On Average, In 1878 How Many Morgan Dollar Working Dies Could Be Made From a Single Working Hub?

CalGold

And how many working hubs would be made from a master die?

CG

RWB

George Morgan's letters don't tell us how many master dies or working hubs were used or how long they lasted.

He says that it took 8-10 blows from the master hub to make one master die, and that William Barber insisted only one blow be made per day. Morgan insisted that two could be done per day. We can presume that it also took 8-10 blows from the master die to make each working hub, and the same for each working die. (It was all the same kind of steel.) Since each master die could be used to make many working hubs, and many could be in the works simultaneously, it would have taken about 2-3 weeks to make enough dies to keep the presses running.

In 1878 the first production dies lasted for 50,000 to 75,000 pieces, later in the year that increased to about 200,000. Within a couple of years 400,000 per die pair was common. Dies failed for two reasons: 1) clashing (or "blanking" as the mint called it); and 2) die sinking due to uneven hardening.

The info comes from letters exchanged between Special Engraver Morgan and his boss Director Linderman, and letters of complaint by William Barber to Linderman and Superintendent Pollock.

Hope this helps.

CalGold

Many thanks. This is very interesting. I was trying to figure out why 78-s long nocks are so much scarcer than 78-cc long nocks. Using the early production numbers and assuming per QD Bowers the CC mint had 10 good reverse dies and SF had only two, and assuming that all were long nocks, CC could have minted 500,000 to 750,000 coins but SF could only have coined 100,000 to 150,000. The CC production may have been less but the coins are not considered scarce. But the SF long nocks are scarce.

What I don't understand is why Philly would have changed the master die and hub to the short nock, given the time and effort it took to make the working dies, and given the insignificance of the nock detail to the reverse design. Unless of course they determined that the relatively low production limits for the early dies were casued by problems with the master dies and hubs that caused die failure , which forced them to create new masters to get up to the 200,000 coin per die level.

CG

RWB

CalGold,
I don’t have the die shipping numbers for 1878 – has anyone found them?

Morgan’s letters suggest there were 3 or 4 sets of master hubs made from February to about September 1878. One of the faults with the project was that no production trials were made, so when Dir Linderman said to begin production they simply started striking dollars for circulation. The many variations for 1878/79 were a result of changes made to improve striking quality and die life. Some aesthetic changes, such as the feather angle, were probably done as a matter of course.

Early on, there was considerable pressure to use whatever dies were available. I doubt much attention was paid to which hub they came from before one of the die sinkers pounded in an S or CC or O.

CalGold

Roger,

In his Morgan Dollar book QD Bowers states that 10 die pairs were shipped to Carson City and 10 to San Francisco on April 8, 1878. He quotes from an April 17 newspaper account reporting that the 10 dies had arrived at the CC mint and were being prepared so that coining could start on the 17th.

He goes on to state that the SF mint officials complained that 3 of the obverse dies and 8 of the reverse dies sent to SF were "unfit for use" but there is no explantion of how or why they were "unfit for use"; nor is there a citation to the source of that complaint though one would think the source is some correspondence from SF to Mr. Lindermann or one of his subordinates in Philly.

The switch over from the 8TF to the 7TF design had taken place in March. If the dies were shipped out oin April 8, production of the dies would have taken place during March. One might presumet that these early 7TF dies were all long nocks, and that the problems encountered by the SF Mint led to the creation of new improved dies, perhaps with the short nock detail which accounted for the balance of the production of the flat breast coins. Later that year, the round breast rev of 79 dies were used. Not sure when those went into production.

CG

Leiana

This is an interesting thread!

Thanks!

-Amanda

RWB

In most cases I give limited value to newspaper reports. The writers usually knew nothing about their subject. The one quoted by Bowers is likely better than most since Carson was a very small place and “everything” was big news, especially the local mint.

The best numbers would come from the Philadelphia (or other branch) Mint records. For example the shipping record would be in the Philadelphia files (copy to the Director in Washington) and the receipt in San Francisco, with a confirmation back to Phil and DC. Unfortunately, much of this is gone. The die books from the engraver’s department would be the primary source. Without a published citation, the other quantities are of limited help.

By far the most common problem for the SF mint dies was incomplete hardening. (The SF presses differed from the other mint’s equipment and SF had to cut and shape the die shanks. Eventually they did their own hardening.) There is a funny letter from Linderman to Pollock written during the major bickering between Morgan and William Barber. Linderman threatens to send Charles Barber to SF permanently, if someone else was not quickly certified to harden dies at SF. I think Dave Bowers quoted the letter in his recent Morgan dollar book. (I supplied the document and citation.)

Amanda - jump in anytime you wish...

Longacre

Great info!

RWB

Minor corrections:
I checked my source documents (instead of trusting my feeble memory...)

Morgan said that it took 7 to 10 blows to make a master die;
The first 1878 dollars averaged 50,000 per die pair;
Initially, the Philadelphia Mint could produce 10 pairs of dies per day.

Leiana

<< <i>Amanda - jump in anytime you wish... >>



I would if I had something interesting to add.

I definitely learned from this thread, though!

-Amanda