A: Counterstamped approximately 10 years apart, each approximately in the year minted, B: All counterstamped together in 1825 or later, or C: Countestamped apart at various times?
topstuf, I don't think that any of the suggested E and L words apply. I have developed a new theory on this subject:
The "E" stands for Ernie and the "L" is for Larry. Ernie and Larry were 2 mint employees who often raced each other at the press to see who could produce the most. One day, during their lunch break, they had a race off. Each guy took turns at a press (and 1815 setup and and 1825 setup). The challenge was to see who could strike the most coins in 1 minute. After each guy did his 1 minute run, they counterstamped the coins with their respective initial. Later that day, a third employee sorted the coins by the initials and did an official tally. According to my research (consultation with psychic via telephone), Ernie won.
This makes 14 theories regarding the E & L controversy!
Dennis, interesting theory re: Ernie and Larry. Perhaps this theory could be verified by checking mint records for employees during the 1815 - 1825 and after time period.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I could suggest/guess/joke the "E" was applied by John Reich, the designer and a mint engraver, to celebrate his "E"mancipation and release after being freed from his bond of servitude. Next anniversery--it was a clandestine "L" for his liberty. Theory is easy--this is a job for thr History Dectectives TV Show!
Gosh I love that theory!! That's the one I'm going to believe in until someone proves otherwise!
It solves the reverse non-distortion question, it solves the "all the same marriages" question, it solves the 10 year gap question.. Gosh that's a great theory!! And if JR bought them from the mint and gave them to certain folks... they'd be more likely to be saved in high condition as keepsakes... Gosh!
Not likely, for several reasons. First on the list would be the mint's inability to position the planchet exactly , so that the L is over the "eventual" L in Liberty, and the E is over the E in Liberty.
There should have been some different locations of the letters around the rim.
I imaged this coin today for the purpose of this thread. The letter punches are a bit smaller than the E and L c/s marks, but relatively close in size. The important point that I am attempting to show with this image is that deformation on the opposite side of the c/s does not always occur. Notice that there is noticeable deformation on the reverse in the area that corresponds to "WH BLETHEN", but the "DOVER" shows no deformation, nor does the date "1878". Why is that? I don't know. I assume that it has to do with the surface that the coins are placed on when being counterstamped, the force and perhaps other factors. I have other counterstamped coins in the office that show no deformation, whereas others show reverse trauma. Some are severe. I chose to post this coin because it showed a range of deformation all on one coin and it is a large size capped bust quarter and pertinent to this thread.
It would be interesting to see a punch in the field [the thinnest portion of the coin], rather on the devices [the thickest portion of the coin] that shows no deformation.
<< <i>It would be interesting to see a punch in the field [the thinnest portion of the coin], rather on the devices [the thickest portion of the coin] that shows no deformation. >>
True. I will see what I can find, but I doubt it will be a lg. size bust qtr.
A: Counterstamped approximately 10 years apart, each approximately in the year minted, B: All counterstamped together in 1825 or later, or C: Countestamped apart at various times? >>
B. Something you have to consider are the punches themselves. The exact same L and E punches were used for both dates. Not the same style punches but the exact same punches. And, if they were punched 10 years apart, the punches were apparently not used for other things during that period. The surface of each punch has a few fines scratches in it. These cause fine raised lines down inside the punched letter. These lines are the same on both the 1815 and the 1825 coins. No apparent wear or blurring on the lines differentiate the issues of the two years. This would mean that either the two groups of coins were punched at the same time, or the punches were used and then put away for ten years. Much use over the ten years would have worn away the scratches or added new ones. While they could have laid around unused for ten years I don't think it is likely.
<< <i>Any chance the punch was put into the planchet and then the coin was struck? >>
No, if the letter had been punched into the planchet and then struck not only would you have had the placement problem already mentioned, but since the latter is in the field it would have also been crushed and distorted by the field of the die (since that is where the pressure is greatest) and by the expantion movement of the metal.
<< <i>but the "DOVER" shows no deformation, nor does the date "1878 >>
I see clear distortion in those areas.
It is possible to do a counterstrike and show only little distortion (Every one of the E & L coins I have seen has shown some distortion, usually very slight.) Of course this could be best accomplished by nesting the coin back into the die it was struck from. Less desirable but still possible would be to use something that would conform to and then support the contours of the coin. This might be accomplished with either a hard leather, rubber, or soft brass plate. (The Confederate restrikes were struck using the soft brass plate method. The first few strikes do show some flattening of the obverse design, but by then the coins had created a negative image of the obverse in the brass plate that subsequent coins were able to "nest" into providing the contour support needd to keep from flattening the obverse.)
A third possibility would be a reverse die that wasn't one of the same ones that struck the coins but was similar. The coin would not nest completely but might have been good enough to provide the needed support. Some would say that this would once again suggest that the coins were counterstruck in the mint, but the mint during that time period frequently sold off their old dies as scrap metal. Several collectors of the era had old coinage dies. One in particular that I know of who had a bust quarter reverse was Joseph Mickley, and Mickley was also know to mule and create restrikes using the dies in his possession. So the use of the bust quarter die as an anvil would not have been farfetched. If his was what was done then I would expect to see some slight evidence of scrapes or other damage on the reverse close to the punch site when the coin didn't quite fit into the die. Unfortunately I had not thought of this possibility when I had the chance to examine the quarters that I saw so I did not look for any small very old scrape marks.
<< <i>I have owned this 1815 since 1997. There appears to be no deformation of the reverse opposite the "E".
It has not appeared in auction, and there are no other images than the one displayed.
So guess away at the grade. >>
---- ----- Breen pointed out that waas know that Reich signed his coins through 1817 with a notch on te low right Star. I see no reason othe engravers -ciner though much about also adding a a punch at the mint. Heck it seemed no big deal--and for all we know it was for the girlfriend of the mint worker at te time. These minter didn't take the exact product all that seriously--it was the silver weight that was important.
Since I'm new to the boards, rather than joining the debate, I'll only mention that I have an exhaustive accounting of why these pieces were made at the US Mint in 1815 & 1825.
Naturally, since there is no precise documentation available (I have already checked in the National Archives) I realize any theory presented will be open for debate. However, one must keep in mind that all of the previous theories have missed one important ingredient - that being a documented connection to the US Mint.
The surrounding documentation and background history about these pieces can be found in my Henry Voigt book coming out next week at the ANA show.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
Comments
It has not appeared in auction, and there are no other images than the one displayed.
So guess away at the grade.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Do you think the 1815 and 1825 coins were
A: Counterstamped approximately 10 years apart, each approximately in the year minted,
B: All counterstamped together in 1825 or later,
or
C: Countestamped apart at various times?
and Why?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
topstuf, I don't think that any of the suggested E and L words apply. I have developed a new theory on this subject:
The "E" stands for Ernie and the "L" is for Larry. Ernie and Larry were 2 mint employees who often raced each other at the press to see who could produce the most. One day, during their lunch break, they had a race off. Each guy took turns at a press (and 1815 setup and and 1825 setup). The challenge was to see who could strike the most coins in 1 minute. After each guy did his 1 minute run, they counterstamped the coins with their respective initial. Later that day, a third employee sorted the coins by the initials and did an official tally. According to my research (consultation with psychic via telephone), Ernie won.
This makes 14 theories regarding the E & L controversy!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
TahoeDale, that is a beauty of a coin you posted!
Baley, my opinion is "B" (all counterstamped at the same time in 1825 or later). Why? That would be a long story....
then take a look at the E's in "United States of America" on the Reverse
tell me, do any of you think that the E punch on the obverse is the same kind as that used to punch the Es on the reverse dies??
(or at least the same size and style. Still trying to work out the mirror image thing)
great coin and pictures, TD!
we need to look at an L coin! anyone have a link?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Gosh I love that theory!! That's the one I'm going to believe in until someone proves otherwise!
It solves the reverse non-distortion question, it solves the "all the same marriages" question, it solves the 10 year gap question.. Gosh that's a great theory!!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Take a look at the big E on TahoeDale's coin's OBVERSE
then take a look at the E's in "United States of America" on the Reverse
tell me, do any of you think that the E punch on the obverse is the same kind as that used to punch the Es on the reverse dies??
(or at least the same size and style. Still trying to work out the mirror image thing)
great coin and pictures, TD!
we need to look at an L coin! anyone have a link? >>
I have an NGC-61 1825/3 countermarked L. I will post pics to this thread ASAP.
:
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Not likely, for several reasons. First on the list would be the mint's inability to position the planchet exactly , so that the L is over the "eventual" L in Liberty, and the E is over the E in Liberty.
There should have been some different locations of the letters around the rim.
I imaged this coin today for the purpose of this thread. The letter punches are a bit smaller than the E and L c/s marks, but relatively close in size. The important point that I am attempting to show with this image is that deformation on the opposite side of the c/s does not always occur. Notice that there is noticeable deformation on the reverse in the area that corresponds to "WH BLETHEN", but the "DOVER" shows no deformation, nor does the date "1878". Why is that? I don't know. I assume that it has to do with the surface that the coins are placed on when being counterstamped, the force and perhaps other factors. I have other counterstamped coins in the office that show no deformation, whereas others show reverse trauma. Some are severe. I chose to post this coin because it showed a range of deformation all on one coin and it is a large size capped bust quarter and pertinent to this thread.
<< <i>It would be interesting to see a punch in the field [the thinnest portion of the coin], rather on the devices [the thickest portion of the coin] that shows no deformation. >>
True. I will see what I can find, but I doubt it will be a lg. size bust qtr.
<< <i>Do you think the 1815 and 1825 coins were
A: Counterstamped approximately 10 years apart, each approximately in the year minted,
B: All counterstamped together in 1825 or later,
or
C: Countestamped apart at various times? >>
B. Something you have to consider are the punches themselves. The exact same L and E punches were used for both dates. Not the same style punches but the exact same punches. And, if they were punched 10 years apart, the punches were apparently not used for other things during that period. The surface of each punch has a few fines scratches in it. These cause fine raised lines down inside the punched letter. These lines are the same on both the 1815 and the 1825 coins. No apparent wear or blurring on the lines differentiate the issues of the two years. This would mean that either the two groups of coins were punched at the same time, or the punches were used and then put away for ten years. Much use over the ten years would have worn away the scratches or added new ones. While they could have laid around unused for ten years I don't think it is likely.
<< <i>Any chance the punch was put into the planchet and then the coin was struck? >>
No, if the letter had been punched into the planchet and then struck not only would you have had the placement problem already mentioned, but since the latter is in the field it would have also been crushed and distorted by the field of the die (since that is where the pressure is greatest) and by the expantion movement of the metal.
<< <i>but the "DOVER" shows no deformation, nor does the date "1878 >>
I see clear distortion in those areas.
It is possible to do a counterstrike and show only little distortion (Every one of the E & L coins I have seen has shown some distortion, usually very slight.) Of course this could be best accomplished by nesting the coin back into the die it was struck from. Less desirable but still possible would be to use something that would conform to and then support the contours of the coin. This might be accomplished with either a hard leather, rubber, or soft brass plate. (The Confederate restrikes were struck using the soft brass plate method. The first few strikes do show some flattening of the obverse design, but by then the coins had created a negative image of the obverse in the brass plate that subsequent coins were able to "nest" into providing the contour support needd to keep from flattening the obverse.)
A third possibility would be a reverse die that wasn't one of the same ones that struck the coins but was similar. The coin would not nest completely but might have been good enough to provide the needed support. Some would say that this would once again suggest that the coins were counterstruck in the mint, but the mint during that time period frequently sold off their old dies as scrap metal. Several collectors of the era had old coinage dies. One in particular that I know of who had a bust quarter reverse was Joseph Mickley, and Mickley was also know to mule and create restrikes using the dies in his possession. So the use of the bust quarter die as an anvil would not have been farfetched. If his was what was done then I would expect to see some slight evidence of scrapes or other damage on the reverse close to the punch site when the coin didn't quite fit into the die. Unfortunately I had not thought of this possibility when I had the chance to examine the quarters that I saw so I did not look for any small very old scrape marks.
<< <i>I have owned this 1815 since 1997. There appears to be no deformation of the reverse opposite the "E".
It has not appeared in auction, and there are no other images than the one displayed.
So guess away at the grade. >>
----
-----
Breen pointed out that waas know that Reich signed his coins through 1817 with a notch on
te low right Star. I see no reason othe engravers -ciner though much about also adding a a punch at the
mint.
Heck it seemed no big deal--and for all we know it was for the girlfriend of the mint worker at te time.
These minter didn't take the exact product all that seriously--it was the silver weight that was important.
TTT
Naturally, since there is no precise documentation available (I have already checked in the National Archives) I realize any theory presented will be open for debate. However, one must keep in mind that all of the previous theories have missed one important ingredient - that being a documented connection to the US Mint.
The surrounding documentation and background history about these pieces can be found in my Henry Voigt book coming out next week at the ANA show.
bob
The Henry Voigt book will be available at the Rare Coin Wholesaler's (Steve Contursi) table right up front as you walk through the doors.
It will be right next to the (NGC-68) David Rittenhouse 1792 Half Disme now owned by Cardinal Collection Educational Foundation.
Please stop by and take a look at the Half Disme and pick up a copy of the Voigt book. Both are a guaranteed treat!