what happened at mint in 1956 allowing type B quarters to be made?
sinin1
Posts: 7,500 ✭
I understand the part of using a proof die on the reverse of business strike quarters for the type B's
what I don't understand is why didn't it happen earlier?
the same proof die master was used for 36,37,38,39,40,41,42,50,51,52,53,54,55 proof's weren't they?
what I don't understand is why didn't it happen earlier?
the same proof die master was used for 36,37,38,39,40,41,42,50,51,52,53,54,55 proof's weren't they?
0
Comments
what I don't understand is why didn't it happen earlier?
the same proof die master was used for 36,37,38,39,40,41,42,50,51,52,53,54,55 proof's weren't they?>>
The mint knew the proofs and circulation strikes were different. It must have been their policy to keep then strictly separate.
(Although they did mess up with some class III doubled dies in 1952.)
In 1956 there must have been a policy change. Now the big question is why? Possibly it was a cost saving method. It is cheaper to use a slightly defective proof die for production rather that throw it away. And some of these business strike B's show defects. Most or at least many 1956 B's show a very weak leaf between the stems above T of QUARTER. That is why I suspect there were only 2 B style dies in use in production strikes that year.
Another question is why was proof artwork used on some 1958 and 1959 halves only and not 1956, 1957, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963?
Why do wide AM cents only show up in 1998, 1999, and 2000 and not 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 2001 thru 2008?
Why do circulation strike T 2 dollars (incidently another 2 die phenomen) show up in 1972 and not 1971?
I do think the B quarters were deliberate. Possibly the cents were accidents. The halves I pass on for now. The dollars are a real mystery.
you brought up some more examples I had not thought of
I was under the impression that many times in the past after the proof dies had been used, they were converted to business strike production
but I am surprised that the proof issue occasionally actually has a different design than the business strike- whats the purpose of that?
Usually the proof version was in higher relief. The type A quarter design had a very shallow fuzzy appearance. Some leaves were very indistinct. Proof die polishing would detract from what little sharp detail it had. I believe the Type B was made from a type A by carving away at the field to create a much greater contrast with the devices.
The wide AM cent acheived higher relief by going back to the previous production hubs which were in higher relief. This can be demonstrated by comparing the length of a roll of pre 1993 cents with a roll of later cents. The modern trend is to make coins in lower relief.
This aids in one squeeze hubbing and in die life.
The trend in the early 1970's was to increase relief of coins. I believe the mint wanted to strike high relief dollars but the W-1 die steel was not up to striking the large size hard cupro-nickel dollar blanks. The new die steel resolved that.
In my previuos post, I had lost track of the question. The lack of a high relief clad 1971 production strike is not a mystery. The history of the Philly T 2 of 1972 is. We have 3 different statements from the mint on it:
1) It was an accident.
2) It was deliberate with the desired results being obtained.
3) We have no knowledge of any such thing till such time as we are shown one.
Sorry for this late response but wanted to chime in.
You never fail to blow me away with your meticulous posts but I'd love to add some texture to the mystery of the reverse of the 72 T2 Ikes.
Over the past 2 years the Ike Group has been proclaiming there were two separate mintings and two separate releases of the 72 T2 Ikes, the first in March, the second in August. Our work was recently capped by John Robert's discovery of obverse markers for the March T2 which make separation of the two T2's secure (John is prepared to so certify any T2 submitted to him as one or the other on request).
Herb, as you know better than anyone, the March release is your beloved 1972 "Variant" which has since become the King of Ikes. The August T2 has the same design front and back but the reverse die seems to have been hubbed by a more tired working hub as the linear incuse features that hug the edge of the moon are not as sharp or as deep.
None the less, it is clear that the two 72 T2's and the 72-S Blue Ike carry the same high relief reverse design as the 71-S and 72-S proofs. The only differences in appearance are due to proof die preparation erasing almost all the incuse features on the 71-S and 72-S proofs, and, repeated field abrading/re-frosting of the 72-S Blue Ike dies progressively erasing the incuse features on these Silver Ikes (only a third carry the "Shadow" image that hugs the Earth (in a continuum of fade)and only 2/3's carry the incuse linear features (also in a continuum of fade)).
It seems unlikely that anyone who has read this far has not been exposed to my three-part article on this topic (presently being serialized every other issue in CONECA's ErrorScope) but here it is: linky to three-part article on the initial High Relilef Ike Reverse.
I did not speculate in that article too much about why the mint created the 72 T2 mule (twice!) beyond suggesting the March release was an accident or an experiment (using 52100 steel dies for the first time to strike a high relief reverse on CuNi-clad planchets), and the August release was a Gasparro cover-up (not the only example of such in the Ike Series). Rob
(edited to improve language)
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
2) It was deliberate with the desired results being obtained.
3) We have no knowledge of any such thing till such time as we are shown one. >>
Rob,
With your background information, it may indicate that all 3 mint statements on the 1972 Philly clad T 2 that I quoted were true.
The first T 2 was an accident
The second T 2 was deliberate
Nobody ever told the PR boys what was going on.
edited to clarify exactly which T 2, I was posting about.
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
I think there is considerable circumstantial evidence that any junk San Francisco had, that might possibly be useable, was sent to Denver.
Consider the various Denver silver issues like the 1974 D and 1977 D silver clad Ikes. Those blanks must have come from San Francisco.
We have the 1971 D Ikes on proof like clad planchets which we presume were prepared at San Francisco.
According to mint workers, the light weight dime stock 1970 D quarters were on planchets that came from San Francisco.
San Francisco did not make production quarters, so any (some, few?) reject quarter reverse dies were sent to Denver along with the other "trash". We can see a die chip on the 1971 D quarter with the proof artwork reverse. Perhaps that is why that one was rejected.
Most 1968 S proof production used the reverse M die. Late in the year they switched over to a slightly modified type B similiar to that used on proofs 1937-1964.
The only mint to have M dies in 1968 was San Francisco.
The only mint to have M dies in 1969 was Denver. Where did they get them? I think San Francisco. Things will shortly muddy up though.
In 1970 M dies show up in both Denver and Philadelphia. In addition class III double dies involving type M show up in both Denver and Philadelphia. The doubled dies how that they were using the M artwork at Philadelphia to make new dies and rather indiscrimately at that.
The class III doubled dies also quite often show slight rotational doubling. They must have been an alignment problem in mismatching the two varieties.
In 1971 and later, there were no M's. The entire history of this variety coved just three years, 1968-1970.
The history of Type B covers 1937-1972 for a total span of 36 years.
Part of his answer was that 1956 was the first "big" year of proof production [ 669,384 versus 378,200 in 1955]. He goes on "so it would appear probably that with the greatly increased output, controls were not so precise as in previous years."
<< <i><<what happened at mint in 1956 allowing type B quarters to be made?>> Strangely enough, I just discovered this very question was asked in a Collectors' Clearinghouse article of September 23, 1970 by W. W. Edwards.
Part of his answer was that 1956 was the first "big" year of proof production [ 669,384 versus 378,200 in 1955]. He goes on "so it would appear probably that with the greatly increased output, controls were not so precise as in previous years." >>
I have read that Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Rae V. Biester, who took office in 1953, took a lot of interest in the Proof set program. Under her leadership the Mint began promoting the sets, changed the packaging and greatly increased sales.
She (this is speculation) may have asked somebody what they did with the old dies, and then asked why don't we reuse them instead?
Alternative speculation: the increased proof set sales caused more leftover proof dies to be on hand at the end of the year, to the point that SOMEBODY said "why don't we reuse them?"
TD
<< <i><<what happened at mint in 1956 allowing type B quarters to be made?>> Strangely enough, I just discovered this very question was asked in a Collectors' Clearinghouse article of September 23, 1970 by W. W. Edwards.
Part of his answer was that 1956 was the first "big" year of proof production [ 669,384 versus 378,200 in 1955]. He goes on "so it would appear probably that with the greatly increased output, controls were not so precise as in previous years." >>
I suppose I could buy that if it hadn't reoccured all the way through to 1964.
I expect the real reason may have been that whomever was supervising during that period simply didn't know any better and instead of destroying those defective dies, allowed them onto the production floor as a cost savings measure.
Its definitely strange though.
The name is LEE!
1) Why did the quarters run from 1956 to 1964 while the corresponding halves only ran from 1958-1959.
2) Why did the these quarter and half varieties end up in the 1959 mint sets? Was it deliberate? Why?