SS Central America Kellogg & Co Slugs - Transfer Dies or Copy Dies?
Zoins
Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
The official story is that the California Historical Society (CHS) Kellogg & Co. slugs issued with gold found in the S.S. Central America were made using "transfer dies" made from the original master dies. However, Daniel Carr recently indicated this may not be the case. If so, the CHS pieces may be made from "copy dies" with no direct relation to the original dies other than perhaps the original dies were on hand when the new dies were created, i.e. nothing was physically transferred from the original dies to the new dies.
Here are some images from CoinFacts of an original copper die trial and a modern CHS issue. What do you think? Does the modern gold piece look like it was struck from transfer dies or copy dies?
Contemporary copper die trial struck with original dies:
Modern gold issue struck with new dies:
Here are some images from CoinFacts of an original copper die trial and a modern CHS issue. What do you think? Does the modern gold piece look like it was struck from transfer dies or copy dies?
Contemporary copper die trial struck with original dies:
Modern gold issue struck with new dies:
Tagged:
0
Comments
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>That is the official story. I'm skeptical. How was the "transfer" accomplished ? To me, they look like an engraver looked at the die while engraving a copy die by hand.
To make such a "transfer die" the way the Mint does it, you would have to use the original die like it was a master die, and generate a working hub from it.
This puts a lot of stress on the original die - much more than just striking a coin with it. Then you'd have to use that working hub to make a new working die.
Any defects (rust pits) in the original die would be transferred as well. >>
Definitely artist's copy.
Different date digit placement alone rules out the use of transfer dies.
The following stood out as having different looks for me:
- position of 1 and 8 in 1855
- fields around "TY DO" in FIFTY DOLLS.
- 887 THOUS in the ribbon
Anyway, my understanding is that the copy dies were created with some computer-assisted process, but that the initial template was lifted from the original dies. (There is no question that the original dies were available, so why not use them?)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
What I'm thinking now is, the "transfer" was actually accomplised using a 3-D pantograph. The engraver (by hand) moves a hard plastic (or whatever) stylus over the original die face. Connected to the stylus is the pantograph mechanism, which causes an engraving bit to move over a blank die face following the same 3-D motions as the stylus.
So the transfer was not what we would normally think of as a mechanical impression. But rather, the transfer was accomplished via a 3-D tracing.
During such a process, if the stylus were slightly wider than the engraving bit, the devices (lettering) on the copy die would be slightly thinner than the original.
Conversely, if the stylus was slightly thinner than the engraving bit, the devices (lettering) on the copy die would be slightly fatter than the original.
It appears from the pictures that the stylus was very slightly fatter than the engraving bit (note the size of the dot after "DOLLS", for example).
After the basic engraving was complete, the engraver could add lettering to the banner. Other details could be strengthened by going over them again (possibly using a different engraving bit).
<< <i>Did anyone notice that the ribbon on the modern pieces reads "SS CENTRAL AMERICA GOLD"? >>
This change was officially stated so I didn't feel there was a need to investigate it.
However, it was also stated that these were "restrikes" made from "transfer dies." That's what I'm trying to get to to bottom of
Thanks for the explanation. The tracing theory seems like it can explain some of the anomalies this piece seems to have that are not normally present in restrikes. I've always wondered about some of the devices on these pieces such as the wide flat areas between the points of the stars as I've felt that no engraver would purposely make the spaces that wide and non-uniform. This and other things like the narrow letters and flatness in the fields can be explained by a 3-D trace subsequently edited in a computer program.
@Edwin:
Thanks for mentioning the modern dies were done by Ron Landis. I've admired his work and have wished he would participate on these forums where I know he has a number of fans. It would be great to have him and his experience here.
<< <i>@Dan:
Thanks for the explanation. The tracing theory seems like it can explain some of the anomalies this piece seems to have that are not normally present in restrikes. I've always wondered about some of the devices on these pieces such as the wide flat areas between the points of the stars as I've felt that no engraver would purposely make the spaces that wide. This and other things like the narrow letters and flatness in the fields can be explained by a 3-D trace subsequently edited in a computer program. ... >>
I don't think a computer program was involved here. Ron Landis doesn't do CNC (computer-controlled) engraving.
Sanding, smoothing, and polishing of the dies can account for some of the differences in appearance.
<< <i>
<< <i>@Dan:
Thanks for the explanation. The tracing theory seems like it can explain some of the anomalies this piece seems to have that are not normally present in restrikes. I've always wondered about some of the devices on these pieces such as the wide flat areas between the points of the stars as I've felt that no engraver would purposely make the spaces that wide. This and other things like the narrow letters and flatness in the fields can be explained by a 3-D trace subsequently edited in a computer program. ... >>
I don't think a computer program was involved here. Ron Landis doesn't do CNC (computer-controlled) engraving.
Sanding, smoothing, and polishing of the dies can account for some of the differences in appearance. >>
Good points. Ron is focused on hand engraving and I haven't seen any CNC engraving from him. Also sanding, smoothing, and polishing of the die will result in the disappearance of lower profile devices which this seems to have.
Given that Ron is the engraver, would it appear the CHS piece is struck by hand-engraved copy dies as opposed to dies created from a transfer via working hub or 3-D pantograph?
<< <i>The official story is that the California Historical Society (CHS) Kellogg & Co. slugs issued with gold found in the S.S. Central America were made using "transfer dies" made from the original master dies. However, Daniel Carr recently indicated this may not be the case. If so, the CHS pieces may be made from "copy dies" with no direct relation to the original dies other than perhaps the original dies were on hand when the new dies were created, i.e. nothing was physically transferred from the original dies to the new dies.
Here are some images from CoinFacts of an original copper die trial and a modern CHS issue. What do you think? Does the modern gold piece look like it was struck from transfer dies or copy dies?
Contemporary copper die trial struck with original dies:
Modern gold issue struck with new dies:
Looks like a pattern in copper and an original proof. The more mdern restrikes changed the ribbon over the eagle's head and the date the coin was struck is stamped into the reverse. These design changes were made to avoid having to add "COPY" to the coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Looks like a pattern in copper and an original proof. The more mdern restrikes changed the ribbon over the eagle's head and the date the coin was struck is stamped into the reverse. These design changes were made to avoid having to add "COPY" to the coin. >>
Take a closer look at the ribbon on the gold piece. It says "SS CENTRAL AMERICA GOLD CHS" so it's clearly a modern Ron Landis piece. Since the date struck was stamped using a punch and not engraved into the die, I'm guessing some pieces escaped without being stamped.
<< <i>... would it appear the CHS piece is struck by hand-engraved copy dies as opposed to dies created from a transfer via working hub or 3-D pantograph? >>
I think they were made using a 3-D pantograph (transfer via tracing).
<< <i>Take a closer look at the ribbon on the gold piece. It says "SS CENTRAL AMERICA GOLD CHS" so it's clearly a modern Ron Landis piece. Since the date struck was stamped using a punch and not engraved into the die, I'm guessing some pieces escaped without being stamped. >>
Possible. But that might be a promotional photograph for marketing purposes, and no coins without the hand-stamp were ever released.
<< <i>
<< <i>... would it appear the CHS piece is struck by hand-engraved copy dies as opposed to dies created from a transfer via working hub or 3-D pantograph? >>
I think they were made using a 3-D pantograph (transfer via tracing). >>
I was under the impression that a 3-D pantograph was a computerized device, but apparently it's not. I found this on the net and it looks pretty neat.
<< <i>
<< <i>Take a closer look at the ribbon on the gold piece. It says "SS CENTRAL AMERICA GOLD CHS" so it's clearly a modern Ron Landis piece. Since the date struck was stamped using a punch and not engraved into the die, I'm guessing some pieces escaped without being stamped. >>
Possible. But that might be a promotional photograph for marketing purposes, and no coins without the hand-stamp were ever released. >>
Escape doesn't necessarily mean released here. It could also mean struck but escaped the stamping process. I imagine it's possible some were struck without the hand-stamp and not released.