If I'm not mistaken were these all not made on a screw press? If so, how do you come up with a double struck coin that's not on-purpose? I would think they would have to know they were screwing this one twice.
Oh man, I just realized what I typed, didn't mean it when I typed it, but am leaving it for humor sake. I could use humor right now.
As I mentioned in another post in order to strike coins efficiently with the screw press the operators would have to get into a steady rhythm swinging the weighted arm back and forth. They didn't pay any attention to whether or not there was a planchet on the die, that was the responsibility of the coiner. If he didn't get a previously struck coin out of the die and a new planchet in place before the press cycled down again he had no way to stop it and you got a double strike. (Couldn't take too much time , or he would get his hand crushed in the press.)
<< <i>If he didn't get a previously struck coin out of the die and a new planchet in place before the press cycled down again he had no way to stop it and you got a double strike. (Couldn't take too much time , or he would get his hand crushed in the press.) >>
That is one explanation for early double-strucks. The other is a failure of the feeding mechanism. If I recall correctly (need to double-check Cooper), feeding mechanisms were developed by the early 1700s. The US Mint had them; they are mentioned in the records. NJ mints likely since Harper was involved & is mentioned in connection with feeding mechanisms. Perhaps the other colonial mints too. Rather easy to design.
Either way the men operating the swing arm would stil be working with a continuing rhythm and not checking to make sure there was a planchet correctly placed on the die before swinging the arm.
Comments
Oh man, I just realized what I typed, didn't mean it when I typed it, but am leaving it for humor sake. I could use humor right now.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
<< <i>they were screwing this one twice. >>
LOL
<< they were screwing this one twice. >>
Maybe it wasn't satisfied the first time!
Jim
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
<< <i>If he didn't get a previously struck coin out of the die and a new planchet in place before the press cycled down again he had no way to stop it and you got a double strike. (Couldn't take too much time , or he would get his hand crushed in the press.) >>
That is one explanation for early double-strucks. The other is a failure of the feeding mechanism. If I recall correctly (need to double-check Cooper), feeding mechanisms were developed by the early 1700s. The US Mint had them; they are mentioned in the records. NJ mints likely since Harper was involved & is mentioned in connection with feeding mechanisms. Perhaps the other colonial mints too. Rather easy to design.
K S