How to define “original dies” versus “restrikes”, and can the progression of rust be an indication o
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
I was reading the John Adams Comitia Americana book. It is the newest prized possession in the Longacre Library, and has a place of prominence beside my collection of QDB books and RWB’s Renaissance books.
In discussing the Washington Before Boston medal, Adams comments on the error involving the date on one of the dies (a “D” rather than an “M” should have been cut into the die in the Roman numeral date on the medal). Therefore, there is an “Error reverse” and a “Corrected reverse”. Adams further states,
“Compared to the Error reverse, the Corrected reverse shows a great deal more rust; also, the buckling/break in the upper field has become quite dramatic. One could argue that the incremental rust places these examples in the nineteenth century. The argument possesses some logic but it also entails conjecture. Given that the Error reverse was made before the “original reverse” and used soon after, and given further that the progression of rust on the obverse die was demonstrably rapid, we are inclined to accept all three die pairings as originals and doubt the existence of facts that could prove otherwise.”
***********
Questions:
(1) In the case above, when both the Error reverse and Corrected reverse were used to strike the medals, what are the rules surrounding which die is considered the “original” and which is considered a “restrike die”? In other words, because an error is corrected, does that assume that the Corrected die automatically becomes the original die, and anything struck with any other dies then become restrikes, especially since the Error die was cleared denoted as an error?
(2) It seems above that die rust progression (and its rapidity) was a basis for determining that all three die pairings are originals. Is die rust typically used to designate original dies? How does one conclude on how rapidly die rust progressed, and can that be used as a reasonable basis for determining original versus restrike dies?
(3) Are medals considered a different animal than coins (due to the low mintages), and therefore the determination of original dies versus restrike dies is a bit easier to make (or at least less subject to challenge)?
In discussing the Washington Before Boston medal, Adams comments on the error involving the date on one of the dies (a “D” rather than an “M” should have been cut into the die in the Roman numeral date on the medal). Therefore, there is an “Error reverse” and a “Corrected reverse”. Adams further states,
“Compared to the Error reverse, the Corrected reverse shows a great deal more rust; also, the buckling/break in the upper field has become quite dramatic. One could argue that the incremental rust places these examples in the nineteenth century. The argument possesses some logic but it also entails conjecture. Given that the Error reverse was made before the “original reverse” and used soon after, and given further that the progression of rust on the obverse die was demonstrably rapid, we are inclined to accept all three die pairings as originals and doubt the existence of facts that could prove otherwise.”
***********
Questions:
(1) In the case above, when both the Error reverse and Corrected reverse were used to strike the medals, what are the rules surrounding which die is considered the “original” and which is considered a “restrike die”? In other words, because an error is corrected, does that assume that the Corrected die automatically becomes the original die, and anything struck with any other dies then become restrikes, especially since the Error die was cleared denoted as an error?
(2) It seems above that die rust progression (and its rapidity) was a basis for determining that all three die pairings are originals. Is die rust typically used to designate original dies? How does one conclude on how rapidly die rust progressed, and can that be used as a reasonable basis for determining original versus restrike dies?
(3) Are medals considered a different animal than coins (due to the low mintages), and therefore the determination of original dies versus restrike dies is a bit easier to make (or at least less subject to challenge)?
Always took candy from strangers
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
0
Comments
While the error die is earlier, it is not the "original die." However, because it is from the era, it's incredibly desirable (and rare as heck.)
Die rust (which isn't die rust, it's spalling -- a brittling of the surface of steel) makes die state progressions pretty easy in many cases. So do rim cuds.
"Restrike dies" have nothing to do with die rust. They're either the SAME dies that were used to strike the original presentation pieces, or they're not. The term "restrike" is an awful misnomer. Properly, a restrike is a re-strike -- a later strike from original dies. That would make the ones made from "restrike dies" actually struck from copy dies, but no one wants to use the word copy! I like the Chapman Brothers solution. When the US Mint made copy dies to produce "restrikes" (ack, I hate that term in this context) of the Diplomatic Medal, the YN-aged Chapmans called those copies "US Mint COUNTERFEIT of Original owned by Mssrs H. and S.H. Chapman." That's more like it, boys.
So here's what the terminology should really be:
1) Originals. Pieces struck at the time of the presentation strikes and from the same die states.
2) Restrikes. Made from the SAME DIES as the above, but of a later die state. The problem is -- where on the continuum do you separate 1 from 2? When the first hint of "die rust" appears? We don't know that the ones with this cud were struck in 1810 and the ones with this one were made in 1815. All we know is that this one comes after that one. Thus, the confusion.
3) Copy dies. This is what the marketplace often calls "restrikes," which is gutless ignorant horse twaddle.
Originals and what I call restrikes above look the same, are struck from the same dies, have the same edges, but vary in die state. Those slightly later strikes are still deemed original by most (including me) because they're made from the original dies.
The French Mint started marking the edges of restrikes from original dies in 1842. Thus, all that separates the plain edged strikes from original dies before then is die state -- which only real students of the series can tackle.
Oh yeah, and the Mint was fond of filing cuds off of the restrikes from original dies in order to make them look better. This was accepted and common at the US Mint and in Paris.
Here is a piece from original dies, slightly later die state, with a filed cud at left.
By the way, there is no scuttlebutt on if something is from original dies or copy dies. It is or it ain't! It's just a matter of finding the differences, which tends to be pretty easy.
Betts medals, colonial coins, US Mint medals, foreign coins found in early America, and other numismatic Americana
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
That's good info regarding the differences between restrikes, restrike dies, and originals. It clears a lot of things up.
Now, if some of those rusty Morgan dollar dies would just admit their true nature….
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
So, is there any way other than context to tell when this spalling is
being referred to rather than actual oxidized dies? I'm pretty confi-
dent that I've actually seen coins struck from corroded dies and some
appeared to have some of the rust struck right into them.
Excellent information JK!!
<< <i>Spalling was also a pitcher fro the Braves back in the 1950s....or was he the chemist who liked vitamin C?
Excellent information JK!! >>
You might be thinking of Capt Spaulding. ...or his girlfriend Lydia.
Lydia, oh Lydia (Arlen-Harberg 1939 [from Animal Crackers])
My life was wrapped around the circus. Her name was Lydia.
I met her at the world's fair in 1900, marked down from 1940.
Ah, Lydia, She was the most glorious creature Under the su-un.
Guiess. DuBarry. Garbo. Rolled into one.
Ooooh Lydia oh Lydia, say have you met Lydia, Lydia, the Tatooed Lady.
She has eyes that folks adore so, And a torso even more so.
Lydia oh Lydia, that encyclo-pidia, Oh Lydia the Queen of Tatoo.
On her back is the Battle of Waterloo, Beside it the wreck of the Hesperus, too.
And proudly above waves the Red, White, and Blue. You can learn a lot from Lydia.
La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la
When her robe is unfurled, she will show you the world, If you step up and tell her where.
For a dime you can see Kankakee or Paris, Or Washington crossing the Delaware.
La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la
Oh Lydia oh Lydia, say have you met Lydia, Oh Lydia the Tatooed Lady
When her muscles start relaxin', Up the hill comes Andrew Jackson
Lydia oh Lydia, that encyclo-pidia, Oh Lydia the queen of them all!
For two bits she will do a mazurka in jazz, With a view of Niagara that nobody has.
And on a clear day you can see Alcatraz, You can learn a lot from Lydia.
La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la
Come along and see Buff'lo Bill with his lasso. Just a little classic by Mendel Picasso.
Here is Captain Spaulding exploring the Amazon. Here's Godiva but with her pajamas on.
La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la
Here is Grover Whalen unveilin' the Trilon. Over on the West Coast we have Treaure Island.
Here's Najinsky a-doin' the rhumba. Here's her social security numba.
{whistles}La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la
Oh Lydia, oh Lydia that encyclo-pidia, Oh Lydia the champ of them all.
She once swept an Admiral clear off his feet. The ships on her hips made his heart skip a beat.
And now the old boy's in command of the fleet, For he went and married Lydia.
I said Lydia {He said Lydia}
They said said Lydia {We said Lydia}
La La!