What was the real cause for the weakly struck Buffalo nickels?

Longacre

I was reading QDB’s Buffalo and Jefferson nickel book, and he quoted a letter by Chief Engraver Charles Barber to Mint Director George E. Roberts as follows:

“We find that we are getting only about one third the number of pieces per pair of dies that were produced by the old design [the Liberty nickel], consequently we are using three times the number of dies. This is taxing my department to the very limit …. I do not find any fault with the coiners of this Mint or other mints. The difficulty is in the design and shape of the die. In the first place the dies are so convex that if the feeders skip a feed the dies come together. This causes the loss of many dies. Next, the movement of the metal over the rough convex surface of the dies grinds small particles from the blank, which remain [in] the low places of the die and fairly grinds all detail from the design, leaving a very poor, worn, faded-out impression of both the Indian and the buffalo … . The dies are worn out, being smooth in some parts and in others too rough to be allowed to remain in the presses.”


In some later text, QDB gives his opinion as follows: “On most coins, the anvil (lower) die is the “tail” or reverse of the coin, but for the buffalo nickel, the anvil die struck the “head”, or obverse side. As to Barber’s assertion that planchet dust and residue were problems, it is true that this detritus would have accumulated in the anvil die, the “head” or obverse die for the buffalo nickel. This could account in part for the obverses of coins often being very weak in their design detail. However, as a general rule, the reverse, struck by the hammer die is even weaker. I suggest that Barber’s analysis is not correct, and that die spacing was the main factor … .”

*************

Questions:

(1) Which analysis do you agree with -- Barber’s or QDB’s and why?

(2) Do any modern coins have this supposed convex die problem, or has modern minting technology solved this issue?

(3) What other classic coins’ issues with weak strikes can be attributed to die spacing?

curly

QDB. Nickel is very hard so it was less wear and tear on the die (more economical) to space the dies farther apart.

Another example would be the 1921 Peace.

Rob790

Interesting article.

I would have to agree with Barber.

Why? He was actually there and actually minted coins. He knew what he was doing and talking about, that is something that only actual hands on experience can give you. He saw the dies, saw what was wrong with them and correctly diagnosed the problem.

DQB, a great numismatist, has never operated a coining press and is more of an academic theorist when it comes to actual coinage production. He just doesn't have the actual hands on experience to know more about minting coins than Barber.

This is simple, Barber is FAR more knowledgeable and is right. He made changes and saw improvements. Something only he could have actually tested out and learned from actual experience.

Rob

keets

i would think that Barber knew what the problem was and properly described it to the Mint Director in hopes of getting more dies to properly strike coins, a dilemma faced mainly by the branch Mints. my understanding is that Philadelphia coins are generally better struck than the D's and S's primarily because all the dies at that time were produced by Philadelphia and readily available to that facility. shipped to Denver and San Franciso where the MM's were punched, they then had to make due with what they were alotted so the dies were used past their lifetime or used with reduced pressure to extend life. this similar thinking resulted in the 1922 No D Lincoln cent.

QDB might want to stop reinventing the wheel!!!

MrEureka

Which analysis do you agree with -- Barber’s or QDB’s and why?

Neither. I think the weakness was due the relief of the design.

Do any modern coins have this supposed convex die problem, or has modern minting technology solved this issue?

Modern technology didn't solve this problem because the designers beat technology to the punch. With the exception of the 1921 Peace Dollar, there was never again a need for significantly convex dies.

seanq

Huh, neat write-up. I was going to guess "Prohibition."


Sean Reynolds

cladking

I'm with MrEureka on this.

That the roughness of the 1913 nickel would cause a lot of flaking is an interesting
concept and probably true. It is also probably why this roughness was phased out
on later issues.

I'd take some convincing that the extra residue would cause die wear but being there
just might show the statement to be true.

It's also difficult to believe the concavity of the die would, of itself, lead to more die
clashes. Perhaps this coin is significantly thinner in some places because of the de-
sign and concavity which leads to clashing.

Die steels in those days were far weaker and more brittle then today's steel, but they
used about the same steel for liberty nickels.

RWB

There are a couple of points that seem to be confused here. I supplied the research for this part of the book and what Barber is referring to is excessive abrading of the die due to ablation of metal particles. It is not the striking pressure that is weak, it is that the dies wear faster than normal and produce a less-sharp looking coin. All the detail of the dies is transferred to the planchet, however some of this detail has been removed by the metal particles. If a normal die pair strikes a coin with below optimum pressure, the metal will flow preferentially to lower relief in the center then outward to the rim. (Striking a coin creates a set of shock waves within the metal.) If the pressure is normal, then the relative amount of detail from center to rim will be similar throughout, and for a worn die, the effect will be noticed over the entire coin.

The other part that is missing regarding weakly struck nickels (or other coins) is improper softening of the blanks and planchets. The US Mint had great difficulty in working alloys of 25% nickel and 75% copper and in 1883 they went to outside vendors to supply al the nickel blanks. This is one reason why the quantity of nickel errors drops significantly with introduction of the new Barber design.

For most practical purposes, it is pointless to try and differentiate weakly struck nickels from ones made from abraded but serviceable dies. I would think that what collectors really want to look for are the very early strikes from new dies of the Buffalo series. These coins will have sharp details and an almost complete lack of luster from metal flow – in effect, their surfaces will look like satin proofs, but not quite as sharp.

It is also evident, as QDB says, that there are some years/mints where the coins are not struck well. The consistency of poor workmanship suggests either an extraordinary run of “bad luck” with hard planchets, or, more likely, a slight reduction in striking pressure or die spacing to prolong die life. It also seems that most of these weakly struck years occur after Barber died.

Everything I’ve seen in the archives confirms that Charles Barber was very picky about the quality of coin turned out by the mints. (This is in contrast to his father, who occasionally sent out dies without dates and rarely checked production quality!) Barber may have been something of an SOB, but he knew what he was doing in striking coin.

I hope this helps the discussion.

RWB

JoesMaName

In a perfect world I'd say Barber was there and knew what he was doing... so he is no doubt right - but this is not a perfect world and Barber may have had an agenda giving him a reason to say something other then what he knew to be true (aka: lie). He did get his way and modified the design for better or worse.

Here's a good link on the machinations of Barber and the Buffalo Nickel.

RWB

For cladking:
re: "It's also difficult to believe the concavity of the die would, of itself, lead to more die clashes. "

There was also something else, not well known, that was a major factor in clashed dies (or "blanked dies" as the engravers called it).

In 1909 Leslie Lambert of the Philadelphia Mint invented an automatic planchet feeding mechanism and an electric cutoff to stop the press if there was no planchet between the dies (i.e.: feeding failure). The invention allowed one press operator to tend two presses and produce nickels for 20 minutes before the planchet hopper had to be filled. This was adopted for all Philadelphia presses in February 1910 and half of the press operators were fired. As the speed of presses increased, the mechanism became less reliable and the incidence of clashed dies (based on die life quantities from Philadelphia) increased. A report from the Philadelphia Mint for the first quarter of 1915 shows that of 582 5-cent coin dies (obv and rev), 68 produced less than 10,000 coins, probably due to damage caused when a blank failed to properly feed and the cutoff mechanism also failed. To have 11.5% of your dies ruined must have really hurt productivity. A comparable report for 1903 shows just 3% of dies failing before 10,000 pieces – but in 1903 all planchets were hand fed into the feeding tubes and there was one operator for each press.

RWB

Re: the link to a "Barber-Fraser" story.

Most of this is the same old unsubstantiated nonsense that has been floating around for decades. If you will read QDBs book mentioned at the start of this thread, or some other more up-to-date research, it becomes evident that although Barber did not like having other people design "his" coins, he also wanted the best coinage possible under the circumstances. His relationship with Fraser was quite good and on several occasions Fraser praised Barber's workmanship. He fully supported Fraser against Clarence Hobbs and his stamp vending machine associates, also. Barber is on record as stating he did not like the Buffalo nickel or any of the other "impressionistic" designs imposed on the mint. But, the only overt sabotage occurred with removal of Brenner's initials (which had been added by Barber in the first place, replacing Brenner's last name) and his deceptive statements to the asst sec of treasury about the time needed to make new hubs; and, MacNeil's quarter of 1916 that was thoroughly bungled (I assume Barber was responsible although Morgan was also involved).

[Added comment – it appears that Brenner was not “trusted” by either mint director Leach or the Philadelphia engraving staff. On two occasions in early 1909, Brenner submitted cent designs that copied French circulating coins. Later, he ignored Leach’s instructions about putting his name on the obverse of the cent, and in late April he again ignored Leach’s instructions to move the Lincoln portrait lower on the obverse. Barber ended up having to do the work. Although Brenner approached the Mint Bureau many times after 1909 and through the War, the mint would have nothing to do with him. Illustrations and details will be in “Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915” book due out late this summer.]

pb2y

Very interesting information--thanks to all of you

cladking

Thanks RWB. All these details are fascinating.