Anyone know if any Early 50c and Early $10 Eagles shared reverse dies like some dimes and $2.50?
WinLoseWin
Posts: 1,672 ✭✭✭✭✭
Does anyone know if any Early half dollars and Early $10 Eagles shared reverse dies like occurred with some dimes and quarter eagles ?
Thought maybe I might have seen something about some issue of Early Halves (the design from 1801 to 1807) and Early Tens (the design from 1797 to 1804) sharing the same reverse die, but did not find anything after looking recently. Could be faulty memory mixing it with the known dime and quarter eagle use.
I looked through the Taraszka Collection of Early Ten Dollar varieties auction catalog and did not notice anything there. Also did not see anything mentioned in my old Overton half dollar guide or Breen book. Maybe it never happened.
They do have the same or very similar design and coin diameter. According to the Red Book the halves are 32.5mm an the $10 are 33mm.
The quarter dollar has the denomination added, which maybe could be done after half eagle use. Also has a larger size difference (27.5mm) compared to the half eagle (25mm) so it seems unlikely to have had any cross denomination use in that series unless someone knows otherwise.
Some of the dimes (19mm) and early quarter eagles (20mm) are known to have shared reverse dies. Yet did not see this mentioned in the Red Book. They are noted in each description below under the Heritage Commentary section for coins from the July 2008 Ed Price Collection.
.
.
This 1798 quarter eagle reverse die was also used on the 1798 JR-4 and 1800 JR-1 dimes.
.
.
This 1804 quarter eagle reverse die was also used on the 1802 JR-4 and 1804 JR-1 dimes.
.
.
This 1806/4 quarter eagle reverse die was also used on the 1807 JR-1 dime, the only die variety for that year and the largest mintage of the type.
.
.
Upon reading further this 1798 quarter eagle variety simplifies an understanding of the cross denomination use between dimes and early quarter eagles.
The Consignor Commentary section contains the following statement:
"...other than the three 1796 quarter eagles, this is the only variety that does not share the reverse die with a dime..."
Also interesting is that many may own evidence of an early gold coin without knowing it. I did not know this until seeing it in the lot description of this 1807 quarter eagle.
"Consignor Commentary. This is a late die state with reverse clashing. When I bought this coin, I did not understand that the late die state was harder to find than the early die state. I did understand that the clashes which show on the reverse of the 1807 quarter eagle were also visible on many 1807 dimes. So the reverse of many 1807 dimes has clash marks which reflect the obverse of 1807 quarter eagles. I was intrigued with this "interdenominational die clash" and in 1995 I wrote an article describing and illustrating the clashes for the John Reich Journal."
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Comments
I have never heard of any other than the 10 C. - $2.50 mulings.
This is described in "Early United States Dimes 1796-1837" by Davis, et al (1984).
The table on p.255 shows the reverse uses on dimes and quarter eagles, in emission order.
Of course this book was famously out of print for many years.
Most likely this info is included in the new bust dime book.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/947496/new-book-bust-dime-variety-identification-guide
Presumably it is in quarter eagle books, too, although I don't have one.
Had seen the cross denomination use between dimes and early quarter eagles occasionally noted in auction catalogs and also the Breen Encyclopedia. I don't have any reference books specific to those two series.
I knew there was some info in the Price auction. Until recently looking closer at the listings, I did not realize how extensive the crossover usage of the quarter eagle dies had been. As noted in the one 1798 $2.50 variety, "...other than the three 1796 quarter eagles, this is the only variety that does not share the reverse die with a dime...".
The fact that the Breen book, Overton and Taraszka don't mention any dual use between 50c and $10 probably means there wasn't. Would be hard to believe that no one ever checked.
Wonder what would keep the mint from sharing the reverse dies. Perhaps with the larger mintages plenty of dies for each were prepared and the need never came up.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
The Ed Price auction catalog also describes all of the heraldic eagle reverse dies shared by $2.50 QE and dimes, I believe it is on NNP.
My June, 2007 JRJ article "Master Die and Hub Changes for 1801-1807 Half Dollars, and Integration with 1799-1804 Gold Eagle Reverses" gives the complete analysis, it is on the NNP. Not easy reading,
There are no working dies that were used on both $10's and .50 HE reverses. However, two masters dies and two working hubs were used to produce both $10 and ,50 working dies.
Reverse engineering was done to decipher the shared master (original) dies and hubbs, which involves the determination of what features were added to the MD and hubbs. For the hubbs (as Scot spelled them) E PLURIBUS UNUM is the key feature, as it is punched by hand into the working hubb, just as letters are punched into the working dies. Therefore, each working hubb will have slightly different EPU lettering placement, which is transferred to the working dies (EPU is incuse on struck coins).
The article came out after the Dannreuther early gold book and Taraszka eagle book, but JD reviewed the article, concurred with it, and added research before the article was released (along with Craig Sholley and Edgar Souders).
There was also experimental hubbing of dentils for both $10 and .50. Tbere was another article by Bryce Brown in the same JRJ issue that uncovered this, and was also cross-checked with my article.
@WinLoseWin:
The Redbook listed diameters are approximate. The exact $10 diameters by year are published in a Taraszka JRJ article, which helped to determine the reeding was formed at strike in a closed collar. The half dollar diameters are not exact because there was no closed collar to control diameter - they have slight variance in diameter. The .50 are also very slightly eccentric or egg shaped, because the obverse design drives a slightly larger 12/6 diameter. Of course .50 edge lettering was formed in the Castiang rimming machine.