my request for images. Last week all the pertinent CONECA Database entries for 1950-D and 1951-S DDR’s with updated to reflect a new designation as #R-I-CCW+III. Mr. Wiles went a step further and correctly identified all the 1950-1951 Franklin varieties to reflect either the RDV-001a or RDV-001b reverse. This was critical since some of these varieties are exclusive to the RDV.
The observation of georgiacop50 that, “Must be rare beyond words... nobody has any!” may be more accurate than intended. In addition, it is apparent that few collectors care. So as to writing a book, who would read it?
Ask someone the time and he tells you how to build a watch.
Sorry!
Just saw your reply now Intueor.
One thing I have noticed about the 1951-S DDR's is that PCGS does not require the exact DDR pictured in the CPG in order to get the designation.
The situation is similar to a couple other Franklin CPG varieties. In particular, the 1948-P and 1948-D DDRs.
In the case of all of these (48, 48-D and 51-S) DDRs, the CPG features only ONE of the several different DDRs known for each date/mm. Yet PCGS generally will designate ANY of them, I assume because of the similarity to the other DDRs of each respective date.
Another similar situation concerns the various 1951-P DDRs. While PCGS does not designate these (other than a smattering of examples in "Minor Die Variety" labeled holders) I would assume that IF the 1951-P DDR ever does get included in a future CPG edition, then PCGS would likely follow the pattern they have established of lumping all the various DDRs for this date together based upon their similarities and difficulty "keying" them out the time frame allotted to the graders/attributors.
@georgiacop50
I have also noticed that PCGS does attribute CPG variety to specimens that are not the ones pictured in the book. I think there is merit in this especially if you are a variety collector. Some of the nuances between the varieties are so slight; I sometimes think it is just die state. Occasionally though, IMO, the TPGS get it wrong and miss-attribute a variety or fail to attribute a variety.
FYI, as part of my research, I did an entire analysis of every 1951 DDR (4 Proofs & 10 circulation strikes). The Proof Working Dies were re-tasked for circulation strikes. There is strong evidence to suggest that every 1951-P DDR, Proof or circulation strike Working Dies, owes the doubling to a Doubled RDV-001b Working Hub. When that Doubled Hub was paired with a rotated-offset RDV-001a Working Hub to press the Working Dies, the 1951 DDRs were created. The variance in the different 1951-P DDR varieties is a result of squeeze sequence by the multiple hubbing need to press the Working Die. Which press came in the beginning or toward the end by either the Doubled RDV-001b Working Hub or the RDV-001a Working Hub created the variations. The 1951-P DDR Franklin is a Class II Doubled Working Hub and a CCW Class III Design Hub Doubling. If you look closely at a well-struck specimen, you will see the Liberty Bell doubling shifts to the East but the Motto and Eagle doubling shifts CCW to the West. Also, look at the Bell Hangers; they are doubled in opposite directions.
The image below is Hi-Res so you can zoom.
Blue Markers are RDV-001a Working Hub and shift CCW West (Late Squeeze)
Red Markers are RDV-001b Doubled Working Hub shift EAST (Early Squeeze)
Great work my man!
Wexler, et. al., may need to start consulting you on these Frankies @Intueor.
Can you describe the "Transitional Reverse 1950-51" a little more? I only took a quick look at PCGS and NGC, and of course don't find a word about it. Is it on Wexler or Coneca websites?
No Problem. Here are “CliffNotes” of some of my research.
The original 1948-1949 Reverse Franklin Master Die (Reverse Die Variety RDV-001a) was re-engraved to create the modified RDV-001b 1950 Franklin Reverse Working Hubs. During 1950 and 1951, the Working Dies with the two distinct reverse Types were used for Franklin Half Dollar production in the Philadelphia, Denver, and San Francisco Mints. The term "Transitional Reverse” refers to Franklin Half Dollar reverses minted between 1950 and 1951 that have the original Type 1948-49 reverse Master Die (RDV-001a) image on a 1950-1951 coin. Die markers for both the RDV-001a and RDV-001b reverse can be identified. These “Tells” can be utilized to identify Transitional Reverses and related varieties. Many 1950-1951 Franklin Reverse Varieties are a result of this Transitional Reverse period. Images below are in high-resolution JPEG format. Just “Click” on them to and “Zoom”.
Beginning in March-April of 1950, the Philadelphia Mint Die Room began using a re-engraved Franklin Master Die reverse, which is currently known as RDV-001b or “Type 1”. Technically, the RDV-001b reverse is a “Sub-Type”. With the exception of Proofs from mid-1956 to 1963 and some 1958-59 circulated strikes, this intentionally modified Master Die or “RDV-001b” reverse was used on Franklins from 1950 onward. The obvious exception is all “Type 2” Proof reverses from mid-1956 to 1963 and some “Type 2” 1958-59 circulated reverses. The 1956 Proof reverse was minted with both the RDV-001b Working Dies and Working Dies pressed form Hubs of a new Type 2 Proof Reverse Master Die.
Like the 1960 Small Date cent, anyone can easily learn to distinguish the nuances of the RDV-001a and RDV-001b reverses.
At first glance, it may appear the two different reverses are just Hub or Die wear and/or fatigue. However, some very prominent engraved “Tells” are discernable using a low power loop and, with a little practice, can easily distinguish the two “Types”. At least six “Tells” on the Transitional period 1950-1951 Franklin reverses can act as significant markers to help determine whether the coin is a RDV-001a or RDV-001b reverse. For the sake of brevity, the first three are covered below:
1. The new RDV-001b Eagle displays several changes that modified the esthetic detail and softened the overall image of the bird. These changes are referenced to the viewer’s left:
(1) Clearly separated pupil and brow.
(2) Shorten and curved beak/mouth.
(3) Less defined engraving separation of the Eagle’s upper left and right wrist feathers.
(4) Soft, rounded engraving separation of the Eagle’s mid-wing left and right covert feathers.
(5) Softening of breast feather definition.
(6) Thicker less detail of feather separation on “shin” of both legs.
(7) Separated and rounded relief for both bottom left and right wing tip feathers.
(8) Modified symmetry of the tail feathers.
2. Modifications to the upper and lower sets of bell lines to round the fields and edges.
In comparison, the set of bell lines on RDV-001a reverses are sharp. While strike characteristics deteriorate the entire set of bell lines over the die life, the RDV-001a “chiseled” effect can still be seen on worn sections of the lower set of RDV-001a bell lines. Bell lines on the RDV-001b reverse are visibly rounded and softer yet surprisingly well defined on fully stuck FBL specimens. As mentioned, the bell lines on either Type reverse are the primary point of die fatigue over the life of a Working Die. Bell lines have limited significance in determining reverse Type on poorly struck or worn circulated coins.
3. Modifications to thicken the motto “E PLURIBUS UNUM” that resulted in a concave bar of the “L”.
This is an indelible modification and is less subject to strike characteristics. This marker is virtually “foolproof” in identifying a Type RDV-001a or a RDV-001b reverse. This “Tell” is a direct result of the thickening of the letters in the motto “E PLURIBUS UNUM” for the RDV-001b reverse. This increase in girth caused the space between the “P” and the “L” in “PLURIBUS” to encroach on the left side of the vertical bar of the “L”. The result was a pronounced concaved cavity on the upper left side of the vertical bar of letter “L”. The images below provide a clear reference to the RDV-001a and RDV-001b “PL”.
There is much more, but this should help to distinguish the RDV-001a and RDV-001b Reverses. Here is a handy foolproof reference to coins you probably have in your collection. This will help to practice distinguishing the types. All 1950-1955 Franklin Proofs (sans DDRs) are RDV-001b reverses and all 1948-1949 Franklins are RDV-001a. CONECA now recognizes and attributes the RDV-001a and RDV-001b Franklin reverses at the Vista Variety website.
Hope this helps.
Wow!
Awesome analysis @Intueor!
@Intueor This is really great. I love this kind of stuff. I have very few Franklins but I'll have to look at them again. Your comment "it is apparent that few collectors care" struck a chord with me. I recently had an article published in BCCS journal documenting a third Barber dime reverse hub type, seemingly previously unknown or at least undocumented. Other than the 300 or so BCCS members, it appears that it is just going to fall into the black hole of numismatic research. You have done some great research here. It's a shame that this stuff takes so long to bubble up, or never does. I suppose there's just too much to collect and learn about. Your posts here alone are worthy of an article somewhere.
@kbbpll
Thank you for your kind words and insights. If you will forgive the familiarity, we do not do this type of original research for recognition, accolade, and certainly not for financial gain. The best you can hope for is a few “Like”. It is the purest form of the pursuit of knowledge.
The quest to coax the secrets hidden in the birth of a small metal disk is like opening the box of a new 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. You know what the end result looks like but how do the pieces fit together? It is an opportunity to use your knowledge, test your subjective reasoning, engage your skills, and extrapolate something concrete out of chaos. It is the alchemist’s dream to make gold from base metal. The “gold” is not tangible. It is the personal reward to piece together a series of dangling facts and construct a supposition. Then, using resources at hand, expose that theory to rigorous, unbiased review. In the jigsaw puzzle, the last section is “last” because those pieces are shielding their connections through a veil of perception. Then, from the abyss, comes the epiphany of clarity. Suddenly, the seemingly random connections coalesce and the puzzle is solved. This single moment makes any research worth the effort. Neither of our efforts will ever turn the course of numismatics. However, collectively those little breakthroughs will encourage some other obscure thinker to forge another link in the chain of knowledge. That, my friend, is what it has been all about since we came down from the trees. You have my admiration and respect for your discovery.
Albeit, some may think this discourse is a little too “Flowery”. However, if you have “been there-done that” then you know exactly how it feels.
Sounds like neither of us is in it for fame and fortune. What little recognition I can hope for is just that the information is available to someone else down the road. The investigation by itself is enjoyable, but there is that small thought that it's kind of a waste if you're the only one who knows about it.
The similarities between your Franklin research and my Barber dime stuff is interesting. I haven't quite digested all of yours, but from Variety Vista and your posts, is this an accurate summary?
RDV-001a and RDV-001b were both used on 1950-P, 1950-D, 1951-P ("a" is unconfirmed), 1951-D, and 1951-S. RDV-001b and RDV-002 were both used on 1958-P and 1959-P, with the 1958-P RDV-002 deemed "scarce". 1956 Proofs also used both RDV-001b and RDV-002.
The 1951 Proof dies were used for circulation strikes in Philadelphia. The RDV-001b reverse is from a re-engraved master die.
The similarities with the Barber dime story: 1) two reverse designs coexisted for a number of years (1901 across all mints for dimes, and 1902 through 1905 in San Francisco, which was all known prior to my research), and 2) Proofs also saw a mix of two reverse types (1901 for the dimes - I am not sure if this has been documented).
What is curious to me with the 1901 dime proofs is that demand was steadily declining. They only made 813, by 1914-1915 mintage was down in the low 400s, and by 1916 they minted none at all. If the dime proof demand was so low, why did they bother minting two reverse types in 1901? By my crude census, the two types are split about 60%/40%. Perhaps your Franklin research gives you some insight to offer on why they would mint 300 of an older design and 500 of a newer one.
My "discovery" that there was a third reverse design implemented in 1900 enabled me to discover two additional transition varieties - 1900-S with "reverse of 1899", and 1899-P with "reverse of 1900". The early release of the new design in 1899 is interesting. I estimate about 2-3% of the 19.6 million mintage, or half a million coins. I think Barber was testing his new die(s) in production. I'm curious if there's any hint of this "early release" phenomenon in 1949 Franklins. Or 1955 Proofs?
Well, I have become fascinated with transition varieties.
I am curious about the re-engraving of a master die to produce RDV-001b. What is the process involved with re-engraving a master die? I had considered that my "new" Barber dime reverse was similarly a re-engraving of a master and not a new hub. The overall outlines of the wreath leaves, corn, etc in 1900 are pretty much the same as 1899, but all the leaf veins changed in number and location, and the number of corn kernels changed. I am having trouble picturing how Barber (or any master engraver) could blank out the interior of features and then re-engrave everything. Is there discernible evidence on the Franklin halves that re-engraving was done? What to look for? I have asserted that the 1900 new design was a new hub, but I'm not really certain of that.
Sorry for such a long post.
@kbbpll
Truth be told, it is a little discouraging when a collector’s research makes a discovery only to be of marginal interest to fellow collectors. As you pointed out, the diversity of collecting is vast and everyone has his or her own interests. One thing that is consistent, if discovery can be monetized; there are always hundreds of posts and thousands of views. I have often thought that our hosts should indicate the number of Bookmarks on a post. We are all busy and do not have the time to comment on every post but it would be of some satisfaction to the OP to see the level of interest to their discovery.
Your summary Franklin Reverses is succinct and accurate. Your research background serves you well. Note: The image of the RDV-001a reverse on Vista Variety is incorrect. varietyvista.com/11%20Franklin%20Halves/Reverse%20Design%20Varieties.htm. Mr. Wiles has acknowledged the error and will correct the image on the next site update.
Regrettably, I must confess my ignorance in the area of Barber Dimes. I have only a few type pieces in my collection. However, because of similarities in US Mint coin production techniques; there are intrinsic parallels to the minting of Franklin Halves. Like Franklins, the number of pieces for each variety was partially dependent on Hub/Die inventory and MM punching procedures at the Philly Die Room.
Your statement “I had considered that my "new" Barber dime reverse was similarly a re-engraving of a master and not a new hub.” is of particular similarity to my Franklin research. While there was publish material that supported a re-engraved RDV-001a Master Die, it was critical that this could be proven. The fundamental premise of my research pivoted on the re-engraved Master Die premise. If this assertion were wrong, none of the research conclusions would be valid. The first step in researching Transitional Reverse Franklins was to identify the RDV-001a Master Hub markers. Once recognized, the next step was verifying some of the RDV-001a Master Hub markers were carried over to the new re-engraved RDV-001b Master Hub. Once this was established, the Re-engrave Master Die, in fact, was proven. Similar to your discovery, the substantiated re-engraving eventually cascaded to CONECA’s reclassification of 1950-D and 1951-S DDRs to Class I + Class III doubling.
I suspect, as in the case of the Franklin RDV-001b Master Die, the Barber Master Die (if re-engraved), may have similar markers. Again, as with the Franklin RDV-001b, the re-engraving most likely did not occur in just one “take”.
As to any hint of this "early release" (RDV-001b) phenomenon in 1949 Franklins, research indicates that this would not be possible. Available records show the re-engraving of the RDV-001a Master Die was not authorized by the Director of the Mint until November 15, 1949. The first strikes off the Working Dies of the new RDV-001b reverse did not appear until late March of 1950 with the Proof production being the “test” for the new reverse Working Dies.
There is no evidence that there was Hub/ Die experimentation with The RDV-002 on 1955 Proofs. As for 1956 Proofs, both the RDV-001b and RDV-002 reverses exist. This is a strong indicator that the “experimenting” resulted in the striking of RDV-002 (Type 2) reverses for the balance of 1956 Proof year. I have searched in vain for years for a 1956 Proof specimen with a hybridized RDB-001a over/under an RDV-002 reverse. No luck!
However, there is evidence that there was considerable experimentation with the re-engraving process of the RDV-001b Master Die and Working Hubs. The 1950 RDV-001b Proof reverse shows a number of device discrepancies that cannot be completely explained by strike variations. The problem here is that a limited budget severely restricts the number of specimens available to prove the re-engraving progression supposition. While the 1950 Proof is well represented in detailed images, the minutia of detail necessary to prove Master Die re-engraving progression is just not possible with published images. Below are some variations or peculiarities of the 1950 Proof run.
You stated, “I am having trouble picturing how Barber (or any master engraver) could blank out the interior of features and then re-engrave everything. Is there discernible evidence on the Franklin halves that re-engraving was done? What to look for? I have asserted that the 1900 new design was a new hub, but I'm not really certain of that.” First, look for those Master Hub Markers. As to the Franklin re-engraved Master die, this is what the research suggested:
The Master Die is incused. To widen a device, the area to be made thicker would necessitate additional engraving into the field. To round a detail, the margins of the device would be beveled with smooth edges. To eliminate detail, the incused detail of the device would be ground or flattened. The re-engraved Master Die modified devices show all these adjustments to the new RDV-001b Reverse Master Die. To date, no detailed engraving report is available to support the above observation. However, evidence suggests the re-engraving of the RDV-001b Reverse Master Die resulted in problems that plagued the Die Room during the first year of service. These problems cascaded through the entire Master Die-to-Coin progression.
I would suggest resolving the re-engraved/new Master Die conundrum by reconciling the changes to the Barber Dime varieties from the reference of Master Die detail. It is not possible to “add” metal to an incused Master Die. The only option is the additional engraving to alter or add incused devices. However, it is possible to “remove” metal from a Master Die by abrading or polishing.
Hope this helps
Likewise, sorry for the length but how do you condense such a complex subject?
I for one appreciate the heck out of this Intueor!
Are you going to publish the entire study somewhere?
Excellent research and one day it will be more appreciated. I assure you all that there is much more of this "unappreciated" stuff **still to be found ** and published. I'd encourage the OP to send a short article to the Numismatist. The attention it generates will cause more subtle changes to be discovered over the run of the Franklin Series.
@Intueor Your thorough reply is fantastic and I devoured every word. Length never bothers me. Uninterested parties can skip.
"One thing that is consistent, if discovery can be monetized; there are always hundreds of posts and thousands of views." - this cracked me up. So true.
I don't want to distract further from your own thread. Your comments have solidified my belief that the 1900 dime change was indeed a new hub. You cannot add metal to a master die. I was imaging the possibility of a scenario where they polished the die down to below the level of a feature that disappeared in 1900, and I think that's just unreasonable. More likely is that the 1901 reverse came from re-engraving the 1900 die. Identifying specific master die markers is probably a bit above my pay grade though.
I agree with @Insider2 that there is still a lot waiting to be discovered. High quality images across the internet are affording people the opportunity to examine details of a large number of coins that they don't have to physically accumulate. Records being posted by @RogerB and others will lead to new discoveries. I couldn't care less about making money in coins. This is the stuff that excites me.
"I agree with @Insider2 that there is still a lot waiting to be discovered. High quality images across the internet are affording people the opportunity to examine details of a large number of coins that they don't have to physically accumulate."
These are good things. The disappointing aspects are the auction companies, TPGs and others who do not understand the long-term value of high quality images. Several places have degraded or eliminated older images because of "lack of storage space." Nonsense. Petabytes are cheap; the past cannot be recreated. Similar excuses were offered in the era of photographic negatives -- a mammoth potential resource literally thrown away.
Thankfully, we still have places like Heritage left and the ATS links to auctions! Our host formerly had my first "go-to" place for sharp images. Pull up CoinFacts, type in any coin and one or three images of high grade coins would pop up. Then you could ZOOM in on each image to see the tiny die polish (necessary for authentication) on the coin as if you had it under a stereo scope. So sad to lose such a great resource. It was a virtual on line museum.
Hopefully, another source of excellent images will come online one day.
I was imaging the possibility of a scenario where they polished the die down to below the level of a feature that disappeared in 1900, and I think that's just unreasonable. More likely is that the 1901 reverse came from re-engraving the 1900 die.
Not sure if I understand you but I mentioned.. However, it is possible to “remove” metal from a Master Die (any incused type die) by abrading or polishing. That would mean that. say for instance to remove a "berry" from the die, the engraver could just polish it out. - remove metal.
Actually, Die markers are easier with the advent of digital images. You just align the images and stack them in different layers. Then use an opacity filter to "fade" the layers one at a time. Make the top layer a "markup" layer and circle any "die detail marks" that are being shared between all the layers. My personal benchmark is any mark the has a 90% consistency.
I agree and @Insider2 should know. I think he is a professional grader and has great insight and experience. It was one of @RogerB 's post on Die History that helped me to understand Working Hubs were set up to press several Working Dies in a tray. That is why there could be more than one variety of a DDR with the same date and MM that share the same attributes.
As to @georgiacop50 's comment about releasing the entire study, I am waiting for Mr. Wexler to possible attribute some key Transitional Reverse obscure specimens to validate some conclusions. It is my plan to release the document on the net for anyone to download but I do not know how to get permission for some of the images I used. I just do not have the resources to own all the coins that constituted my research.
PS @Insider2 Fortunately I began my research years before the revised CoinFacts.
RE: "say for instance to remove a "berry" from the die, the engraver could just polish it out. - remove metal."
That works only for removing a raised feature from a hub - removal in this way of any incuse feature - unless very small or of slight relief - would create a pit. This would result in a raised bump on coins.
Ooop! I stand corrected. Got my "Reliefs" and "Incuses" switched.
Sorry @kbbpll , my bad.
Thanks, Roger
No , kbbpll , the parallels are obvious. I used to love them Barber dimes until I couldn't see them well enuff. Then I switched my focus to quarters and halves.
This is way out of my league. I am sure others can add more insight. This is what I see from the images without the actual specimens in hand. The one thing I find curious is that from an esthetics point of view, the 1900 leaves seem to match the 1901 ribbon better than the 1900 ribbon. Either way, this is a nice discovery and clearly illustrates different Hubs/Dies.
This is no distraction, it is why I come to the site.
-30- for the night.
Son of a. I edited my post to correct a very minor spelling error and it said something about moderator approval, then the whole prior post went away. It was above Intueor's. Sorry. Never again will I edit a post.
US Mint engravers made frequent adjustments to master dies and hubs. Very little of this is documented - likely because almost all Engraving Department records are missing. The tiny fragments of information available from the mid-1930s show changes being made every year or two. Some were put into use, others were dropped, and others were so slight that we simply cannot tell what was done.
Here's an example relating to Washington quarters.
@RogerB Great stuff. "...a lowering of .006". This should coin much easier." caught my attention. Six-thousandths of an inch, that's a really small change. I also had no idea that they would mess with the galvano.
@Intueor Your observation matches mine! I thought the 1892-1899 dime design to be more "delicate" and the 1900-1916 change made it look more "pedestrian" or "industrial". (Hard for me to pick the right word). The thickening of the right ribbon in 1901 seems to better belong with the original design, to my eye anyway. That aspect of it better matches the 1891 pattern coin. Changing the reverse design twice in the span of about a year is something I'll never have a definitive explanation for.
I continue to be intrigued by the fact that some of the Franklin varieties were caused by hubbing from two different "designs". I need to reread all of the above and wrap my head around it again.
@RogerB
I have suspected that the changes made to Master Dies were very subtle during the “Trial” period. However, as you and kbbpll have pointed out, the “Trial” process was an ongoing pursuit of perfection with both Master Dies and Working Hubs. This makes sense and is supported by the progressive “tweaking” of Working Die changes in the 1950 Proofs. I have observed changes to the obverse of early Washington Quarters. Thank you for the enlightenment. I also find it interesting that measurements were in inches and not in millimeters.
@kbbpll
“Hard for me to pick the right word”. The soft floral of “Art Nouveau” comes to mind, 1890-1910 is when the period was at the height. Great images by the way. Glad we agreed. I was obviously “shooting from the hip”. Liked the seque.
As to Class III Design Hub Doubling, because “Sub-Type” design changes are usually very slight, Class III doubling is difficult to attribute unless there is an offset-rotation of the two different Working Hub designs. The 1950-D Class III DDRs are a good example. The 1950-D DDR Working Die “accidentally” received presses with a RDV-001b Working Hub reverse over a RDV-001a Working Hub reverse. This is “Class III Design Hub Doubling”. (Image below) Observation also suggests during the second press, one RDV Working Hub was misaligned by offset-rotation. There is evidence to suggest that this offset rotation were a result of the different machined tolerances of the RDV-001b Working Hub as compared to the RDV-001a Working Hub. Considering the tolerances demanded by the hubbing process, an improperly aligned hubbing could account for the number (5) of doubled Working Dies that may have been successively hubbed from the misaligned Working Hub. As to which RDV Hub was misaligned, the rotation-offset appears to point to the RDV-001b Working Hub. Curiously, these 1950 Class III doubled Working Dies were only relegated to the Denver Mint. Therein lays the problem with “accidentally”. No 1950-P circulation strike DDR has ever been reported. Some observable criterion was used by the Philadelphia Mint Die Room to punch a “D” mintmark in all the five 1950-D DDR Working Dies. This consistency can only be the result of the intentional distribution of doubled reverse Working Dies to the Branch Mints. No “S” mint Franklins were produced during 1950, but in 1951, there are nine listed varieties of 1951-S DDRs. A dozen circulation strike Class III DDRs in a two-year production span from both Branch Mints; this is way beyond the realm of coincident.