1834 bust half Guido
fishteeth
Posts: 2,261 ✭✭✭✭✭
This 1834 bust in my collection caught my attention as was working on photographing my set. This is an O106 4/4 variety. The edge does not seem fully struck up, perhaps not a full planchet or metal flow problems during striking. Any thoughts
0
Comments
I would only have to venture a guess.
Overton describes some varieties with know rim damage but does not explain how or why.
If for some reason the incused die dentils were plugged it could create a flattened appearance?
Possible after mint damage?
A few things you can provide for the forum to help in this determination:
1) weight the coin (use grams or grains)
2) scan the coin with a flatbed scanner. Why? It will give us an image that is a true view of the coin (not skewed as you will get with a camera). Then we can overlay a true circle and show if and where the coin is out of round. This is important.
3) take a picture of the edge. What effect does this anomoly have on the edge lettering?
4) measure the thickness at several points around the coin.
I can see now that the right side is wider in the area of the flatness. Could the collar have broken in this area, thus allowing the planchet to spread out in the local area of the break? I don't see clear evidence that this is post mint damage. Another neat post fishteeth.
thanks
Edgar
Great info FEVER.
My understanding that the open collar was just slightly larger in diameter (< 1 mm) than the planchet. Is that your understanding as well? If so, then the coin posted may have had a tight fit getting into the collar.
The "Guido" theory makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the lack of rim is in two directly opposing areas. Fishteeth will have to post images of the edge when he has time.
that the planchet is tapered thin on the
right side.
If so, it will weigh less than a normal
CBH, even taking into consideration
the circulation of the coin.
It doesn't appear to be a clip.
2. The coin may be struck from improperly rolled sheet - i.e., thin in the weak area. However the coin doesn't clearly show weakness across the coin, just at the rims.
3. No one know what the so-called "open collar" looked like. There are only 2 brief mentions of it in the records. One thin for certain is that it did not surround the dies and planchet during striking of lettered edge coinage. CBHs, etc show no evidence on cotact with a collar. OTOH, LCs from 1816 on do show strong evidence of collar contact including flattened edge and impression of defects in the collar. I published an article in Penny-wise some time ago on this.
<< <i>
3. No one know what the so-called "open collar" looked like. There are only 2 brief mentions of it in the records. One thin for certain is that it did not surround the dies and planchet during striking of lettered edge coinage. CBHs, etc show no evidence on cotact with a collar. OTOH, LCs from 1816 on do show strong evidence of collar contact including flattened edge and impression of defects in the collar. I published an article in Penny-wise some time ago on this. >>
And this is even true regarding European minting methods. Denis Cooper's book Coins and Minting shows a diagram in cross section of Benvenuto Cellini's screw press (ca. 1538) and states, "The illustration clearly shows collars, but we have very little evidence of how these were used or fitted in the machines....". There are other illustrations of subsequent presses that show a collar. In my opinion, there must have been a collar in place to strike CBH's. It just doesn't seem logical to not have a retaining/centering collar with a press of 50+ tons. Maybe it was a spring-loaded collar? I have noticed that the diameter of early halves (pre-36) vary, even with the same die marriage.
Rittenhouse
This is a statement I would almost completely disagree with.
There is a parallel thread running which eventually will add light on the working of the open collar. DENTIL TRACKS BUST HALF DOLLARS
I have no problem discussing the issue of the open collar and it's use and will post some of the thoughts, pictures, and illustrations on this thread if the topic matter of this thread continues in that direction.
Just for clarity I will post a partial reply shortly on this thread.
BB
In response to Rittenhouse above.
Briefy.
"He put a blank planchet into my hand, showed me how to drop it in, and where to place my hand to catch it as it came out; the lever and weights were swung, and I caught the penny ... but I at once dropped it. Mr Eckfeldt laughed and asked me why I dropped it? " Quoted from Early Engineering Reminiscences (1815 - 1840) of George Escol Sellers. (Circa 1812 according to Taxay but prehaps a few years later.)
Note he said Eckfeldt showed me how to drop it in. Not set it on. This strongly implies some type of holed retainer. Escol actually repeats the same "drop it in" later in the dialog.
In Taxay's book the US mint under the chapter explaining the early Philadelphia minting process he clearly states at page 96 footnote 21: "The close reeded collar had been introduced only the previous year, Before that time, planchets were reeded in the milling machine, and then struck in an open collar to avoid squashing the edge impression."
Taxay wrote this footnote to explain Wailes' 1829 eye witness decription of the stamping process. Obviously the bust half dollar 1794 -1836 was letter edged and not reeded edged but the same applies. The open collar was big enough to allow for expansion so that the edge lettering would avoid being squashed during stamping.
This slightly larger opening is why we see so many bust half dollars struck slightly off center. Wide dentils on one side and thin dentils on the other side. But these are usually only 1% off and does not account for the wopping 30% off strikes. To me it is obvious the open collar caught the plancet sent flying by the feeder bar and then snapped closed when the die descended and then quickly opened in such a manner as to slide the struck coin into a box.
I presented the complete text of the 1829 Wailes observation on page 4 of a currently running thread. DENTIL TRACKS BUST HALF DOLLARS
One hint. Substitute the term "nippers" with "open collar" and things will start to make sense.
Best regards - BB
<< <i>In Taxay's book the US mint under the chapter explaining the early Philadelphia minting process he clearly states at page 96 footnote 21: "The close reeded collar had been introduced only the previous year, Before that time, planchets were reeded in the milling machine, and then struck in an open collar to avoid squashing the edge impression." >>
Taxay was incorrect. In the 1986 Coinage of the Americas ANS book, it was mentioned (by Davis and McCloskey, I believe) that early dimes were reeded DURING THE STRIKE, as evidenced be off-center coins that do not have reeding, and by identical edge reeding patterns. This is contrary to the reference bust dime book published in 1984, that stated reeded edges were formed in the "Castaing" machine.
I believe this is also the case with other series pre-close collar reeding. John Dannreuther also uses the same evidence that reeding was applied during the strike for early gold in his new book. Not really an "open collar" for early reeded edge coins. Lettered edge coins are another matter.
<< <i>
<< <i>In Taxay's book the US mint under the chapter explaining the early Philadelphia minting process he clearly states at page 96 footnote 21: "The close reeded collar had been introduced only the previous year, Before that time, planchets were reeded in the milling machine, and then struck in an open collar to avoid squashing the edge impression." >>
Taxay was incorrect. In the 1986 Coinage of the Americas ANS book, it was mentioned (by Davis and McCloskey, I believe) that early dimes were reeded DURING THE STRIKE, as evidenced be off-center coins that do not have reeding, and by identical edge reeding patterns. This is contrary to the reference bust dime book published in 1984, that stated reeded edges were formed in the "Castaing" machine. I believe this is also the case with other series pre-close collar reeding. John Dannreuther also uses the same evidence that reeding was applied during the strike for early gold in his new book. Not really an "open collar" for early reeded edge coins. Lettered edge coins are another matter. >>
Nysoto
Have you read the 1829 first hand obversvations by B. L. C. Wailes? He definitely is describing the nippers as imparting the reeding a hair before the descending die strikes the planchet. Unfortunately he does not say what denomination was being struck but it is an eye witness account from 1829.
By the way I EDITED my above post while you posted your reply. It really doesn't change anything we are discussing but adds to my description of how the open collar worked.
BB
One thing I have noticed with pre-turb halves, few are exactly centered, and many die marriages show the same direction and degree of being slightly off-center. Look at 1806 O.119's, and the same could be said of other die marriages, if a study was done. The open collar itself (whatever it was) was evidently not centered properly on many die marriages. I have heard centering became better with the capped series, but a CBH expert would need to verify this.
BB - btw, some excellent discussions from your posts
<< <i>BB, I have read the Wailes observations, I have heard that for a long time the meaning of the "nippers" was not understood, it still does not offer a clear explanation. One thing I have noticed with pre-turb halves, few are exactly centered, and many die marriages show the same direction and degree of being slightly off-center. Look at 1806 O.119's, and the same could be said of other die marriages, if a study was done. The open collar itself (whatever it was) was evidently not centered properly on many die marriages. I have heard centering became better with the capped series, but a CBH expert would need to verify this. BB - btw, some excellent discussions from your posts
Nysoto
Can we agree that the collar was only served 3 purposes?
1. To catch the planchet that was struck from the hopper.
2. To center the planchet over the reverse die.
3. To eject the struck coin.
4. That the collar had to open and close to accomplish these tasks.
If we can agree to that then it is logical that each planchet came to rest in basically the same location within the oversized collar. Hence, isn't it logical that " few are exactly centered, and many die marriages show the same direction and degree of being slightly off-center."
BB - And yes good discussions are stimulating and educational. We learn as we blunder along.
Take a look at these images found on The Gallery Mint web site. These guys set up at larger shows and give demos on early minting techniques with the equipment shown. Not what the U.S. Mint was using in 1834, but the principle is similar. For what it is worth......
<< <i>Take a look at these images found on The Gallery Mint web site. These guys set up at larger shows and give demos on early minting techniques with the equipment shown. Not what the U.S. Mint was using in 1834, but the principle is similar. For what it is worth...... >>
Those folks are awesome.
<< <i>Take a look at these images found on The Gallery Mint web site. These guys set up at larger shows and give demos on early minting techniques with the equipment shown. Not what the U.S. Mint was using in 1834, but the principle is similar. For what it is worth...... >>
Hey Numisma
I particularily liked this one. Too bad a dialog didn't go along with photos but I imagine it was something like this.
"Say, where did you say the open collar was?"
"Come on, hurry up and forget about the coin, we got to find that last guy's finger and get him to a hospital fast."
BB
Here are some new pictures of the edge. The coin does not have lettering in the areas where the rim is deformed, so I guess this may be a guido.
The coin is slightly egg shapped 33mm X 32mm. The edge spells out: FIFTY CENTS O DOLLAR. The areas on both the left and right have no lettering, however, on the right side in the middle there is some type of mark that looks like it occured during the minting process.
Hopefully these pics can help determine if this is a guido.
couple of more questions:
Why are they called Guido
Are these worth looking for, any premiums
thanks
chris
<< <i> No one know what the so-called "open collar" looked like. There are only 2 brief mentions of it in the records. One thin for certain is that it did not surround the dies and planchet during striking of lettered edge coinage. CBHs, etc show no evidence on cotact with a collar. OTOH, LCs from 1816 on do show strong evidence of collar contact including flattened edge and impression of defects in the collar. I published an article in Penny-wise some time ago on this.
Rittenhouse
This is a statement I would almost completely disagree with.
There is a parallel thread running which eventually will add light on the working of the open collar. <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=578461&STARTPAGE=1" target=blank>DENTIL TRACKS BUST HALF DOLLARS</A>
I have no problem discussing the issue of the open collar and it's use and will post some of the thoughts, pictures, and illustrations on this thread if the topic matter of this thread continues in that direction.
Just for clarity I will post a partial reply shortly on this thread.
BB >>
BB,
I am well aware of the Sellers and Wailes accounts. I'm about 25 years ahead of you. I first read them back in the early 1980s and have personal copies.
I disagree with your conclusions of both accounts.
1. Sellers' account of dropping the planchet in referred to the feed tube since he clearly states that the press was operated by a single man. If his account is accurate (and it likely is), this would require a feeding mechanism - i.e., feed fingers and a feed tube. Contemporary designs for these mechanisms can be found in Cooper and the 1817 American issue of the New Edinburgh Encylcopedia.
2. Wailes' account of "nippers" likewise refers to feed fingers. Feed fingers and a tool called a "nipper" have a similar mechanical form. Wailes' error was in assuming that the feed fingers applied the reeding, when instead we know the collar did during the strike. But to an observer not familiar with the equipment it could certainly appear so.
As to the purpose of the open collar at this time (if in fact one existed), it only served one purpose: to keep the coin reasonably centered on the lower die (which may or may not be the reverse die).
I will read the other thread you mentioned and likewise respond there.
I am well aware of the Sellers and Wailes accounts. I'm about 25 years ahead of you. I first read them back in the early 1980s and have personal copies.
I disagree with your conclusions of both accounts.
1. Sellers' account of dropping the planchet in referred to the feed tube since he clearly states that the press was operated by a single man. If his account is accurate (and it likely is), this would require a feeding mechanism - i.e., feed fingers and a feed tube. Contemporary designs for these mechanisms can be found in Cooper and the 1817 American issue of the New Edinburgh Encylcopedia.
2. Wailes' account of "nippers" likewise refers to feed fingers. Feed fingers and a tool called a "nipper" have a similar mechanical form. Wailes' error was in assuming that the feed fingers applied the reeding, when instead we know the collar did during the strike. But to an observer not familiar with the equipment it could certainly appear so.
As to the purpose of the open collar at this time (if in fact one existed), it only served one purpose: to keep the coin reasonably centered on the lower die (which may or may not be the reverse die).
I will read the other thread you mentioned and likewise respond there.
Touche' Rittenhouse. Reread Sellers. Eckfeldt called the workmen back in to strike the Seller's penny. Taxay make it clear that Eckfeldt created the feeder in 1793 so no debate there.
But first. I believe I sent an extra copy of Taxay to Mozin about 8 years ago. I don't know how long I have had my other reference books including Sellers before that time. So granted you had a head start but not as long as implied.
Can we agree that the open collar only served 3 purposes and had 2 other design elements in order to accomplish the 3 tasks?
1. To catch the planchet that was struck from the hopper.
2. To center the planchet over the reverse die.
3. To eject the struck coin.
4. That the collar was larger than the planchet in order not to damage the edge lettering on bust half dollars.
5. That the collar had to open and close to accomplish these tasks.
BB - And yes good discussions are stimulating and educational. We learn as we blunder along.
If the guido gets a blown out look do to an incomplete trip through the lettering machine then does an unlettered error have the entire rim flattened and blown out.
thanks
Chris
<< <i><STRONG>Touche' Rittenhouse. Reread Sellers.</STRONG> Eckfeldt called the workmen back in to strike the Seller's penny. Taxay make it clear that Eckfeldt created the feeder in 1793 so no debate there.
But first. I believe I sent an extra copy of Taxay to Mozin about 8 years ago. I don't know how long I have had my other reference books including Sellers before that time. So granted you had a head start but not as long as implied.
Can we agree that the open collar only served 3 purposes and had 2 other design elements in order to accomplish the 3 tasks?
1. To catch the planchet that was struck from the hopper.
2. To center the planchet over the reverse die.
3. To eject the struck coin.
4. That the collar was larger than the planchet in order not to damage the edge lettering on bust half dollars.
5. That the collar had to open and close to accomplish these tasks.
BB - And yes good discussions are stimulating and educational. We learn as we blunder along. >>
BB,
1. The portion in Sellers to which I refer is in the second paragraph of his account: "They could see the rebound or recoil of these end weights as they struck a heavy wooden spring beam, driving the lever back to the man that worked it; they could hear the clanking of the chain that checked it at the right postion to prevent its striking the man...." In a preceding sentances Sellers makes it clear that he is refering to the cent press.
2. Eckfeldt did not create the feed mechnism in 1793. This is a mistake Taxay unfortunately repeated from Breen. I published an article on Eckfeldt sometime back in Penny-wise. The archival documents, including Eckfeldt's own statements in connection with an investigation into supposed abuses at the Mint by Henry Voigt show that Eckfeldt was not employed at the Mint until Oct 10, 1795 (initially as the "Die Sinker and Turner"). As I stated in the article, these documents also show that Eckfeldt never engraved dies at the Mint.
3. As I previously stated: "As to the purpose of the open collar at this time (if in fact one existed), it only served one purpose: to keep the coin reasonably centered on the lower die (which may or may not be the reverse die)."
4. To be a bit more specific, collars do not "catch" planchets nor do they eject them. Depending upon their design, they may or may not form striking chambers. If there is such a thing as an open collar, it looked nothing like what most collectors have seen - this being a circular plate with a circular hole in it. In fact, certain early errors and the form of extant dies preclude such a collar.
. To be a bit more specific, collars do not "catch" planchets nor do they eject them. Depending upon their design, they may or may not form striking chambers. If there is such a thing as an open collar, it looked nothing like what most collectors have seen - this being a circular plate with a circular hole in it. In fact, certain early errors and the form of extant dies preclude such a collar.
Hi Rittenhouse
Okay lets agree on #4 above. It would appear that 50% off center strikes would have been impossible had a fixed round hole plate been in place. In order for that senario to work there would have to be 2 planchets. One in the collar and one partially resting on the collar and partially resting on the bottom plancet. The resulting coin would have no reverse design elements and mearly be flat.
So how are you proposing the plancet was set in the proper place upon the lower die?
And how are you proposing the struck coin was ejected?
Thank you for your consideration.
BB
<< <i>Okay lets agree on #4 above. It would appear that 50% off center strikes would have been impossible had a fixed round hole plate been in place. In order for that senario to work there would have to be 2 planchets. One in the collar and one partially resting on the collar and partially resting on the bottom plancet. The resulting coin would have no reverse design elements and mearly be flat.
So how are you proposing the plancet was set in the proper place upon the lower die?
And how are you proposing the struck coin was ejected?
Thank you for your consideration.
BB >>
BB,
The feed fingers both set the coin in place and ejected the struck coin. There is an excellent illustration and discussion in Cooper, "The Art and Craft of Coinmaking". [For those not aware, Denis Cooper was the Chief Engineer at the British Royal Mint. In the 90s he owned a copmpany that made minting equip. Not sure if he retired.]
The feed fingers show in Cooper are remarkably similar to those found on the Mint's first steam press, which was de-accessioned from the Franklin Institute to the ANA. I found the press in the mid-90s in the basement of the FI and confirmed its history from archival documents including engineering drawings by Franklin Peale. I had the opportunity to work on the press with the late Joe Rust of GMM who refurbished the press. The feeding mechanism was worn and out of adjustment leading to mostly off-center strikes. Interesting to watch. Gave me a great appreciation for how the feed worked with the collar, what could go wrong, etc.
If the feed mechanism was in adjustment the collar played little role in preventing off-center strikes. If a planchet happened to land slightly off-center it did have a tendancy to slide down on to the lower die, but not as much as many numismatists assume. The main purposes of the collar were to create coins of uniform diameter by limiting the metal flow during striking and impart the edge design. Design drawings always show the collar as spring mounted to protect the tooling against damage during an off-center strike. If the planchet happened to land partially in the "striking chamber" and partially on the collar, the spring mounting allowed the collar to depress as the upper die contacted the planchet thus preventing damage to the dies and collar.