Options
Estimated survival rate for 1805 half dollars
slumlord98
Posts: 1,180 ✭
It has always fascinated me to read various pronouncements regarding survival rates for various coin types or series. How were these numbers or percentages arrived at? Were they reliable? Were they just wild guesses or was some method used to arrive a given figure? Not knowing the answers, I set out to devise a method and seek an answer for what I know best- 1805 halves. Breaking it down by die marriage seems to be the best way to proceed.
O.101 is rated R3 in Overton. Any rarity rating that differs from what listed in Overton is either the latest opinion of the BHNC or is my own opinion based on my research and will be disclosed as such. I'll use the middle of this rating as this die pairing is fairly common. If anyone feels that 'common' and 1805 half dollar don't go well together, substitute the word 'available'. Steve Herrman's "Auction and Mail Bid Prices Realized" shows 46 appearances of O.101s at major auctions and FPLs of certain dealers since 1998 with only 1 glaring repeat sale, that of the Eliasberg specimen. R3 can be interpreted as 201-500 specimens extant so the middle point is 350.
O.102- Herrman's AMBPR shows 58 specimens with no attempt made to weed out repeat appearances. This marriage is also rated at R3 so the same number will be included, 350.
O.103 is rated R5+ by the BHNC with a range of 31-47. This coincides well with the research of Bryce Brown (forum member Preturb), which was piblished in a recent edition of the John Reich Journal. AMBPR lists about 20 examples but I'll include 45 for this purpose.
O.104 is rated R5- by the BHNC with a range of 66-80. AMBPR shows 34 appearances. 70 is a nice round number within the range.
O.105 is rated R5 (48-65) with 12 specimens listed in AMBPR. I'll include 50.
O.106 is rated R3+ by the BHNC but with only 11 specimens appearing over the last 5 years, I think it is much scarcer. Much. For this purpose 55 specimens will do. This brings the count of likely numbers of 1805 halves to 920.
O.107 is rated R5 by the BHNC with a range of 48-65. My own opinion is that there are probably about 50 specimens of this die marriage.
O.108 is rated R4+ by the BHNC so let's take a mid range number of 100.
O.109 is rated R4- by the BHNC with a range of 120-200. Let's use 160.
O.110 is rated R5 and a middle range # would be 55.
O.111 is very common and rated R2. The range for R2 is 501-1000. Midway thru would be 750.
O.112 is equally common at R2 and 750 will also work here.
O.113 is rated R4+ by the BHNC (81-120) so 100 will be used here.
O.114 is only known by 2 examples and we'll count both of them.
This gives us a total of 2887 1805 half dollars surviving. With an original mintage of 211,722 this means the survival rate is 1.36%, within the 1-2% often quoted. If the numbers of any one die marriage seem too high, re-figure it with 2500 survivors for a 1.18 survival rate. Or re-figure it with a survival rate of 4000 1805 halves for a 1.89% survival rate. However many 1805s you feel are left, it is unlikely to exceed 2%.
The flip side means that at least 98% have been lost, worn beyond recognition, melted, WHY. If you apply that 2% rate to each die marriage, the number of originally minted specimens is likely to be as follows-
O.101- 350/2=x/100 or an original mintage of 17,500
O.102 17500
O.103 2250
O.104 3500
O.105 2500
O.106 2750
O.107 2500
O.108 5000
O.109 8000
O.110 2750
O.111 37500
O.112 37500
O.113 5000
O.114 50
Adding these numbers back up only comes to 144,300 because earlier numbers only reached 1.36% survival vs. 2% for figuring ~total # struck for each die marriage. This chart shows that the mint was getting very low production from most dies; so low that John Reich and Robert Scot realized that some major changes in how dies were engineered would need to be made in order to accomodate increased deposits of silver into U.S. coinage. However, some dies were retired with no apparent failure. The obverse die used for O.105 and O.106 was in good enough shape that it was over dated and reused early in 1806; also the reverse die used for O.106 didn't appear to fail. Others also should have survived in decent enough shape but weren't used that year. Perhaps when all silver on hand was coined, certain dies weren't properly stored and subsequently rusted. Whatever the reason is lost to us. However, Reich and Scot solved at least some of the problems as die life was greatly extended later in 1806 and 1807. We know this because the artifacts catastrophic failures observed on 1805 halves had essentially disappeared by mid 1806.
O.101 is rated R3 in Overton. Any rarity rating that differs from what listed in Overton is either the latest opinion of the BHNC or is my own opinion based on my research and will be disclosed as such. I'll use the middle of this rating as this die pairing is fairly common. If anyone feels that 'common' and 1805 half dollar don't go well together, substitute the word 'available'. Steve Herrman's "Auction and Mail Bid Prices Realized" shows 46 appearances of O.101s at major auctions and FPLs of certain dealers since 1998 with only 1 glaring repeat sale, that of the Eliasberg specimen. R3 can be interpreted as 201-500 specimens extant so the middle point is 350.
O.102- Herrman's AMBPR shows 58 specimens with no attempt made to weed out repeat appearances. This marriage is also rated at R3 so the same number will be included, 350.
O.103 is rated R5+ by the BHNC with a range of 31-47. This coincides well with the research of Bryce Brown (forum member Preturb), which was piblished in a recent edition of the John Reich Journal. AMBPR lists about 20 examples but I'll include 45 for this purpose.
O.104 is rated R5- by the BHNC with a range of 66-80. AMBPR shows 34 appearances. 70 is a nice round number within the range.
O.105 is rated R5 (48-65) with 12 specimens listed in AMBPR. I'll include 50.
O.106 is rated R3+ by the BHNC but with only 11 specimens appearing over the last 5 years, I think it is much scarcer. Much. For this purpose 55 specimens will do. This brings the count of likely numbers of 1805 halves to 920.
O.107 is rated R5 by the BHNC with a range of 48-65. My own opinion is that there are probably about 50 specimens of this die marriage.
O.108 is rated R4+ by the BHNC so let's take a mid range number of 100.
O.109 is rated R4- by the BHNC with a range of 120-200. Let's use 160.
O.110 is rated R5 and a middle range # would be 55.
O.111 is very common and rated R2. The range for R2 is 501-1000. Midway thru would be 750.
O.112 is equally common at R2 and 750 will also work here.
O.113 is rated R4+ by the BHNC (81-120) so 100 will be used here.
O.114 is only known by 2 examples and we'll count both of them.
This gives us a total of 2887 1805 half dollars surviving. With an original mintage of 211,722 this means the survival rate is 1.36%, within the 1-2% often quoted. If the numbers of any one die marriage seem too high, re-figure it with 2500 survivors for a 1.18 survival rate. Or re-figure it with a survival rate of 4000 1805 halves for a 1.89% survival rate. However many 1805s you feel are left, it is unlikely to exceed 2%.
The flip side means that at least 98% have been lost, worn beyond recognition, melted, WHY. If you apply that 2% rate to each die marriage, the number of originally minted specimens is likely to be as follows-
O.101- 350/2=x/100 or an original mintage of 17,500
O.102 17500
O.103 2250
O.104 3500
O.105 2500
O.106 2750
O.107 2500
O.108 5000
O.109 8000
O.110 2750
O.111 37500
O.112 37500
O.113 5000
O.114 50
Adding these numbers back up only comes to 144,300 because earlier numbers only reached 1.36% survival vs. 2% for figuring ~total # struck for each die marriage. This chart shows that the mint was getting very low production from most dies; so low that John Reich and Robert Scot realized that some major changes in how dies were engineered would need to be made in order to accomodate increased deposits of silver into U.S. coinage. However, some dies were retired with no apparent failure. The obverse die used for O.105 and O.106 was in good enough shape that it was over dated and reused early in 1806; also the reverse die used for O.106 didn't appear to fail. Others also should have survived in decent enough shape but weren't used that year. Perhaps when all silver on hand was coined, certain dies weren't properly stored and subsequently rusted. Whatever the reason is lost to us. However, Reich and Scot solved at least some of the problems as die life was greatly extended later in 1806 and 1807. We know this because the artifacts catastrophic failures observed on 1805 halves had essentially disappeared by mid 1806.
0
Comments
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
What makes this date so useful in this type of research is that there are no R1's. R1's don't provide sound survival ratings and often lead us to questions in surviving specimens.
Well done slumlord98, well done
Is that exactly 1.62%?
<< <i>TomB,
Is that exactly 1.62%? >>
No. 1.616506551%
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
What a great post slumlord.
Your insight and reasoning are awe-inspiring.
Let me add that I enjoy your posts as much as I enjoy receiving my copies of the John Reich Journal.
I read both word for word, then go back and re-read them.
O.101 reverse die failed when this cud formed.
O.102 obverse was first used on O.101 and cracked up while the next die pairing was coined.
1794; 2.56%
1795; 1.14%
1796/97; 6.97%
1801: 1.62%
1802; 1.17%
1803; 0.74%
1805; 1.62%
Additionally, here is my only 1805, which is the relatively common O.112-
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I'd enjoy reviewing your figures! 1803 survival seems very low; have you ever tried to determine why?
Continuing on with terminal die states of 1805, O.105 is the third use of the reverse die after O.104 and O.103 and it went out in a spectacular fashion. These coins exhibit a cud above STATE and a retained cud atop ITE.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
O.101 R3 but closer to the high end as these are quite common- 400
O.102 R3+ by the BHNC but with only 29 appearances in the last 6 years, I'd guess no less than R4+ leaving a mid range of 100
O.103 R3 but much more common than all the other 1803s- 600
O.104 R3 with 82 appearances over the last 5 years, again at the high end- 400
This gives a total of 1500/188234 (original reported mintage in 1803 and 1804 combined gives a survival rate of .8%, much in line with your figure. Considering that only 2 obverses and 3 reverses were used, something doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense that so few survived and that die life was so much better than in 1805. Most curious indeed! Even if O.103 were counted at 1000 survivors (a possibility) survival only rises to 1%, still lower than 1805.
Only 1805's in 1805.
Then continued in 1806 to start the year minting some 1805's etc?
Considering the very small mintages from 1801 and 1802, 30,289 and 29890 respectively, it isn't likely that there was any such spillover. Those numbers could have been turned out in just a few days if all the planchets were ready and there was no breakdown in machinery, a big IF. Consider that it was possible for an experienced crew to coin 40-45 coins/min. 40x60=2400/hr. x 10=24000/10 hr.day. There is contemporaneous documentation to support the numbers with the wild card being down time for the press. I'd speculate that was considerable, perhaps 20min/hr. for adjustment and catching of one's breath.
Eventually the silver was worth more than face value which is why the silver content was reduced 7% in 1853.
<< <i><<The flip side means that at least 98% have been lost, worn beyond recognition, melted, WHY.>>
Eventually the silver was worth more than face value which is why the silver content was reduced 7% in 1853. >>
A lot were lost in the 1850's to this and more were likely recalled
by the mint for recoining. Attrition on circulating coinage and coins
with low values tends to be very high. Not only is it lost while be-
ing carried around but it's exposed to the same natural forces like
fire and flood that valuable coins are. War causes great attrition
as coins are lost in the conflict or hidden forever by soldiers who
don't return.
Every year there is a slow natural grinding away of just about ev-
erything. Even valuable coins average a loss that can approach
1% annually.
The only things with a low attrition rate are the great pyramids.
Unfortunately I have no 1805's to share so here's my 1803, since this thread has kinda gone in that direction it's semi-appropriate:
<< <i>John,
Considering the very small mintages from 1801 and 1802, 30,289 and 29890 respectively, it isn't likely that there was any such spillover. Those numbers could have been turned out in just a few days if all the planchets were ready and there was no breakdown in machinery, a big IF. Consider that it was possible for an experienced crew to coin 40-45 coins/min. 40x60=2400/hr. x 10=24000/10 hr.day. There is contemporaneous documentation to support the numbers with the wild card being down time for the press. I'd speculate that was considerable, perhaps 20min/hr. for adjustment and catching of one's breath. >>
The important thing to remember here is that the mint was not an assembly line production, coin-making machine at this point.
They struck what was needed to satisfy the demand of the depositors (either individuals or banks). If the depositor wanted dimes, then they made dimes, and only enough to use up the amount of bullion deposited by that depositor.
This made production much slower than one would think, as they would have to process each deposit individually. Assay it, weigh it, refine it, roll the planchet stock to the right thickness, punch out all of the planchets, then finally strike all of the finished planchets into the coins. These finished coins would be paid back out to the depositor who deposited that particular bullion; they did not mix up bullion deposits until many years later. Not to say that there was not plenty of down time for die lapping, press adjustment, repair etc.
So, as we can see, it took more time to process all of these individual requests and they were not even able to continually strike a particular denomination for any length of time, unless it was a large deposit and the same denomination was wanted in return.
In 1801, 1802 and in 1803, Bust dollars were still being struck. The banks wanted most of their silver deposits back in the largest denomination possible. Prior to 1804, this meant dollars. In 1804, due to the large amount of exportation, President Thomas Jefferson suspended striking of the dollar denomination.
This left the half dollar as the largest denomination being struck and now the banks started requesting them in return for their deposits. Hence the larger amount of halves struck in 1805 than 1803 and the explosion of a larger amount in 1806. This would continue to keep production high over the next 25 to 30 years (with exceptions such as 1815) until the end of the lettered edge halves in 1836.
After the dollar denomination was brought back circa 1836 – 1839, the amount of half dollars struck declined. However, by this time (1837), the Mint was now provided with a bullion fund so that they could make different denomination up ahead of time and pay out the depositors immediately after the deposit was weighed and assayed, instead of taking as much as several months to process it and give back the same metal that was deposited. This allowed them to set up and run larger amounts of the same denomination at one time and increased productivity.
QN
Edited to add: Nice post Brad!
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I know that these are not just canned posts but are the result of much time spent
on research and represents years and years of cumulative work, work that will
hopefully be continued by others as motivated as these men.
Is it sheer coincidence that this is the inverse of the Fibonacci series 0.681....? Hmmmmmm.
Applying the 1-2% survival ratio seems to work fairly well for many 19th century seated coins as well. But for the rarer dates that ratio drops to as low as 0.2 to 0.5% assuming the mintage figures are accurate.
roadrunner
Considering the very small mintages from 1801 and 1802, 30,289 and 29890 respectively, it isn't likely that there was any such spillover. Those numbers could have been turned out in just a few days if all the planchets were ready and there was no breakdown in machinery, a big IF. Consider that it was possible for an experienced crew to coin 40-45 coins/min. 40x60=2400/hr. x 10=24000/10 hr.day. There is contemporaneous documentation to support the numbers with the wild card being down time for the press. I'd speculate that was considerable, perhaps 20min/hr. for adjustment and catching of one's breath.
The figure of 24,000 per day appears to have been miscopied by accident. In January 1800
Mint Director Elias Boudinot stated that 14,000 cents could be struck on one press per day. He
also used 15,000 on another occasion.
In another posting it is stated that deposits were handled in the order that they arrived at the Mint
and that the depositor’s actual silver was returned in the form of coins. This is not correct as deposits
were always mixed for the greatest economy of labor; to have returned each depositor’s silver
precisely was, in practical terms, impossible. The law specified that depositors had to be paid in the
order that the deposit was received, perhaps the source of confusion on this point. (Sometimes
depositors were paid out of order, but this was done by permission of the other depositors.)
Denga
I've reread it a couple of times.
Good job !
Mike
What are the contemporary sources for 40-45 coins per minute?
I ask because I’ve seen screw presses operated, and cannot grasp a crew of 3 or 4 (3 for a small press, 4 for a larger one) averaging one coin every 1.5 seconds. There seem to be too many mechanical and coordination limitations for this cycle to occur so quickly. Secondly, repetitive tasks such as this were commonly performed to a “count” or rhythm which was used to coordinate the task among workmen. (This is the origin of a large class of folk songs and rhythmic chants. If it helps, think of the stroke beater in the Roman galley from the movie Ben Hur.) Half dollars were struck on large presses and these took more time to operate than small ones.
Here is a raw 1805 half to add to your counts. I think it is a O-107.
Did the mint have more than 1 press operating at a time to produce halves?
At 14,000 coins per day, more or less, one press could strike more than 1 million
coins each quarter. Coinage passed 4 million pieces per year in 1826 and it is
safe to say that this was true after that date. Two cent presses were used on
occasion in the early 1800s because of an urgency to the coinage and this may
have been true for the half dollar.
Denga
To denga and RWB- my numbers came from a journal reprinted in Rare Coin Review a few years ago where someone chronicled his visit to the mint. He asked the pressmen, who were coining half dollars, how many coins they could strike in a minute and the response was 43. From that number the 24,000 was extrapolated. With the allowance of 1/3 down time the result was a close 16,000 coins/day. The visitor commented that "it appeared to be pretty hard labor".
Quarternut- my purpose wasn't to infer that all 1801 and 1802 halves were coined in a couple days (although it does read that way), only to point out that they could have been.
<< <i>my numbers came from a journal reprinted in Rare Coin Review a few years ago >>
Since I collect this type of info, I would also be interested in an exact citation. The Mint records state a striking rate of 30 - 35/min. BTW, I would not use Saturday as a striking day since the records indicate that Sat was typically used for clean-up and repair. Some records show that it was also a shorter day than normal. Also, the Mint records state that they occassionally used two presses for halfs.
I would also comment that the "mintage figures" are not really mintage figures at all since the Mint regularly reused previous year dies that were still servicable. Thus the anomalies you are seeing in die life && may be due, at least in part, to the reuse of dies.
Another die life factor may be the type of steel used for the dies. The Mint records show that they were experimenting with the various types available at this time (including blister, German and cast crucible) before finally settling on the quite superior cast crucible steel. If dies in 01 - 05 had been made from the lesser types one would see a significant decrease in die life compared to those made from cast steel. I published a couple articles on this in PW and JRCS some years ago.
BTW, I would attribute the increase in die life and lack of failure in 06 and on to Eckfeldt rather than Scot and Reich. Scot and Reich engraved the dies but Eckfeldt forged and hardened the die bodies. I published an article for the 1996 COAC that detailed a change in die form circa 1806. All of the half dollar dies I have seen from this point on are a frustum on cylinder design. This arrangement certainly increases resistance to chip-out and fracture.
Regards, RH
"I published an article for the 1996 COAC that detailed a change
in die form circa 1806.
All of the half dollar dies I have seen from this point on
are a frustum on cylinder design."
My understanding it was in 1807, and you do happen to say "circa" (so give or take a couple years).
A new coin design for the half.
Then a collaboration by listed parties on this new shape for the dies, frustrum (cone) on cylinder.
This concept which then eliminated the edge failure of the dies completely.
I have had some thoughts on the make-up of the dies, forge welded cast steel
for the die face end, with a softer iron body for the remainder of the die.
This was a known technology for the time.
It would have enabled the Mint and Eckfeldt to stretch their expensive Cast Steel cache.
Mike
The significant amount of die failures in both 1805 & 1806 occurred on more than just the Half dollar denomination, as we see extensive edge crumbling and rim cuds on the quarters in 1806 (and at least two obverse failures in 1805). Out of the 6 obverse and 8 reverse dies employed in 1806, 4 of the obverse and 6 of the reverse dies ended in catastrophic cracks or cuds.
The gold series had many die failures as well, although the mintages were much smaller than those in the silver series.
This seems to show that they were having difficulties in either obtaining quality die steel or a change in the forging of this steel.
In response to the numbers used in the OP to determine a percentage of survivorship, using the rarity ratings in any fashion (except for maybe R-6 and above) is somewhat futile. Although these rarity numbers might suggest how easy or difficult it might be in aquiring an example of a specific die marriage, it can never reflect the true number of surviving coins. The numbers just dont add up.
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
This change took place in 1806. Cuds were found on early '06s on the round top knobbed 6 halves (O.108, O.104, O.106, O.105) and the reverse of O.111 (11th in emission sequence) and then no more occured and it continued through 1807 draped and capped.
Frustum is the word of the day. I had to look that up!
How don't the numbers add up? I admit is mostly guesswork in trying to divine how many of an R4 are left, but auction records, while not exact, do show a trend. I am also pretty sure that the number of surviving 1805 halves is somewhere in the vicinity mentioned, i.e. <4k.
<< <i>Steve,
How don't the numbers add up? I admit is mostly guesswork in trying to divine how many of an R4 are left, but auction records, while not exact, do show a trend. I am also pretty sure that the number of surviving 1805 halves is somewhere in the vicinity mentioned, i.e. <4k. >>
Brad,
I am not saying your numbers may not be spot on or are even incorrect, only that picking an arbitrary number within the range of each rarity rating seems like a way to only get a medium starting point, although that starting point may not have any meaning. The rarity ratings from R-1 to R-3 are where the real problems lie.
If truth be known, most R-3 and R-2 die marriages would become R-1's if every coin still extant was accounted for. The R-1 range starts at 1251 coins known, but has no end to the other side of the range.
Therefore, there might be 1251 coins still in existance for an R-1 rated die marriage or 10,000 for that matter. I know that there are no 1805's rated at R-1, but it is my opinion that the ones rated R-2 and some rated R-3 may have a more significant amount of surviving coins than their rating may suggest. Even the R-4's and R-5's will tend to gravitate towards R-3's and R-4's over time once enough people pursue them.
Rarity is very subjective. If you are searching for the rarer coins you will tend to discount the ones that are not what you are looking for. Also, auction records are often skewed by the fact that the rare coins show up more often than those that aren't because they are more sought after and therefore worth more. Also grade can skew these numbers as well. As collectors, we are always more interested in higher graded and undamaged pieces. However, these need to be counted as well.
It is an interesting exercise to play with these numbers to try to come up with some idea of what exists now compared to what was originally produced, but they are only estimates not solid real numbers. And, as others have pointed out, the mintage figures for each year during this time period are merely for how many coins were delivered by the coiner in the calendar year, not necessarily the dates found on those coins.
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
<< <i>[My understanding it was in 1807, and you do happen to say "circa" (so give or take a couple years).
A new coin design for the half.
Then a collaboration by listed parties on this new shape for the dies, frustrum (cone) on cylinder.
This concept which then eliminated the edge failure of the dies completely.
I have had some thoughts on the make-up of the dies, forge welded cast steel
for the die face end, with a softer iron body for the remainder of the die.
This was a known technology for the time.
It would have enabled the Mint and Eckfeldt to stretch their expensive Cast Steel cache.
Mike >>
Mike,
As noted it was 1806. The 1806 obv in the ANS collection is the first one know with the frustum design. If I recall correctly it's the 111/113, I can confirm when I'm at home. I said circa because there are only a few dies extant so we don't know the exact year Eckfeldt introduced this.
Thank-you for the correction pertaining to the 1806's...
I now have new notes to add to my reference!
One reason I brought up the fused Cast Steel.
I'm a hands on woodworker.
Many of my vintage hand tools have the forged cast steel
blade types circa 1800 to 1850.
These blades (planes, chisels & saws) have welded Steel ends
to a wrought body allowing for a tougher
(being able to hold a cutting edge longer) cutting surface.
Being a Smith, Eckfeldt would have practiced this technology
in his daily business.
My question still, do you think it possible that it was used at the Mint at this time?
Mike
slumlord98..."word of the day"
A frustum; (plural: frusta or frustums) is the portion of a solid—normally a cone or pyramid
—which lies between two parallel planes cutting the solid.
<< <i>Just so slumlord98 and other folks realize I was not tweaking him in my first post on this subject, here is a partial list of extant percentages I have worked on over the years. These numbers have been adjusted somewhat by me, but I cannot find my latest spreadsheet regarding this data. I have these listed as year followed by estimated percent extant-
1794; 2.56%
1795; 1.14%
1796/97; 6.97%
1801: 1.62%
1802; 1.17%
1803; 0.74%
1805; 1.62% >>
Interesting that the survival rate of the 1796 and 1797 would be so much higher. Presumably that would be because they were recognized as rare dates worth a strong premium a long time ago and thus escaped the melting pot more frequently?
The 1806 Obverse 11 was used towards the end of 1806, with the workhorse obv 10 and O.117 possibly last. The Leaman/Gunnet emission order study shows a direct link with edge dies and die marriages prior to 1824. After 1824, the link is not as direct which indicates more than one screw press was used.
Good post Brad, I basically agree with your 1805 survivors except, O.106, which I have seen quite a few in low grade, probably R.4-. For a few DM's such as 107 and 110, there is probably no more than 25 or 30 that can be accounted for, so the R.5 rating is an estimate of extant examples rather than a census of known examples that other series use. I would not want to estimate mintages of DM's as there are too many variables that could lead to higher or lower survivorship among the dies marriages within a given year. I think 1803 rarity is 101 R2, 102 R4, 103 R1, and 104 R2.
The rate of production on the screw press is amazing. I speculate the press would have some rebound on strike similar to striking a hammer on a forged anvil, that would quickly bring the fly weights back into position for another strike. I have seen this happen on a smaller screw (fly) press.
Rittenhouse,
The information cited was in The Coin Collector, 6/17/01 issue 131, ISSN 1073-9580. This was the weekly paper from B+M back in the olden days when there were both a Bowers and a Merena at Bowers and Merena.
Nysoto,
I believe it is in Taxay where the setup was described as having chain stops on the swing arms and a board attached to the ceiling that served as a return. It must have been very noisy.
caused by the way coins are used. In this case a lot of these were used as
backing for paper currency and this might apply to large percentages of some
dates such as the '96 and '97. This use could work for their survival or against
it depending on when they went into the vault and their disposition when they
came out. A study of the grades of the coins available can shed a lot of light on
why some coins exist and others don't. Some estimations of the grade distribu-
tion can be gleaned from simply looking at the price guides.
There are other confounding factors such as the actions of collectors which can
change over very long periods.
These coins circulated from day 1 for the most part. There is one known choice Unc (the only one for all of 1805) for O.101, several AUs for 102, 103 is represented by a couple AUs, 104 by a couple ch AUs, O.105 by a few EFs, O.106 by one commercial unc, O.107 by a couple low AUs, 108 by one ch AU (and a slab unc that has floated about since '02) O.109 by a low AU, 110 by some EFs, the common 111 and 112 by some AUs, 113 by some AUs and 114 by two VGs. Unlike the capped halves, which sat by droves in vaults, draped bust heraldic eagle reverse halves circulated. There is always the possibility that a couple high end pieces are still in hiding, but only a few.
<< <i>Cladking,
These coins circulated from day 1 for the most part. There is one known choice Unc (the only one for all of 1805) for O.101, several AUs for 102, 103 is represented by a couple AUs, 104 by a couple ch AUs, O.105 by a few EFs, O.106 by one commercial unc, O.107 by a couple low AUs, 108 by one ch AU (and a slab unc that has floated about since '02) O.109 by a low AU, 110 by some EFs, the common 111 and 112 by some AUs, 113 by some AUs and 114 by two VGs. Unlike the capped halves, which sat by droves in vaults, draped bust heraldic eagle reverse halves circulated. There is always the possibility that a couple high end pieces are still in hiding, but only a few. >>
Thank you.
I stand corrected.
Don't forget though that some of the coins backing paper would have been circulated
and that they could have gotten into bank vaults selectively based on the area of the
country they were set aside. By the time the coins were heavily worn their incidence
would be fairly random but it's possible they'd be set aside in higher grades and event-
ually released to recieve more wear.
If there is really great discrepancy between survival rates this could be part of the reason.
Mojo
-Jim Morrison-
Mr. Mojorizn
my blog:www.numistories.com