Early proof coin production experts... answer me this: (plus a little more proof large cent eye cand

renomedphys

So, I have this 1854 Proof Large Cent with seemingly contradictory features. I have partially described the coin as such:

Strike is incomplete at the right obverse in spite of a complete wire rim... (and) Fine lines up to left from the dentils under 54 and star 13 confirm the earliest die state, which John Grellman (2001, p. 353) says is "rare."

It would seem (to me) that these features are a contradiction, although it has been suggested to me that unevenness in the upsetting mill process could be the culprit.

So how exactly is it that this can occur?

llafoe

That's really a shame... awful! Would $100 take it off your hands? If that's acceptable, you can send me the $100 via PayPal!

RWB

Presence of a fin (aka “wire rim”) does not define a “proof” coin.

lkeigwin

It has already been determined to be a proof.

Planchet was not uniform thickness?
Lance.

RWB

Likely made on the old medal press (a screw-type press). Uneveness was common.

ChrisRx

I can't answer your question but I can say this: NICE COIN!

DorkGirl

Eye candy indeed!

LoveMyLiberty

Matt, this is just an opinion, but I wouldn't call this a contradiction, it's just
the state of mint production at that time.

I assume this is the N-12 , which produced the proofs for that years issue.
If you look at the N-12 business strike in the Naftzger Collection Goldberg
Sale catalog, it has the exact same features as your coin & is an MS-66 BN.
The two PR-64RB examples in Coinfacts also have the same features.
This is the way the coin was made, hubbed, die prepared, date repunched,
die lines left, dentils crudely made & then struck for proofs and business strikes.

My guess is that the Mint had other things on their minds than making great
coinage to finish off the Large Cent issues.

renomedphys

My understanding of an "upsetting mill" is that of a machine which imparts uniform pressure to the planchet edge (by rolling?) so as to create a thicker "lip" around the edge of the planchet. So I take it that the planchet is originally of a larger diameter than that of the collar until it is fed through the upsetting mill, but will hence fit properly in the collar. Furthermore, the presence of a raised rim on the planchet aids in filling out the rim on the coin.

So... and please correct me if I misunderstand... in theory the milled planchet could be too thick on one side, resulting in the rim being overpressed yielding a wire rim, and also making it harder for the die to fully impress features in the fields near the rim, such as denticles and star centers. Perhaps this is the source of the mis-alignment?

slipgate

sweetness!

notwilight

Generally incomplete stars are grease filled rather than poor strike. I'd say he was cleaning the starts, got 8 done and then got distracted. And oh yea, he didn't do a good job on #5 either. Fire that guy. --Jerry

Walkerguy21D

Great coin, and interesting theories posted by the members, especially renomedphys's - I had to really ponder that, but
it does make good sense, and seems to be the best fit judging by the look of the coin.

MrEureka

Seems to me that if the collar is not set quite close enough, it would explain both the ease with which the coin (in being struck) expanded beyond the face of the die (creating the wire rim), and the weakness in strike adjacent to the wire rim. I would want to compare the coin to others to see if the wire rim and weakness are in exactly the same places on all coins, or if there's some variation. If there's any variation, I'd lean towards the collar being the primary culprit, not the dies.

BTW, notice how star 5 is also weak? This could possibly be similar to the Blakesley effect often seen on coins struck on clipped planchets. The reduced collar pressure at 4 o'clock could lead to a weakness in strike at 10 o'clock.

Then again, I'm just making this stuff up...

LoveMyLiberty

Here's a selection from Coinfacts. All 1854 N-12.

PR-64RB


PR-64RB


PR-64RB


PR-63BN


MS-66BN



These were all struck by the same die pair.
They each have the same weak side right stars, the same die lines under the date,
and the same knife edge to an extent and the same repunched 1 in the date
that is visible depending on die state. The MS-66BN has less of a knife edge due
to advanced die wear.

Monstavet

They don't all have the same degree of weakness. The second one appears to be your coin. The fourth looks most similar to me. The first and third coin have much stronger detail on the stars. THe MS example also looks to match your coin's pattern.

ColonelJessup

<< <i>Likely made on the old medal press (a screw-type press). Uneveness was common. >>



What he said.

JRocco

It could be a weak strike with new dies. In fact the first struck coin with a new set of dies could
still be weak strike. The result would be a coin showing VEDS details where fully struck and flatter details
where weakly struck, this being struck on the older presses as mentioned.

michiganboy

Decide to bump this thread since it talks about star weakness in large cent proofs with certified pcgs examples and opinions of reasons. This is bump is just for reference to my 1837 large cent thread.

michiganboy

Read this thread before commenting on the stars of my large cent.

golden

Wow, what a coin!

CaptHenway

<< <i>Read this thread before commenting on the stars of my large cent. >>



You make an exccellent point. It does not seem to be mandatory on Proofs. Why, I do not know.
TD