Overdates - How is this possible?

MrEureka

Many overdates look like the Mint tried to remove some or all of the underdate before applying the overdate. Did they actually do that? If so, HOW would they do it?

JadeRareCoin

Good question. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think that the early mint tried to efface undertype much, if at all. Effacing the die by lapping could remove too much material, resulting in a bulged area from where material from the die was removed. The "plane" of the field had to be very constant and level for several reasons.

I think that the die sinker would possibly "work" the undertype of a date with tools first. Then he would heavily punch in the new digit. The dynamics of punching a new digit over an older, partially reworked digit, would mostly erase the original punch detail. The metal flow from the newly punched digit would eliminate certain parts of the undertype. The farther that the original digit was from the new digit, the stronger the detail that would remain. We see that on many of the early overdates, such as the 1807/6 large cent. The more difficult to detect overdates, such as the 1820/19 cent (the last 9 barely shows), are only less dramatic because of the similarity of the "9" and "0". A more recent overdate that supports this theory is the 1942/1 dime. The 1 is so far to the left of the 2, that it is very bold.

Some have suggested that the original digit to be replaced would first be filled, then a new digit punched into the die. This, imho, could not have happened. First of all, you have to remember that a die being modified for a new date would have already been used for the production of coinage. That means that it would have positively been hardened die steel. Adding metal to an already hardened die (the die was originally forged) would have been nearly impossible, especially considering the technology available at the early US Mint. Even today, it would not be something that could easily be done. A welded area on a die, hardened or not, would not last very long considering the stresses put on a working die.

That leads us full circle back to my belief that the die sinker would, 1) flatten or rework the digit to be erased by using hand tools (tap metal around the digit to try to fill the void), and 2) sink the new digit over the remnants of the original digit. On some overdates, it is clear that NO attempt was made to efface the original digit. On other varieties, however, it is obvious that the die sinker did not want the undertype to show clearly.

Just my humble opinion.......

TomB

I largely agree with what Dennis has written but would like to stress that not all overdates took advantage of previously used die. The CBH 1817 overdates, the 1817/3 and 1817/4, apparently incorporated unused obverse dies from their respective dates that were then pressed into service in 1817. The 1817/4 appears to have had the underdigit worked on while the 1817/3 appears to have had very little work done to the underdigit.

JadeRareCoin

Tom, good point. Here's another important tidbit: the 1806/9 Draped Bust Half is obviously not a true overdate, although some would think so. It's one of my favorite varieties. The die sinker.....get this.....punched the "6" into the die upside down, then realized his error and put it in correctly. The result is a 6 over a 9. Could you imagine if he hadn't of caught the error? We would have an 1809 Draped Bust Half! It is correctly described as 1806 over inverted 6, not "9". I wonder if they hardened the die before catching the error. Hmmmm.

Conder101

Something to consider. When the second digit is punched into the die it not only forces metal downward, but also sideways which would to some extent tend to "close up" the voids left by the original punching making it less visible. Combine this with some field grinding and you would have a weakened underdigit.



<< <i>I wonder if they hardened the die before catching the error. Hmmmm. >>


Not likely. The hardening of the dies was very stressful on the metal and many dies did not survive it. Once they had a die that HAD survived hardening, they would be VERY reluctant to re-anneal it and harden it again. There are only two or three dies where they did soften, repunch, and reharden them. And in every case the die then failed quickly. Most likely if they had made the die 1809 and hardened it before discovery, they probaly would have set the die aside to await 1809. When the design changed in 1807 THEN they would have made the decision whether ot discard the die or anneal it and overdate it with a 7. Case in point would be the 1839/6 large cent. This die was most likely a die that was correctly dated 1836 but the 6 was weak. When they went to repunch the 6 they accidently punched it in upside down making a 9/6. they simply put the die away, waited for 1839, and put the die to use. (It is unlikely that an unused 1836 die sat around for three years before being overdated for use, it would have been used in 1837 or 38. And it is not an 1839 die that was dated 1836 in error and then altered becase it uses a head bunch from 1836.)

RotatedRainbows

There is no doubt that no work was done to hide this over date, both numbers are clear as can be.

MrEureka

There is no doubt that no work was done to hide this over date, both numbers are clear as can be.

Part of the 3 is missing. Was it purposefully removed or did it wear off the die?

Baley

This one, they just punched the 5 over the 4, no half dollars minted with the 1804 date.