Two varieties of 1840-D $5's: why did they change the size and appearance of the mintmark?

RYK

There are two collectible varieties of the 1840-D $5: the more common variety with a large "D" and the less common variety with a small "D". There are several dates in the Dahlonega $5 series in which there are similar mintmark varieties, and it makes no sense to me why a different-sized mintmark would be employed from one year to the next, let alone within the same year. if anyone has a plausible explanation or even a good guess, I would like to hear it.

At any rate, I have recently added the small "D" variety to my set, so I thought I would post a photo of both.

1840-D "Large D" PCGS VF-35:



1840-D "Small D" NGC AU-50:

messydesk

How does it look on the $2.50? Have the various D punches that were used back then across all denominations been cataloged? Perhaps since 1840 is only the third year in which the Philadelphia mint needed to prepare dies for branch mints by adding mintmarks, the still immature process used more mintmark punches, and possibly more people punching them, than they really needed while they were figuring out how best to do it. A mintmark size common across all denominations wasn't used until 1916 after the last of the Barber coinage was eliminated, and even thereafter there are some minor variations in sizes.

PerryHall

There is also a large diameter variety (like the 1839) and a small diameter variety (like the 1841). As far as the mintmark size, each die was produced at a different time and it was the luck of the draw as to which punch was grabbed by the die maker. Consistency was apparently not important to them.

kranky

My thought is that someone just grabbed the wrong size punch, and it was not done intentionally.

Barry

<< <i>My thought is that someone just grabbed the wrong size punch, and it was not done intentionally. >>


Makes sense. In a similar way, there are large star and small star varieties of the 1838 dime. Someone used the star punch from the half dime by mistake.

RYK

<< <i>How does it look on the $2.50? Have the various D punches that were used back then across all denominations been cataloged? Perhaps since 1840 is only the third year in which the Philadelphia mint needed to prepare dies for branch mints by adding mintmarks, the still immature process used more mintmark punches, and possibly more people punching them, than they really needed while they were figuring out how best to do it. A mintmark size common across all denominations wasn't used until 1916 after the last of the Barber coinage was eliminated, and even thereafter there are some minor variations in sizes. >>



Excellent question! Here is the reverse of the finest-known 1840-D quarter eagle:



To my eye, and with the caveat that the photos are quite different and that the half eagle is clearly circulated, the "D" mintmarks look different to me.

Longacre

My view is that any D punch that was available was used for the die as it was being prepped for striking coins. As collectors, we go wild over these things. But the guy preparing the dies is just ready to stamp metal and probably does not give a lot of thought to being consistent with the size of the punches that he uses.

Longacre

Did my post go through? The system got hung up as I was typing.

StrikeOutXXX

I would think this is similar to the Quarter Dollar sized "CC" being mixed with the Dollar sized "CC" in the late 1800's on silver coins? Like PerryHall said - luck of the draw when grabbing the punch?

Or are you of the impression this was done intentionally?

messydesk

<< <i>I would think this is similar to the Quarter Dollar sized "CC" being mixed with the Dollar sized "CC" in the late 1800's on silver coins? Like PerryHall said - luck of the draw when grabbing the punch?

Or are you of the impression this was done intentionally? >>


The $2.50 D doesn't quite look the same and the $5 small D. It seems like this early in the mintmark game, there wasn't consideration for different size mintmarks for different sized coins, but simply a collection of punches that had been prepared for mintmarks. It would be interesting if at some point in time this changed, and mintmark punches were actually designated for specific coins, either by where they were stored or by marking on the punch.

StrikeOutXXX

<< <i>The $2.50 D doesn't quite look the same and the $5 small D. It seems like this early in the mintmark game, there wasn't consideration for different size mintmarks for different sized coins, but simply a collection of punches that had been prepared for mintmarks. It would be interesting if at some point in time this changed, and mintmark punches were actually designated for specific coins, either by where they were stored or by marking on the punch. >>



On the 1840-D 2.50, I see 3 different D's: In UniteD, the mint mark, and the Dollar abbreviation.

Instead of comparing just mint marks, how about all the "D's"?. I'm way out of my comfort zone on this one, but would all 3 "D's" have a different individual letter punch that may have been substituted for the $5 mint mark?

kcnovice

#1- guess - Change of machinist at the mint during 1840, and used a different punch?
#2- guess - date punch difference from '39 to '40? (mid year), the '39 obverse mm
looks different to me

Leiana

I believe the dies for these coins were completely hubbed except for dates and mint marks, which were added by hand.

The date would probably have been a gang-punch, that is, one punch for the entire date. At least, if I am remembering correctly.

The dies would have been prepared in Philadelphia, probably by JB Longacre, who didn't really like his job very much.

-Amanda

mgoodm3

Large D looks the same as the D's in the writing.

Conder101

<< <i>The date would probably have been a gang-punch, that is, one punch for the entire date. At least, if I am remembering correctly. >>


1840 was a transitional year for the date punch with both two and four digit punches being used. The two digit punch was abandoned early and most 1840 dies were dated with four digit punches.