I know about Arrows, but why were Rays added to the 25C and 50C in 1853, and why for only one year?

winesteven

I know the fascinating reason why Arrows were added to the Half Dime, Dime, Quarter and Half Dollar in 1853 (to identify the new reduced weight and silver content of coins from the older heavier coins that were hoarded due to the higher value of silver, with an exception being made to keep Seated Dollars unchanged). But:

1. Why were Rays added in 1853 (besides arrows) to quarters and half dollars?
2. Why weren’t Rays added to the Half Dime and Dime? Was it due to their much smaller size?
3. Why were the Rays removed from the quarter and half dollar after 1853, even though the arrows continued through 1855?

I know the arrows were removed starting in 1856, even though the weights and silver content remained reduced. Arrows were reintroduced in 1873 and 1874 for the opposite reason - the weight and silver content were increased very slightly for metric weight “evenness”.

Steve

winesteven

@BillJones said:
Not adding something to the reverse of the half dime and dime was a reflection of the thinness of the coins. If the metal flow was wrong, the coins would not strike properly.

This is the BEST answer I've received as to why a differentiation was made on the reverses of the new Quarter and Half dollar, and not the Dime and Half Dime! Perhaps it's true! But that raises another question - if they could successfully add on arrows to the obverses of the thin half dime and thin dime, why not add a marking to the reverses as well? Could it be that the thinness could handle the arrows on the obverse, but on those thin coins not be able to handle additions to BOTH sides?

Unless someone can dispute this theory made by @BillJones, I'll shortly mark this thread as "Answered" (Thank goodness, lol)

Steve

CaptHenway

I am in receipt of copies of letters from the U.S. Mint archives relating to the 1853 markings, sent to me by the noted numismatic researcher Roger Burdette.

Basically, Longacre originally proposed that the new weight coins be marked with arrows at the date. The Secretary of the Treasury agreed to that, but proposed that the eagle be removed from the half and quarter and replaced with a wreath with the denomination inside to signify the change. He also proposed that the wreaths on the dime and half dime be replaced with a new wreath to signify the change in weight. He also said that the business community was in a great hurry to get the new coinage in the new weights commenced ASAP to alleviate the shortage of coins.

This would have taken a lot of time to prepare. Ten days after the wreath proposal, the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint sent the Secretary of the Treasury two 1853 Arrows & Rays quarters for his approval, and said that the half would be the same but that the dime and half dime would not have the rays.

winesteven

@CaptHenway said:
I am in receipt of copies of letters from the U.S. Mint archives relating to the 1853 markings, sent to me by the noted numismatic researcher Roger Burdette.

Basically, Longacre originally proposed that the new weight coins be marked with arrows at the date. The Secretary of the Treasury agreed to that, but proposed that the eagle be removed from the half and quarter and replaced with a wreath with the denomination inside to signify the change. He also proposed that the wreaths on the dime and half dime be replaced with a new wreath to signify the change in weight. He also said that the business community was in a great hurry to get the new coinage in the new weights commenced ASAP to alleviate the shortage of coins.

This would have taken a lot of time to prepare. Ten days after the wreath proposal, the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint sent the Secretary of the Treasury two 1853 Arrows & Rays quarters for his approval, and said that the half would be the same but that the dime and half dime would not have the rays.

Excellent documentation! Thanks.

Steve

leothelyon

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1853-25c-arrows-rays/5426

CoinJunkie

I would imagine the answer to #1 is so that the reduced weight coins could be identified from either side. No idea why the rays were subsequently removed, though.

CoinJunkie

@leothelyon said:
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1853-25c-arrows-rays/5426

I don't find the answer to any of the OP's questions at that link. Nice photos, though!

yosclimber

The rays look cool around the eagle on the higher denoms, but the seated half dime and dime don't have an eagle.
Probably they realized the arrows were noticable enough, so that the extra work of the rays was not needed.

winesteven

@leothelyon said:
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1853-25c-arrows-rays/5426

Sorry, but this doesn’t answer any of the three questions. The arrows were added due to the reduced weight and silver content on all four denominations, but my question is why were the Rays added?

winesteven

@CoinJunkie said:
I would imagine the answer to #1 is so that the reduced weight coins could be identified from either side. No idea why the rays were subsequently removed, though.

But if that’s the reason, then why wasn’t there ANY change to the reverse of the Half Dime and Dime? And if that’s the reason, then why were the Rays removed for 1854 and 1855 from the quarter and half dollars?

I’m hoping for a better answer.

winesteven

@yosclimber said:
The rays look cool around the eagle on the higher denoms, but the seated half dime and dime don't have an eagle.
Probably they realized the arrows were noticable enough, so that the extra work of the rays was not needed.

Maybe correct on each, but does anyone here know for sure on each of the questions?

leothelyon

Didn't read through, only assumed PCGS had an answer. But wouldn't removing the rays involve recutting a master hub. I'm assuming again but wouldn't that require just as much work, sanding out the rays on the original plaster model, reducing the image in several stages down to a coin size hub again? If true, someone with a lot of clout didn't like the rays and demanded their removal.........I assume.

Leo

CoinJunkie

@winesteven said:

@CoinJunkie said:
I would imagine the answer to #1 is so that the reduced weight coins could be identified from either side. No idea why the rays were subsequently removed, though.

But if that’s the reason, then why wasn’t there ANY change to the reverse of the Half Dime and Dime? And if that’s the reason, then why were the Rays removed for 1854 and 1855 from the quarter and half dollars?

I’m hoping for a better answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1853

Even this caused issues, as the rays complicated and slowed down die production to an unacceptable degree. The rays were removed from the quarter and half-dollar before the end of 1853, although the arrows were kept on new denominations for several more years.

winesteven

@CoinJunkie said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1853

Even this caused issues, as the rays complicated and slowed down die production to an unacceptable degree. The rays were removed from the quarter and half-dollar before the end of 1853, although the arrows were kept on new denominations for several more years.

Yes, so this accurately explains why the Rays were removed from the Quarter and Half Dollar after just the first year, 1853.

But no one has yet provided a definitive answer as to why an identification change was required for both obverse and reverse of the Quarter and Half Dollar, but no change at all on the reverse of the Half Dime and Dime.

Steve

CoinJunkie

@winesteven said:

@CoinJunkie said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1853

Even this caused issues, as the rays complicated and slowed down die production to an unacceptable degree. The rays were removed from the quarter and half-dollar before the end of 1853, although the arrows were kept on new denominations for several more years.

Yes, so this accurately explains why the Rays were removed from the Quarter and Half Dollar after just the first year, 1853.

But no one has yet provided a definitive answer as to why an identification change was required for both obverse and reverse of the Quarter and Half Dollar, but no change at all on the reverse of the Half Dime and Dime.

Steve

Please excuse my feeble and inadequate contributions to your thread, Sir.

I'm not worthy. I suck.

(exit, stage left.............)

yosclimber

The sources are also somewhat indirect.
The wikipedia article references this web page:
https://coinsite.com/arrows-coinage-the-mint-act-of-1853/
and it does not reference any primary sources (legislation text, interviews with involved individuals, etc.).

winesteven

@CoinJunkie said:

@winesteven said:

@CoinJunkie said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1853

Even this caused issues, as the rays complicated and slowed down die production to an unacceptable degree. The rays were removed from the quarter and half-dollar before the end of 1853, although the arrows were kept on new denominations for several more years.

Yes, so this accurately explains why the Rays were removed from the Quarter and Half Dollar after just the first year, 1853.

But no one has yet provided a definitive answer as to why an identification change was required for both obverse and reverse of the Quarter and Half Dollar, but no change at all on the reverse of the Half Dime and Dime.

Steve

Please excuse my feeble and inadequate contributions to your thread, Sir.

I'm not worthy. I suck.

(exit, stage left.............)

Hey, YOU’RE the one that provided an excellent source for one of the key answers - why the Rays were removed after just the first year. That’s greatly appreciated!!!!😃

fathom

With so little space available on the reverse of the smaller coins any sort of marker would be hardly noticeable. Not worth the die prep effort.

winesteven

@fathom said:
With so little space available on the reverse of the smaller coins any sort of marker would be hardly noticeable. Not worth the die prep effort.

Maybe. But I’m hoping someone has access to research that references the actual reason, which might be as you indicate (or maybe not). I haven’t found anything, but I know some people on this forum have wonderful references.

Steve

LanLord

Perhaps the intricate detail of the rays made the reverse dies wear or break faster than expected and were thusly removed as a die life improvement.

winesteven

@LanLord said:
Perhaps the intricate detail of the rays made the reverse dies wear or break faster than expected and were thusly removed as a die life improvement.

Yes, that's true, as explained by @CoinJunkie above. The only question remaining to be answered is since with the Quarters and Halves it was deemed necessary to identify BOTH the obverse and reverse of the new coins as different from the older coins, why was there absolutely NO change at all on the reverses of the Half Dime and Dime? While the Rays may not have fit nicely on those smaller coins, they could have chosen some other identifying change on those reverses, but instead chose to leave them identical to the old coins. Why?

breakdown

I found the above discussion interesting and decided to check Breen's to see if his speculations and observations added anything. He states that incoming Mint Director Snowden ordered the rays removed for 1854 to save costs on diesinking and increase die life. He states that the arrow and rays varieties were getting less than a third of normal die life.
As always with this reference, a grain of salt is warranted. I could find no explanation as to why the lower denominations did not have rays.

winesteven

@breakdown said:
I found the above discussion interesting and decided to check Breen's to see if his speculations and observations added anything. He states that incoming Mint Director Snowden ordered the rays removed for 1854 to save costs on diesinking and increase die life. He states that the arrow and rays varieties were getting less than a third of normal die life.
As always with this reference, a grain of salt is warranted. I could find no explanation as to why the lower denominations did not have rays.

Yes, this is true for the answer on why the Rays were removed after just the first year (1853), as @CoinJunkie and @LanLord explained above.

However, the only question remaining to be answered is since with the Quarters and Halves it was deemed necessary to identify BOTH the obverse and reverse of the new coins as different from the older coins, why was there absolutely NO change at all on the reverses of the Half Dime and Dime? While the Rays may not have fit nicely on those smaller coins, they could have chosen some other identifying change on those reverses, but instead chose to leave them identical to the old coins. Why?

JohnnyCache

The coins were changed due to the amount of melting that was going on after the discovery of gold in 1848.
Is it likely that the half dollar and the quarter were the primary targets of those doing the melting, so hence they wanted the added visibility on these coins to show the change.

edit for spelling

jesbroken

I would think that the rays would have been just too much for the die to handle. I have read that the rays caused reduced die life in both the quarters and half dollars and might be far worse for the dime and half dime. Also, with the silver reduction being only 14 grains on the half dollar, it might have been inconsequential in the dime and half dime. JMO.
Jim

winesteven

@JohnnyCache said:
The coins were changed due to the amount of melting that was going on after the discovery of gold in 1848.
Is it likely that the half dollar and the quarter were the primary targets of those doing the melting, so hence they wanted the added visibility on these coins to show the change.

edit for spelling

@jesbroken said:
I would think that the rays would have been just too much for the die to handle. I have read that the rays caused reduced die life in both the quarters and half dollars and might be far worse for the dime and half dime. Also, with the silver reduction being only 14 grains on the half dollar, it might have been inconsequential in the dime and half dime. JMO.
Jim

The problem was melting and hoarding. You could be right, but I'm hoping someone has the research for the definitive answer as to why no differentiation on the reverses of the two smaller coins. While Rays may have been too large on the reverses for those smaller coins, they potentially could have chosen to do something else on the reverses to differentiate them from the older coins. Back in those days 5 cents and 10 cents still had value, hence they disappeared from circulation just as the larger coins did.

lclugza

I seem to remember reading they took the regular no-rays hubs and made new master dies with rays from them that were used only in 1853; I assume in 1854 they went back to the old master dies and hubs.

winesteven

@lclugza said:
I seem to remember reading they took the regular no-rays hubs and made new master dies with rays from them that were used only in 1853; I assume in 1854 they went back to the old master dies and hubs.

Thanks. As noted above, the Rays ended after just the one year 1853 because they caused too much work with the dies, which wore out very quickly.

What we don’t definitively know, but can only speculate, is why was there a need to identify BOTH sides of the quarter and half dollar as the new reduced silver coins, but only the obverse of the two smaller denominations. While Rays may have been too large for the smaller coins, other minor but noticeable changes could have been made to the reverses of the two smaller coins, but that was intentionally rejected. Why????

CaptHenway

You have asked the question without receiving an answer enough times that it is now time to consider the possibility that the answer does not exist. Sometimes the Mint wrote things down, sometimes they did not.

winesteven

@CaptHenway said:
You have asked the question without receiving an answer enough times that it is now time to consider the possibility that the answer does not exist. Sometimes the Mint wrote things down, sometimes they did not.

I believe the answer exists. The reality may be that getting a definitive answer based on documentation may be nearly impossible.

Steve

BillJones

I think that the die wear argument was the reason. Something similar happened with the first Shield Nickels which rays on the reverse. The Shield Nickel rays were removed to make striking the coins easier.

telephoto1

@fathom said:
With so little space available on the reverse of the smaller coins any sort of marker would be hardly noticeable. Not worth the die prep effort.

This.

1Bufffan

The Same reason that they added Large "P" "D" & "S" to Jefferson Nickels so that they could Identify then and Pull them out of Circulation if need be. Because they were "Different" than all the rest.

dbldie55

I would just keep asking until you get the answer you desire.

winesteven

@dbldie55 said:
I would just keep asking until you get the answer you desire.

I don’t care one way or another for a particular preference what the answer is. I would just hope someone has backing for providing the CORRECT answer as to why it was decided to indicate a differentiation on both the obverse and reverse of the 1853 Quarter and Half Dollar, but on the Half Dime and Dime ONLY on the obverse!

JRGeyer

I have to see if I can find any mint documentation, but designing the reverse of the smaller denominations is a nightmare. The decision to lower the weight of the silver coinage was hastily made, as evidenced by "no arrows" coinage being minted earlier in the year, so the mint probably felt the arrows were sufficient on the dime and half-dime.

I would check out The U.S. Mint and Coinage by Don Taxay, there might be some correspondence from Longacre about the 1853 designs in there.

MasonG

In order to have the rays put on, it would be necessary to tell people to do it. Presumably, such instruction would be in writing. If no change was being made, there'd be nothing to document. Otherwise, one might expect a document every year saying "Don't do it different this year".

winesteven

@JRGeyer said:
….designing the reverse of the smaller denominations is a nightmare.

True, and that’s why the Rays were not put on the reverse in 1853 on those two smaller coins. But the question still remains in my mind: If the decision makers felt people needed to be “warned” about the reduction in silver on these coins, and it was important enough to do “something” on BOTH the obverse and reverses of two of the coins (even though they realized the smaller coin reverses couldn’t handle Rays), something could have indeed been added to the reverses of the two smaller coins. After all, they had no problem adding arrows to the obverse of the two smaller coins! So why not add something to the reverse?

MasonG

Maybe they did "something" on both sides for the denominations it was easy to do and one side only for the ones it wasn't.

winesteven

@MasonG said:
In order to have the rays put on, it would be necessary to tell people to do it. Presumably, such instruction would be in writing. If no change was being made, there'd be nothing to document. Otherwise, one might expect a document every year saying "Don't do it different this year".

I respectfully disagree. Since there obviously were discussions about putting Rays on the reverses of the two larger coins in 1853 so people can look at either side of the coin to be “warned” there was less silver, there had to be a discussion about the reasons to intentionally put nothing on the reverses of the two smaller coins. I agree the discussion included not putting the complex and large design of Rays on the reverses of the two smaller coins. I think it’s obvious that the discussion continued about possibly putting something other than Rays on the small reverses, but ultimately it was decided to put nothing on the two small reverses instead of something. WHY??

Steve

MasonG

Why? You've been offered a reason but have chosen not to accept it.

ChrisH821

@1Bufffan said:
The Same reason that they added Large "P" "D" & "S" to Jefferson Nickels so that they could Identify then and Pull them out of Circulation if need be. Because they were "Different" than all the rest.

^
I like this reason.

Another reason could be that they were changing the obverse, may as well do something special for the reverse. The reason is probably out there somewhere but I doubt we will find it here.

winesteven

@1Bufffan said:
The Same reason that they added Large "P" "D" & "S" to Jefferson Nickels so that they could Identify then and Pull them out of Circulation if need be. Because they were "Different" than all the rest.

Actually, it’s just the opposite for the coins with the arrows. Due to the Gold Rush starting in 1848-1849, so much gold became available that the normal ratio value of gold to silver that had been in place for decades was now changed, and the value of silver had risen. As a result, people were pulling silver coins out of circulation like crazy (like we all did starting in 1965). Other than tiny 3 cent trimes, no silver coins were around. Business was seriously impacted. As a result, they finally decided in 1853 to reduce the silver content of coins (other than the dollar coin) by about 6%. The purpose of adding the arrows was to alert the public that these coins had less silver, so the public would then leave them in circulation, and it worked!

Steve

koynekwest

I like the reason stated above by Steve. Makes sense to me.

ms71

I would guess that the rays were added to the quarter and half based not only on the availability of space for them, but also on the higher face value of the coins. 25¢ or 50¢ was significant money to the typical citizen in those days. I wonder how easy it was to spend an arrows & rays half on a small purchase if the merchant found himself having to make most of the change with pre-1853 silver.

JWP

The rays were added in 1853 to indicate a decrease in the weight of the coin. A law in 1853 made the lower weight standard, and this may be why the rays were removed.

winesteven

@JWP said:
The rays were added in 1853 to indicate a decrease in the weight of the coin. A law in 1853 made the lower weight standard, and this may be why the rays were removed.

Thanks for trying, but: 1. Since the Half Dime and Dime also had their weight reduced, due to less silver, WHY was it decided to be important enough to make a differentiation on the reverse of the quarter and Half Dollar, but no “warning” on the reverse of the two smaller denominations? True, the Rays would not fit, but some other marking could have been made on those reverses, but it was decided to leave those unchanged. WHY?

2. FYI the Rays were removed after just one year because the reverse dies were crapping out much faster than originally thought, and it was way too much work to continually make those very intricate reverse dies.

CaptHenway

@winesteven said:

@JRGeyer said:
….designing the reverse of the smaller denominations is a nightmare.

True, and that’s why the Rays were not put on the reverse in 1853 on those two smaller coins. But the question still remains in my mind: If the decision makers felt people needed to be “warned” about the reduction in silver on these coins, and it was important enough to do “something” on BOTH the obverse and reverses of two of the coins (even though they realized the smaller coin reverses couldn’t handle Rays), something could have indeed been added to the reverses of the two smaller coins. After all, they had no problem adding arrows to the obverse of the two smaller coins! So why not add something to the reverse?

Now it is you who are making suppositions without documentation. I have never heard that the markings, the arrows at the dates on the half dimes through half dollars and the rays on the quarters and halves of 1853, were put there to "Warn" the public about anything. The prevailing theory has always been that the markings were placed upon the new, lightweight coins to allow Treasury and Sub-Treasury employees to withdraw the older, heavier and unmarked coins for recoinage. This theory is also without documentation, but it makes more sense.

JWP

@winesteven Sounds like you have answered you own question.

winesteven

@CaptHenway - I had read that the BIG reason they had to reduce the silver content was because virtually all silver coins were being pulled out of circulation by the public, due to the price of gold falling (due to the vast quantities being mined from the Gold Rush of 1849), and hence the price of silver rising. Businesses were having tremendous difficulty conducting business due to the vast lack of coins, THAT's why the silver was reduced, and the arrows put on so the public would not sock away these new "less valuable coins".

To me, from what I've read, THAT theory makes more sense. Other than your comment, I have not read that it was the government pulling out old silver coins from circulation - it was the public!

BillJones

The rays were one more indication that these coins had **less silver **in them and therefore were not worth melting. Not adding something to the reverse of the half dime and dime was a reflection of the thinness of the coins. If the metal flow was wrong, the coins would not strike properly.

Nic

What about the 1866 and 1867 shield 5c?

BillJones

@Nic said:
What about the 1866 and 1867 shield 5c?

That was to make the nickels easier to strike. The mint had a very hard time making them because nickel is hard and brittle. It ate up dies, and many coins had strike issues.

Most observers agree that the elimination of the Rays was a step backward for the design. It looked flat and dull.