Options
In 1964 and earlier how many times would a silver planchet be struck?
Weg
Posts: 544
I assume it varied depending on the type coin such as a dime, quarter, half, or dollar. Dollars may have varied by design because of their size?
What brought this up was I just finished looking through the first tube of 1964s looking for type Cs and found seven or eight that look like double strikes. It stands out most on the mint mark.
Finding that many in the first tube, am I jumping to a conclusion that double strikes on 1964 Washingtons are common?
That conclusion leads me to believe they were normaly struck at least twice.
What are the facts?
I have this image in mind that may have come from TV; it may have been on the History channel about the mint. I thought it showed a press stamping each coin once working at the speed of a sewing machine.
What brought this up was I just finished looking through the first tube of 1964s looking for type Cs and found seven or eight that look like double strikes. It stands out most on the mint mark.
Finding that many in the first tube, am I jumping to a conclusion that double strikes on 1964 Washingtons are common?
That conclusion leads me to believe they were normaly struck at least twice.
What are the facts?
I have this image in mind that may have come from TV; it may have been on the History channel about the mint. I thought it showed a press stamping each coin once working at the speed of a sewing machine.
Remember, I'm pullen for ya; we're all in this together.---Red Green---
0
Comments
During a strike on the old vertical presses, the upper die was supposed to move straight up and down. However, as the nuts and bolts that hold the press together work loose under the constant pounding, the dies can sometimes "shimmy" a bit from side to side as they are coming away from each other and the coin is being ejected.. This can cause the edges of the details in the dies to bump up against the raised details on the coin, causing a flat, shelf-like doubling on the detail.
On a Washington quarter, most of the reverse detail is somewhat rounded off, so that it is hard for the edges of the details to bump those details. The mint mark, on the other hand, rises almost straight up out of the field, making it more subject to machine doubling.
TD
unless it was in error (related to coming in or going out of chamber)
What I am seeing does sound like machine doubling. Judging by a couple of these, the press was severely overdue in maintainance.
I do not have a copy stand yet but I'll try to get photos.
Not having two coins in front of me to compare (machine vs strike) I'm thinking in some cases it would be easy to tell the difference. Wouldn't strike doubling show an even amount of doubling of all detail on the entire surface; machine doubling could show an uneven amount. If the machine doubling occures as the result of a shift/pivot in location, the degree of doubling will increase the further a detail is from the pivot point? Just trying to "get the picture".
<< <i>So the answer is once; all silver coin from 1964 and earlier was struck once.
What I am seeing does sound like machine doubling. Judging by a couple of these, the press was severely overdue in maintainance.
I do not have a copy stand yet but I'll try to get photos.
Not having two coins in front of me to compare (machine vs strike) I'm thinking in some cases it would be easy to tell the difference. Wouldn't strike doubling show an even amount of doubling of all detail on the entire surface; machine doubling could show an uneven amount. If the machine doubling occures as the result of a shift/pivot in location, the degree of doubling will increase the further a detail is from the pivot point? Just trying to "get the picture". >>
FYI, "strike doubling" is sometimes used to mean the same thing as "machine doubling." I think you meant to say "double striking" vs. "machine doubling."
Yes, double striking would tend to affect all of both sides, whereas "machine doubling" tends to be random.
TD