How is an overdate created?
notwilight
Posts: 12,864 ✭✭✭
How does an overdate get created such as the nice bust half posted this morning? So do they decide on Jan 3, 1814 "well, Charlie, we made a few more 1813's that we really needed. Reckon you can hand stamp a new date onto a bunch of 'em?"
Or is it the die that is changed and not changed very well??? My guess is that is it.
--Jerry
Or is it the die that is changed and not changed very well??? My guess is that is it.
--Jerry
0
Comments
with a hub of one date and a different one of another date is used for a sub-
sequent impression.
Edited to add that some of the earlier overdates were simply recut because
it was easier than preparing new dies.
Two reasons that I am aware of why overdates are made for bust coins (1794-1836) - 1. left over unused dies from the previous year, dies for the new year have not been sufficiently prepared, this simply saves engraving time. Only one overdate (for bust halves), 1806/5 O.104, was made from previously used dies. It has been proven that overdates are not always the first coins struck during the year, they often come mid-year in the emission order.
2. Blundered dates, kinda like the mistakes we all make when signing checks in January using the previous year. There is strong evidence for this in a John Reich Journal article on dentil counts, some overdates show the "style" of the current year and are likely blundered dates.
In all cases with bust coinage, the working die is softened by annealing, sometimes lapped (ground down) before overdating, struck with the overdate punch, and lapped again to remove the lumpy displaced metal in the fields. The displaced metal and lapping makes the underdigit less visible, in varying degrees, from the overdate.
Overdates have always been among my favorite coins to collect.
edited to add a pic:
After the device, stars, letters and date numerals were struck into the working die, the die was hardened, or tempered, by heating the die in the furnace to a cherry red color, and quickly 'quenching' the die in a bucket of cold water. As the die rapidly cooled, boiling away the water, the water would sizzle or whistle at a particular pitch. The die sinker would listen to this whistle, and if it suddenly changed pitch, he would know that the die had cracked during the hardening process. Sometimes this would occur, and if it did, the die exhibited a die crack or die break for the very first coin struck. Many collectors incorrectly believe that die cracks occur only after repeated use of the dies.
It is important here to distinguish between an 'overdate' and a 'repunched date', the former exhibiting different numerals punched over each other, the latter exhibiting the same date numeral punched over itself. In either case, the die sink would attempt to repunch a date numeral over another numeral, usually after lapping the die to efface as much of the under digit as possible. In all known cases of repunching date numerals, the process was done on working dies that had not been tempered, or hardened, and thus had never struck any coins. There are no known examples of dies with repunched date numerals where the die had previously been used to strike coins. The date numerals cannot be successfully repunched into a hardened die, and removing the temper (annealing), or 'softening' the die to allow repunching, is a process not generally employed for the working dies.
Typically, evidence of the first-punched numeral is not completely removed from the die, and despite the best efforts of the die sinker, some evidence of the underdigit remains visible on the coins struck from the dies. When a date numeral is repunched into a die, the first-punched numeral is often forced deeper into the die steel by the force of the hammer on the numeral punch. This is why we often see remnants of the earlier date numeral raised up on top of the later numeral, such as on the 1849/6 V2 half dime.
Overdates usually exhibit a later date numeral punched over an earlier date numeral, reflecting the need to update an unused working die from a previous year. During the nineteenth century, dies were an expensive commodity, all hand made, and represented many man-hours of work. It was economically advantageous to utilize any and all available dies for the production of coins, even if it meant repunching date numerals in order to acquire a usable die.
There are some spectacular examples of overdates in the early Federal coinage, although the only example known in the Bust half dimes is the very scarce 1796/5 LM-2/V2. There are some repunched date numerals (3 over inverted 3) in the Capped Bust half dimes, including the 1834 LM-1/V5 and LM-3/V2 (both using the same obverse), and the 1836 LM-3/V4, where the die sinker attempted to correct an upside down 3. Some of the overdate Capped Bust half dollars of the period are even more spectacular.
The early dies were made in batches, not one at a time as needed. They might make up say six dies and punch all the features into them except the last digit of the date. Then say they knew they were still going to need some dies for this year so they went ahead and punched the last digit into three of them, and hardened two of them for imediate use but only actually used one. Af the end of the year they then find themselves with a worn out dated die which they retire. A hardened dated die that they just go ahead and use. The softened dated die they might lap or they may just go ahead and punch the new date in over the old one. Then they can harden it and put it into use as an overdated die. The other three that don't have the final digit could then have it punched in and the die hardened for use as needed. This actually happend with large cent dies in 1798. At the end of the year there were at least nine obverse dies left over at the end of the year, at least two hardened with type two hair that were used to strike 1798 cents in 1799, a non-hardened full date with type two hair that was overdated and used to strike the 1799/8 overdate, an non-hardened full date with type one hair that was used to strike 1800/98 cents. One die with just 179 was finished in 1799 to strike cents , and five unfinished dies dated 179 were overdated in 1800 to strike overdates that year.
Under blundered dates you can have things like the so called 1844/81 and 1851/81 large cents where the four digit logotype was first punched in upside down and then turned over and punched in correctly.
After about 1840 overdates pretty much dry up. Dies manufacture was becoming easier, steel wasn't so dear, and the dates were now being put on using a four digit logotype punch. Repunched dates were still common but not overdates. Only a few cases come to mind.
After 1908 they become even rarer. Not the dates are no longer punched into the individual dies but instead are part of the master hub which creates all the master dies, working hubs and working dies. The only way an overdate can occur now is near the end of the year when the mint is still making dies for the current years, and dies to be used in the following year. On rare occaisions a die will be impressed with a hub bearing one date, go be softened, and then when it comes back it is paired up with the wrong hub and is impressed by a differently dated hub. This forms both an overdate and a Doubled Die. There were only a handful of overdated dies produced in the 20th century.
Today now that they have gone to the single squeeze method of making dies the chances of an overdate occuring would seem to be non-existant.
<< <i>This post needs at least 1 clear example,
That's insane. I want one!
Free Trial
MrHalfdime - Assuming that you are correct, that is the single most enlightening piece of information I have yet to find on these boards. Thank you!
Edited to say that the 1827/3/2 quarter may be a single exception to the rule. If so, I wonder what this may imply. (See Karl Moulton's article for more info.)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>I will agree with what Nysoto has said with one clarification. When they had a hardened left over die they would just continue to use it and strike coins with the previous years date. (Quality die steel was scarce so you didn't waste it.) They would not have tried to re-anneal the die, repunch and then reharden it. The reason was because the hardening of the die was one of the most stressfull things they could do to it and many dies would crack or even shatter during the quenching process. If you had a perfectly good but previously dated die that had already managed to survive the hardening process once, you were not about to make it run the risk a second time when the chances of it failing might be even greater, you just used it as it was. (In the one case where they did try it, the 1806/5, the die survived the rehardening but failed quickly.) >>
Conder,
I thought about this for a while and the more I thought, the more I smelled something burning. Well, anyway, I have to disagree with you on this. The fact that 1806 O.104 dies fell apart in their second usage was part of an overall problem the mint was struggling with after the cessation of dollar coinage in '03 or '04. As the largest silver denomination in use, mintage increased and dies took a beating to an extent that virtually every half dollar die used in 1805 and 1806 failed due to cuds and massive cracks such as are found on 06 104. Somehow, the problem was dealt with in 1807, and there are only minor dies chips and cracks to mark the terminal die states of this year. Coins with weakly struck centers may have been part of the solution.
Also, having seen terminal 1814/3s, might it not be that the spectacular die failure evident in these coins was due to rehardening? Is it possible that we have no idea whether or not these overdates were annealed and rehardened? It was more a matter of luck, IMHO, when the early mint came up with dies that lasted for extended usage, resulting in die marriages that are now quite common.
Thank you for the correction to my earlier statement, that no early Federal dies were repunched after they had been hardened and used to strike coins. You were actually the second numismatist to correct me on that, specifically naming the 1827/3/2 quarter as the exception. This exception is particularly notable in the very small number of quarters struck from those repunched dies.
In my studies of the early minting processes, I have had numerous lengthy discussions on this very topic over the years with such notables as Jules Reiver, Russ Logan, and several members of the JRCS and BHNC. My own experience is rather narrowly limited to the half dimes, but the die making process was essentially the same during that period for all of the silver denominations.
It has always been my understanding that Conder101's statement about annealing dies is correct, and it is consistent with everything that I have read on the subject. Evidently, although the tempering and annealing (hardening and softening) processes provide the opposite effects in the die steel, they cannot be reciprocated to the same piece of die steel many times without damaging the crystaline structure of the steel, rendering the die brittle and easily shattered.
Each time a possible exception to this statement came up, we were able to discount it by studying the the specific repunched obverse die in question, and then comparing it to other obverse dies without the repunching. No examples were ever confirmed where an obverse die was hardened, used to strike coins, later annealed, then repunched, then hardened again, and subsequently used to strike more coins. My contacts within the early copper world have also confirmed this to my satisfaction, as well.
One of my fellow Bust Quarter Collectors Society members has informed me that the 1805 B4 and 1806/5 B1 quarters may also be exceptions, but I will need to see further evidence to be convinced.
Good stuff
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
I will post a pic of my 14/3 CBH. Does this obverse match any of the 1813 obverses? By looking at this coin, can we say one way or another if this working obverse die saw any duty producing nice clean 1813's ? Or was this obverse die never used for 1813 coins at all and therefor only a mispunched 3/corrected to a 4 instead of an 1813 re-used to make 1814's
<< <i> will post a pic of my 14/3 CBH. Does this obverse match any of the 1813 obverses? By looking at this coin, can we say one way or another if this working obverse die saw any duty producing nice clean 1813's ? Or was this obverse die never used for 1813 coins at all and therefor only a mispunched 3/corrected to a 4 instead of an 1813 re-used to make 1814's >>
John - The obverse die for the 1814/3 was not used in 1813. The 1813 bust halves had big, chunky dentils that only numbered 97 and 98. The year 1814 dentil count ranged from 95 to 101. In "Obverse Die Dentil Analysis, Part 1" (JRJ 10/93) the author stated "1814/3 Obverse 1 (O101) has 101 dentils. This is inconsistent with the number of dentils on 1813 halves (97-98) and more consistent with the number of dentils on 1814 halves (95-101). I am speculating that 1814/3 O101 was prepared during the 1814 production period, mistakenly engraved with a 3, and corrected by engraving a 4 over the 3" The 1814/3 was also the first struck in 1814.
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
TD
Reading this thread shows the reason why these boards are incredible. There are some guys here (just read the thread- not including my lame contributions) that are so willing to take their time to explain areas of numismatics that would be almost impossible for the average person to even look up. You couldn't go to one dealer, smart as they may be, and get as many answers and insights to a question as you can right here.
I know these boards can be a little tempestuous at times- and that can be fun- but what a source of information. Just look at some of the guys who have added their insight and knowledge on this one thread alone. There are some really smart coin guys on this thread that are always willing to help and share their knowledge.
I take my hat off to every one of them.
Thanks guys-- for those of us that are here because we do really love coins and the hobby of coin collecting, we owe guys like you (just read this thread folks) more than a mere thank you can give. Let me just say that through PM's with a lot of people here- your contributions are noticed-- the names of contributors like you guys are regularly spoken, and your depth of knowledge and willingness to share is ALWAYS noticed.
Just to let these guys know I meant what I said.
<< <i>thanks to all. I feel a little like a grade school kid who asked what 2 plus 2 was and got a lesson in calculus. --Jerry >>
Don't ask us what time it is, unless you want to know how to build a cookoo clock!!!!!!
LOL
TD
Based on circumstantial evidence, it's probably true. John Dannreuther states that 1806/5 quarter eagles were struck from dies previously used for 1805 quarter eagles.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Evidently, although the tempering and annealing (hardening and softening) processes provide the opposite effects in the die steel, they cannot be reciprocated to the same piece of die steel many times without damaging the crystaline structure of the steel, rendering the die brittle and easily shattered. >>
The dies would be punched and engraved in an annealed state (about 1400 F, slow cooled), then hardened (about 1500 F, water or oil quench), and then tempered to reduce the brittleness from the hardening (heat to about 450 F). I work in a tooling division of an aerospace company, much of the steel and invar we use is given a full anneal or stress relieve (partial anneal) up to 3-4 times between forming, welding, and machining without adverse effects. The tools may then be reworked and go through the same process again. I have annealed copper and sterling up to 20 times after forming to get the desired shape, without any additional brittleness. Annealing is a simple process that can be done repeatedly.
Interesting discussion on whether or not overdates were from dies that were previously hardened. Dies without the final digits would certainly be left in an annealed state, I don't know if partially dated dies were done with half dollars. Overdates were not planned events, I believe they engraved and hardened the dies to be ready for use when needed, and a few ended up being overdated after annealing. Whether blundered dates were hardened before overdating depends on when the caught the mistake. After 1820 some bust halves were out of sequence, it is possible some were blundered dates that were struck as is without overdating.
Craig Sholley had some interesting articles in the JRJ on the hardening process of the early US Mint.