Super tough question for serious numismatists!
MrEureka
Posts: 24,332 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is not a hypothetical question! I will reveal the identity of the coin only after I hear your responses.
There are three examples of a 19th century coin. All three share the same obverse die, but the obverse dies were paired with two different reverse dies. The coins can be further described as follows.
Coin A - Reverse die #1. Obverse and reverse are highly mirrored proof and struck from perfect unrusted dies.
Coin B - Reverse die #2. Obverse and reverse are less than full mirror proof but still proof and struck from rusted dies. No die striations.
Coin C - Reverse die #2. Obverse and reverse are less than full mirrored proof and struck from lightly striated but otherwise perfect unrusted dies.
First, understand that this is not a trick question and I am NOT looking to debate what constitutes a true proof.
Now, here's the question: What is the order in which the coins were struck and why?
The best answer wins my utmost respect and a free coin show breakfast next time I see you!
Edited to say:
Here's an important hint:
No more than a dozen of each coin were struck. Therefore, the striking process had little to do with the deterioration of the dies.
Now, for "extra points", you can POST your guess as to the coin's identity!
There are three examples of a 19th century coin. All three share the same obverse die, but the obverse dies were paired with two different reverse dies. The coins can be further described as follows.
Coin A - Reverse die #1. Obverse and reverse are highly mirrored proof and struck from perfect unrusted dies.
Coin B - Reverse die #2. Obverse and reverse are less than full mirror proof but still proof and struck from rusted dies. No die striations.
Coin C - Reverse die #2. Obverse and reverse are less than full mirrored proof and struck from lightly striated but otherwise perfect unrusted dies.
First, understand that this is not a trick question and I am NOT looking to debate what constitutes a true proof.
Now, here's the question: What is the order in which the coins were struck and why?
The best answer wins my utmost respect and a free coin show breakfast next time I see you!
Edited to say:
Here's an important hint:
No more than a dozen of each coin were struck. Therefore, the striking process had little to do with the deterioration of the dies.
Now, for "extra points", you can POST your guess as to the coin's identity!
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
0
Comments
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Let me be the first to say you are way out of my league. In fact, so far out of my league that you make my head hurt.
PM to follow.
njcoincrank
Lablover's right. No hints. (I may get off cheap on this deal. Alpo's on sale this week!)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
A new dies
B somewhat used dies
C repolished dies
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Yea, dat be what I said.
LabLover
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
njcoincrank
It's the question that has troubled mankind since the beginning of time.
Why does it rain after I wash my car?
Why does the cable go out in the final minute of a tied game?
Why does the phone ring during sex?
Like you have have a phone, or a car, or sex.....
I don't want to know where your dog was, OK? I don't want to know!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
You don't heat your toilet bowl?
Seriously, folks, I can't believe you're going to let lablover steal this meal...
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
A - New dies, first reverse.
B - Second reverse. Dies have aged/rusted.
C - Dies have been polished/rust removed.
My alternate answer is B, C, A (but the second reverse was used before the first!)
Coin B - Reverse die #2. Obverse and reverse are less than full mirror proof but still proof and struck from rusted dies. No die striations.
Coin C - Reverse die #2. Obverse and reverse are less than full mirrored proof and struck from lightly striated but otherwise perfect unrusted dies.
The coins are struck in the following order: A, B, C.
Coin A predates Coin C because A has better mirrors. The mirrors lessen from die usage. (A > C)
Coin B predates Coin C because B has rust and no striations and C obtained the striations from polishing off the rust. (B > C)
Coin A predates Coin B because A has better mirrors. (A >
A > B > C.
A - Fresh obv and rev dies.
B - Obv die has impaired mirrors because of usage. Rust from improper storage.
C - Rev 2 obtained its striations because the mint personnel had to polish off the rust.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
From the description it would seem that A was most likely struck first since the mirror surface on the obverse is better on this specimen than on B or C. It is also possible though that A could be struck after B,C after being given a yet further polishing that gave the obverse better mirrors than it had on the previous two strikings and it was then paired with the other reverse. So it is possible that A could come last!
At first glance from the information given it would appear that B was struck before C and C was struck after the die rust was polished off.
But it is also possible from what we have been told for C to have been struck after some improper polishing was done to the dies, then after the dies rusted they were properly repolished lessening the rust but not removing it and eliminating the die striations and then producing B.
The coins would have to examined for other features to nail down for sure which one was struck first. Examinations of die wear, seperation of die elements due to polishing, cracks etc.
I suspect that the coin in question is the 1804 dollar but I can't be sure since I don't have my references on the 1804 availble here at the computer to check on which pieces of the restrikes have the worst rusting and how it compares to the 1801-1803 proof dollars that used the same reverse die with differnt stages of rusting.
Edited to add the material in italics.
Coin B - Reverse die #2. Obverse and reverse are less than full mirror proof but still proof and struck from rusted dies. No die striations.
Coin C - Reverse die #2. Obverse and reverse are less than full mirrored proof and struck from lightly striated but otherwise perfect unrusted dies.
C first, that was the die from the year before
B second, they polished it to remove the die striations.
A they gave up when B rusted and made a new die
i am guessing
A apparently first or early strikes because of your description
B still prooflike (earlier die state) but reverse sie rusted, but without striations (which) I'll assume you are referring to polishing marks
C reverse die restored (rust polished away) leaving the striations (based on prior assumption)
B, rusted dies are a common phenomenon of 19th century minting process
C, the rusted dies were polished to remove the rust, this resulted in highly-defined mirrors. polishing caused the striations
A, new reverse die was used after the old reverse was found to be too worn, both dies were polished
i think i know which coin your talking about. part of the debate rests on whether the planchets were specially prepared or not as well
K S
Here's an important hint:
No more than a dozen of each coin were struck. Therefore, the striking process had little to do with the deterioration of the dies.
Now, for "extra points", you can now feel free to POST your guess as to the coin's identity!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
A - The Proof coins are struck from new dies and then set aside.
B - Additional coins are struck, but in the mean time the obverse die rusted in the humid Philadelphia air, and the reverse die was not well protected before use. It didn't take long for rust to form especially in the summer.
C - The rust marks is gone due to lapping but the striation marks remain from less than ideal polishing. The die surfaces were were not perfect as they were for coin A which produces a less than perfect Proof for coin C.
What is the coin? I'd guess 1804 dollar although I've never read about striation marks on them, and I only have the book The Fantastic 1804 Dollar for pictures.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I love Ike dollars and all other dollar series !!!
I also love Major Circulation Strike Type Sets, clad Washingtons ('65 to '98) and key date coins !!!!!
If ignorance is bliss, shouldn't we have more happy people ??
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The striking sequence doesn't seem to gel though because in this scenerio coin A with perfect dies and full proof mirrors would probably be the last coin struck. I am finding it hard to convince myself that coins restruck 20+ years after the fact could be superior to the originals.
My guess almost fits.
Mark
If so, then:
A, C, B.
A is the original, struck in 1827.
C is a restrike, struck in 1858-60, Die state one.
B is also a restrike, but a later die state.
But, I've been wrong before........
Probably not, but the thought of a free breakfast was too much temptation!
The order could be as follows:
B, rusted reverse dies were used and then discovered that they were rusted,
C, the rusted dies were polished to remove the rust, the extra polishing caused the striations
A, the second reverse die was used as the the first reverse was lacking in appearance and both sides were lightly polished,
This could be an early 18th century proof coin but probably a pattern instead.
Which pattern? O jeez, Andy, couldn't you have waited until after April 15th for an answer?
I can't tell my tax clients that their returns must wait while I try to really figure this out????
I am thinking of the Amazonian gold, copper and aluminum patterns. But I could be wrong.
Besides, I could easily pop in for a free breakfast?
One of the coins that could be considered is the 1878 8F Proof $. Karl Moulton wrote an excellent article on the 1827/3 25c and that could be the piece as well, as previously stated by numispro.
It is late, and I am not really spending a lot of time thinking about it. Nite, nite.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
myurl
The reason you can be sure that C preceded A is as follows:
If you take a fully proof die and strike a handful of coins, it will remain fully proof. There's no need to wipe it (causing striations). Even if you did wipe it, it would still retain nearly complete reflectivity.
On the other hand, there's no reason why you can't produce a striated-PL die, strike a handful of coins, and then at a later date finish polishing the die to strike some coins for collectors.
BTW, Karl Moulton's article mentioned by Julian made the argument that C was an experimental piece testing the Mint's new equipment and coining process. You can find the article at 1827 Experimental Quarter
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Its my guess that this sequence is only correct because you are referring to a specific type and limited number of coins, which you didn't reveal until halfway through the posts.
I only mention it because the sequence you were looking for is not absolute for any and all coinage (which I thought this exercise was about). In other words, for us less informed folks, one would not expect this to be the normal sequence of die usage. He!!, you've even selected a coin with a 31yr lapse between strikes.
BTW, how die reverse die 2 go from "light striated but not rusted" to "rusted, but no striations?" Did they polish away the striations and then leave the die to rust, or polish away the striations and not the rust.
I take it your use of "die2" in both C and B don't necessarily mean the exact same die numbered 2?
K S