1797 Raised Date

lilolme

1797 Raised Date - okay I just made that up.
It is the 10c 1797 16 stars
I am sure those who collect or deal in this area are aware of this one. There seems to be a lot of them. Looking through images (maybe 20) I didn't see one without some sort of die failure. Made me wonder just how quickly the die started to fail after production started.
So from the images the date appears to be on a raised mound due to the die failure.
I picked out 5 and placed them in order (reverse order) of die failure.

AUandAG

3 on ebay, one with and two without the cud.

bob

Nysoto

The reference guides don't show anything without at least a die crack on 1797 JR-1. The crack becomes a die break and then becomes a retained cud, but not a full cud. One theory from Chris Pilliod is the obverse die is the anvil die (on half dollars - but maybe also on dimes) and that is why there are no full cuds on early half dollar obverses, because the die chip cannot fall out of place being seated in the anvil position, whereas if the hammer die has a die break it can fall completely out which leaves a full cud as on early half dollar reverses:

lilolme

Thanks, I was looking on HA and CF.

Nysoto

Here is another retained cud on an '03 dime:

BillJones

That is very nice example of the die break progression on the 1797 16 star dime, @lilolme. I don't know if I would ever say that there "a lot of them" since this is a very scarce coin in general. I had one many years ago in VF before I upgraded the 1796 dime I have now.

I believe that this die was broken during the die preparation process. It probably broken when it was heated and dipped in water to cool it because of a defect in the steel. The die makers at the first mint were not that experienced and production errors like this were not unusual.

ricko

@lilolme.... Thanks for an interesting group of pictures that show die failure progression. Cheers, RickO

Nysoto

@BillJones said:

I believe that this die was broken during the die preparation process. It probably broken when it was heated and dipped in water to cool it because of a defect in the steel. The die makers at the first mint were not that experienced and production errors like this were not unusual.

In the words of Chief Engraver Robert Scot, in December of 1794:

"Namely, the precariousness and uncertainty of hardening and tempering the Dies, whereby they are often lost without striking a single Coin;"

lilolme

I went back to HA and looked at all the 1797 about 150 but they were mixed 13 star and 16 star. So 50 plus 16 star and they all had some type of die break or more. Did this before reading the info above but now it makes sense. Thanks.
@Nysoto That is interesting about the die orientation. Would have never thought about that.
@BillJones I agree on the "many of them". As you noted not many of them around. Would have been better to state a lot of the population or similar.

Omegaraptor

Not too long ago I was at a local show and they have an early dealer there - they're in EAC but have a lot of flowing hair and draped bust silver as well. They had a particularly late die state of the 1797 16 Stars dime. It was raw, and if I recall correctly, Good sharpness, but the date was completely gone. Think they were asking about $1700?

lilolme

@Omegaraptor said:
Not too long ago I was at a local show and they have an early dealer there - they're in EAC but have a lot of flowing hair and draped bust silver as well. They had a particularly late die state of the 1797 16 Stars dime. It was raw, and if I recall correctly, Good sharpness, but the date was completely gone. Think they were asking about $1700?

When looking through the HA lots I saw two of those but well circulated. Both easily identifiable because they had the more distinct die failure and not just a crack. I believe one could have a near slick and still identify it