Seated Liberty series expert needed
CoinZip
Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭
I have a question about how the dies were made for the Seated Liberty series.
Was the mint mark applied to the dies last? If so where was it applied, at the Branch Mint or were the Branch Mints handed dies with the MM already applied?
Was the mint mark applied to the dies last? If so where was it applied, at the Branch Mint or were the Branch Mints handed dies with the MM already applied?
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
0
Comments
<< <i>The dies, complete with mintmark, were prepared at the Philadelphia Mint and shipped to the branch mints. Two examples of mintmarks that were probably added by hand at the branch mints are the 1854-O "Huge "O" quarter and the 1870-S $3 gold. >>
This was true in most cases, but there were exceptions. I have read that the "S" on the unique 1870-S Three Dollar Gold piece was engraved by hand into the die at the San Francisco mint. This leads to the question as to why the San Francisco mint would have had a reverse die without a mint mark available.
In the majority of working dies, the finished working dies, including date and mint marks were sent to the branch mints.
In some cases, for example in the Carson City Mint in the 1870s, some softened working dies were sent.
I have not seen archive records yet, that show mint marks added at the Branch Mint, still looking though.
Kevin
<< <i>Curious what you all think happened with the 75-S/CC trade dollar. >>
Several possibilities
1. Reverse working dies were returned by the CC Branch Mints then used for SF,
such as returned Carson City reverses subsequently used in New Orleans in 1900.
2. Reverse working dies were prepared for CC at Phila, then they decided to use them for SF, abraded the CC, struck a S
3. As all of the mintmarks are at Phila, an Engraver accidently picked up an CC, struck lightly, realized his mistake, struck an S.
4. Engraver was bored and tired and wanted to create something noone would notice.
Kevin
<< <i>Curious what you all think happened with the 75-S/CC trade dollar. >>
One possible explanation, and this is just sheer speculation on my part, is that the Philadelphia Mint was preparing a shipment of dies to San Francisco that was to include x number of Trade Dollar reverses, and they came up one die short and did not have any other freshly-hubbed reverse dies that they could mint mark.
Rather than delay the shipment for several days while more reverses could be hubbed, they simply took a reverse die out of the box they were preparing for Carson City, which would not be ready for several days anyways, and changed the mint mark.
Does anybody have any information on the boxes that the Philadelphia Mint used to ship dies to the branch mints in? They must have been very sturdy and secure, and not cheap to make, and I'm sure that they would not want to ship a less-than-full box.
<< <i>
<< <i>Curious what you all think happened with the 75-S/CC trade dollar. >>
One possible explanation, and this is just sheer speculation on my part, is that the Philadelphia Mint was preparing a shipment of dies to San Francisco that was to include x number of Trade Dollar reverses, and they came up one die short and did not have any other freshly-hubbed reverse dies that they could mint mark.
Rather than delay the shipment for several days while more reverses could be hubbed, they simply took a reverse die out of the box they were preparing for Carson City, which would not be ready for several days anyways, and changed the mint mark.
Does anybody have any information on the boxes that the Philadelphia Mint used to ship dies to the branch mints in? They must have been very sturdy and secure, and not cheap to make, and I'm sure that they would not want to ship a less-than-full box. >>
One wrench I just remember about the 1875-S/CC, is there is a second variety of this OMM.
Not sure what boxes, but I know they were shipped as needed, they did not wait until they had a fixed number to fit a box. Sometimes it was 2 working dies, sometimes 20, sometimes more.
I know R.M. Patterson was a stickler about how the New Orleans Director was chastized by Patterson by not timely responding that he had received the working dies, that Patterson was worried that if the working dies were stolen, they could be used illegally.
Here is a sample letter of working dies
Letter to the Superintendent of the New Orleans Mint David Bradford from the Director of the Mint R.M. Patterson, dated March 15, 1839, regarding coinage operations.
I have to acknowledge the reciept this morning of your letter of the 7inst, with the accompanying report of the operations of your mint.
I wrote yesterday to inform you, that I had sent, the following dies
On the 26th ult, 2 pair of half dollar dies.
On the 12th, 1 pair of half dollar dies.
On the 14th, 2 pair of quarter eagle dies.
I repeat this information because through mistake, my letter was sent by ordinary mail. We are now getting dime and half dime dies, ready for you.
I advise that the dies of 1838 be not used by you, that we have sometimes used the dies of a particular year, for a few days after its close.
The number of pieces that can be struck with a pair of dies depends upon the hardening, and is very variable. On average is about 200,000.
Kevin
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>Although this tends to be an 'old man's' hobby, I think that I am correct in stating that none of us were present at the time of the minting of Liberty Seated coins. We must, therefore, rely on the scant primary source information from the Mint available to us today in order to answer questions like this. Documents such as the letter from Mint Director Patterson posted by Kevin Flynn provide much information in such studies. Most respondents here seem to agree that the mint marks for the branch mint dies were struck into the working dies at the Mother Mint in Philadelphia before the dies were shipped to the branch mints, and I have never seen any evidence to contradict this. But if we look at this with an objective and analytical eye, combined with just a fundamental knowledge of the minting processes involved, we can almost prove this to be true. The mint marks were punched into each of the working dies, individually, and by hand, during this period of the Mint's history; the mint marks were not part of the hub. In order for the mint marks to be punched into the working dies, the dies had to be in an annealed, or softened state. If the dies were hardened, it would be difficult to impossible for the mint mark punches to make a suitable impression. After the mint marks were impressed into the working dies, the dies were subsequently hardened, or tempered, before shipping to the branch mints. It is highly unlikely that the dies would have been shipped in a softened, or annealed, state for shipping, so that the branch mints could impart the mint marks. This would have required that the branch mints be equipped with the equipment and expertise to harden the dies before use, and there is no evidence that they were so equipped. Since the branch mints were generally less equipped with the technology or expertise for such operations, they relied on the die shop at the Mother Mint for such operations. Had the branch mints been responsible for punching the mint marks into the working dies, and subsequently hardening the dies, we would see many more errors associated with the mint marks, and almost certainly see more die cracks on the branch mint reverse dies, associated with problems in hardening of the dies. From all evidence seen, it is thus appropriate to assume that the mint marks were impressed into the working dies at the Mother Mint, before they were shipped to the branch mints. >>
I have absolutely seen archive records which showed softened working dies requested and sent to a branch mint, thereafter hardened by the branch mint, trying to locate them.
Just found a letter from Director to Sup of Phila Mint July 26, 76
I will thank you to call the attention of your Engraver to the following extract from a letter of Superintendent La Grange, in relation to dies furnished the Mint at San Francisco
The engraving of the letter S on the Dime dies is so deep that it appears like the figure 8 on the pieces when struck
Kevin
If I had it my way, stupidity would be painful!
A capsule history of the piece was provided by Walter Breen in an article in
the December 1963 issue of the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, an
excerpt of which follows:
The story of [ the 1870-S ] is interesting. Telegram of May 14, 1870 received
at the Philadelphia Mint from the San Francisco branch: LETTER S OMITTED
ON ONE AND THREE DOLLAR DIES SENT TO THIS BRANCH FOR THIS
YEAR. 2000 PIECES COINED. CAN THEY BE ISSUED. O.H. LAGRANGE
SUPT. [ The 2,000 pieces were gold dollars. ]
Following this is a letter dated May 27, 1870 from San Francisco superintendent
LaGrange to Director Pollock: " I enclose herewith the receipt of Wells Fargo & Co. for
one dollar and three dollar dies which were yesterday forwarded to you at
Philadelphia. It is proper to state that our Coiner [ J. B. Harmstead ] cut the letter S on
the three dollar die after it was received here for the purpose of stamping a single piece to be
put into the casket of the cornerstone of our new mint building. Only one piece was struck
under my direction for the purpose above stated."
After observing the coin, David Akers described it as having a pebbled appearance similar to a
coin which has been used as jewelry:
There is also minor damage at the obverse rim below the bust, indicating
that the coin probably was worn on a key chain or watch fob. The numerals
"893" have also been scratched upside down into the reverse field above the
wreath. The S mintmark is totally unlike the mintmark on any United States
coin, in particular the S Mint coins of 1870, lending credence to the story that
the mintmark was cut into the die by hand after the die reached San Francisco.
This information was obtained from the book, "United States Gold Coins, An
Illustrated History" by Q. David Bowers.
There are several references throughout the book regarding the Philadelphia Mint
shipping engraved dies with branch mintmarks to various branch mints around the U.S.
R.I.P. Bear
Here is an image of the 1870-S $3 Gold piece, courtesy of Bowers & Merena
Auctions, by way of PCGS CoinFacts.
R.I.P. Bear
<< <i>dies were sent from the mother mint "unhardened" the branch mints were to harden or brine the dies. the reason the dies were not sent to the branch mint already hardened was the threat of theft of the dies in transit. if "soft" dies were stolen, they wouldn't be much of a threat .... unless they fell into the hands of a thief that knew how to harden them >>
Interesting. And certainly news to me and many other students of the Mint. References? Sources?
This would seem to contradict the posts made here by CaptHenway, Astrorat, and LoveMyLiberty, plus the research done by Walter Breen, Don Taxay, and countless contributors to the Gobrecht Journal. If you have evidence supporting your theory, please share it with the rest of us.
<< <i>dies were sent from the mother mint "unhardened" the branch mints were to harden or brine the dies. the reason the dies were not sent to the branch mint already hardened was the threat of theft of the dies in transit. if "soft" dies were stolen, they wouldn't be much of a threat .... unless they fell into the hands of a thief that knew how to harden them >>
I would respectfully disagree with this generalized assertion. I believe unhardened dies were sent during certain periods, but that the normal procedure was that the working dies were hardened and tempered.
For example, I found an 1876 CC letter that stated that the base of the half dollar working dies received were not tempered so as to make it easier to use in the coining press. The letter goes on to state that the CC Mint had no facilities to harden or temper working dies.
The period I am looking at that I believe unhardened working dies were sent was 1838-39 with the New Orleans Mint. I believe the reason in part was worry of theft as you stated. But I have to read through all the letters again.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>dies were sent from the mother mint "unhardened" the branch mints were to harden or brine the dies. the reason the dies were not sent to the branch mint already hardened was the threat of theft of the dies in transit. if "soft" dies were stolen, they wouldn't be much of a threat .... unless they fell into the hands of a thief that knew how to harden them >>
Interesting. And certainly news to me and many other students of the Mint. References? Sources?
This would seem to contradict the posts made here by CaptHenway, Astrorat, and LoveMyLiberty, plus the research done by Walter Breen, Don Taxay, and countless contributors to the Gobrecht Journal. If you have evidence supporting your theory, please share it with the rest of us. >>
I have always believed the theory that for many decades starting in 1838 (and well into the 20th century) dies were shipped to the branch mints in an unhardened state and then hardened at the branch mints. I do not recall posting otherwise.
The strongest evidence supporting this theory is that dies from certain mints, specifically Charlotte and Dahlonega during their lifetimes, New Orleans during the first part of the Morgan Dollar era, and Denver & San Francisco during the Peace dollar era, show signs of improper die hardening (such as warping or "mushiness") that is not seen on the Philadelphia Mint coins of the same years. If all of the dies had been hardened in Philadelphia, you would not see this selective improper hardening when, presumably, the various Coiners at the various mints simply did not know how to harden dies properly.
TD
<< <i>I have always believed the theory that for many decades starting in 1838 (and well into the 20th century) dies were shipped to the branch mints in an unhardened state and then hardened at the branch mints. I do not recall posting otherwise.
The strongest evidence supporting this theory is that dies from certain mints, specifically Charlotte and Dahlonega during their lifetimes, New Orleans during the first part of the Morgan Dollar era, and Denver & San Francisco during the Peace dollar era, show signs of improper die hardening (such as warping or "mushiness") that is not seen on the Philadelphia Mint coins of the same years. If all of the dies had been hardened in Philadelphia, you would not see this selective improper hardening when, presumably, the various Coiners at the various mints simply did not know how to harden dies properly.
TD >>
Tom,
I have not researched the Charlotte and Dahonega Mints yet, not the Denver or San Fran during the Peace Dollar era.
I just read a letter from CC in 76 that said they did not have the facilities to harden and temper the working dies.
I also just read one from SF about half dollar working dies they were having problems with and Barber was hardening them
specifically before he sent.
My curiousity is towards your statement of mushiness of the Peace Dollars from SF and D, but not seen Phila for the same years.
Assume you are speaking of mushy design element details.
Are all the coins from SF and D mushy compared to Phila, or only a percentage? Is it for certain years, or all?
Could it be the result of other factors such as striking pressure, collars used, the actual coining press, treatment of the planchets before being struck? Look at the Franklins, how the SF coins for certain years are all mushy. Is this from die hardening or from how they were being struck?
Have you seen any archive letters to support your belief that working dies were hardened at the branch mints?
Is not the process of hardening the result of heating the working die in a specific manner over a period, then using a specific cooling method to allow to harden. I will go back and look for letters regarding this process, even though it probably evolved over time.
Thanks
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>I have always believed the theory that for many decades starting in 1838 (and well into the 20th century) dies were shipped to the branch mints in an unhardened state and then hardened at the branch mints. I do not recall posting otherwise.
The strongest evidence supporting this theory is that dies from certain mints, specifically Charlotte and Dahlonega during their lifetimes, New Orleans during the first part of the Morgan Dollar era, and Denver & San Francisco during the Peace dollar era, show signs of improper die hardening (such as warping or "mushiness") that is not seen on the Philadelphia Mint coins of the same years. If all of the dies had been hardened in Philadelphia, you would not see this selective improper hardening when, presumably, the various Coiners at the various mints simply did not know how to harden dies properly.
TD >>
Tom,
I have not researched the Charlotte and Dahonega Mints yet, not the Denver or San Fran during the Peace Dollar era.
I just read a letter from CC in 76 that said they did not have the facilities to harden and temper the working dies.
I also just read one from SF about half dollar working dies they were having problems with and Barber was hardening them
specifically before he sent.
My curiousity is towards your statement of mushiness of the Peace Dollars from SF and D, but not seen Phila for the same years.
Assume you are speaking of mushy design element details.
Are all the coins from SF and D mushy compared to Phila, or only a percentage? Is it for certain years, or all?
Could it be the result of other factors such as striking pressure, collars used, the actual coining press, treatment of the planchets before being struck? Look at the Franklins, how the SF coins for certain years are all mushy. Is this from die hardening or from how they were being struck?
Have you seen any archive letters to support your belief that working dies were hardened at the branch mints?
Is not the process of hardening the result of heating the working die in a specific manner over a period, then using a specific cooling method to allow to harden. I will go back and look for letters regarding this process, even though it probably evolved over time.
Thanks
Kevin >>
Look at the 1921-PD&S Morgan dollar dies. The Philadelphia dies were properly hardened, and held up well. The Denver dies were overhardened, and held their detail but cracked a lot. The San Francisco dies were too soft, and the detail got all mushy.
It wasn't just the dollar dies during the 1920's that appear to have been improperly hardened. Look at the 1922 Denver cent dies, how mushy the obverses and reverses get. Likewise the 1926-S cents, and the 1926-D&S nickel dies. There is one 1926 nickel die where the mint mark is so mushed down that we never could decide if it was a D or an S.
Since the dies were all made in Philadelphia from the same die steel stock, the only logical explanation is that the branch mints were not properly hardening the dies they received from Philadelphia.
TD
This information was obtained from the book by Roger W. Burdette
titled "From Mine To Mint", American Coinage Operations and
Technology 1833 to 1937 . Seneca Mill Press 2013.
In my opinion, this is a terrific book filled with an enormous array of
facts, documents, photos & pertinent numismatic information.
Die Making Policy (page 385)
All working dies for circulating coinage were made at the Philadelphia
Mint in the die shop. This operation was part of the engraving department
and controlled by the Engraver of the United States Mint at Philadelphia.
Addition of mint marks was also the exclusive prevue (sic) of the
engraving department.
The book goes on to say that when the S.F. Mint opened, their coin presses
were of a hybrid type using mint-made & commercial parts. There were
adjustments required to die preparation for this and the Charlotte & Dahlonega
Mints.
On page 386 a long paragraph discusses the issue of sending unhardened
dies to the S.F. Mint & later to the Carson City Mint as a precaution against
usable dies falling into the hands of crooks, or unstable governments such
as Mexico,,, ,,,and possibly the United States gov'ment ! The last part are
my words. This procedure also permitted local mint machinists to cut the
die shank to the correct diameter & length for the branch mint presses.
The book states that all mints except Charlotte & Dahlonega had the ability
to harden & temper working dies. (perhaps?)
There were many strict policy statements issued by the U.S. Mint, however
it appears that often there was a tolerance for branch mints to operate with
more latitude and sometimes enforcement of policy was lax.
This is a complex area of numismatic history covering many decades of change,
improved technology, change of personalities and often very poor record keeping.
All facts are set in stone,,,,,,,,,until we find they were different.
R.I.P. Bear
<< <i>Look at the 1921-PD&S Morgan dollar dies. The Philadelphia dies were properly hardened, and held up well. The Denver dies were overhardened, and held their detail but cracked a lot. The San Francisco dies were too soft, and the detail got all mushy.
It wasn't just the dollar dies during the 1920's that appear to have been improperly hardened. Look at the 1922 Denver cent dies, how mushy the obverses and reverses get. Likewise the 1926-S cents, and the 1926-D&S nickel dies. There is one 1926 nickel die where the mint mark is so mushed down that we never could decide if it was a D or an S.
Since the dies were all made in Philadelphia from the same die steel stock, the only logical explanation is that the branch mints were not properly hardening the dies they received from Philadelphia.
TD >>
Tom,
My other questions still apply, is not weakness in strike (mushy strike) also possible from other factors such as
incorrect pressure used in the coining press, inproper annealing of the planchets before being struck, or something else?
How could the SF and D Mints suddenly loose their ability/knowledge to harden working dies? I believed the Barber series was
relatively the same as the Phila counterparts, were working dies shipped softened to the branch mints for these series?
Do you believe they were sent softened throughout, or just for certain time periods or series?
I am not arguing that the BMs did a poor job during certain periods, I would just respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
Kevin
<< <i>This information was obtained from the book by Roger W. Burdette titled "From Mine To Mint", American Coinage Operations and
Technology 1833 to 1937 . Seneca Mill Press 2013. Die Making Policy (page 385) >>
Roger is a great researcher, I have not read this book, but from what you included herein, it included great conclusions, but where is the archive research or actual evidence which forms the basis of these conclusions? Please include these.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>Look at the 1921-PD&S Morgan dollar dies. The Philadelphia dies were properly hardened, and held up well. The Denver dies were overhardened, and held their detail but cracked a lot. The San Francisco dies were too soft, and the detail got all mushy.
It wasn't just the dollar dies during the 1920's that appear to have been improperly hardened. Look at the 1922 Denver cent dies, how mushy the obverses and reverses get. Likewise the 1926-S cents, and the 1926-D&S nickel dies. There is one 1926 nickel die where the mint mark is so mushed down that we never could decide if it was a D or an S.
Since the dies were all made in Philadelphia from the same die steel stock, the only logical explanation is that the branch mints were not properly hardening the dies they received from Philadelphia.
TD >>
Tom,
My other questions still apply, is not weakness in strike (mushy strike) also possible from other factors such as
incorrect pressure used in the coining press, inproper annealing of the planchets before being struck, or something else?
How could the SF and D Mints suddenly loose their ability/knowledge to harden working dies? I believed the Barber series was
relatively the same as the Phila counterparts, were working dies shipped softened to the branch mints for these series?
Do you believe they were sent softened throughout, or just for certain time periods or series?
I am not arguing that the BMs did a poor job during certain periods, I would just respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
Kevin >>
Mushy dies have nothing to do with the power behind the strike. Assuming it is properly hubbed, a new die starts out life with even fields and a considerable degree of die detail.
If the die is hardened properly and the press is generating sufficient striking pressure, you will get both good die detail and good striking detail. The die detail will slowly erode under extended usage, but unless the die is damaged by clashing and/or overpolishing most of the detail will still remain. Think of an 1881-S dollar.
If the die is hardened properly but the press is not generating sufficient striking pressure, you can get a coin with strong details where the die comes into contact with the planchet but weak or missing details where the planchet is not squeezed all the way into the recesses in the die. Think of an 1883-O dollar.
If the die is not hardened properly and the press is generating normal striking pressure, the details in the surface of the die can slump down and become "mushy" under the earliest strikes of the die. The field may also distort and get a bit wavy. These early strikes can then work harden the die so that, even though the appearance of the die is that of a very late state, the die has a normal lifespan ahead of it. The result is a date and mint mark with mushy strikes being the norm, as with 1926-D&S nickels.
If the die is not hardened properly AND the press is generatiing insufficient striking pressure, you get mushy die detail AND weakly struck high points. Think of 1924-S and 1925-S Peace dollars.
The way that the rims of the planchets were upset and the curvature of the basining of the dies can also affect the striking, but the question at hand is the hardening of the dies so we will not get into that here.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>Look at the 1921-PD&S Morgan dollar dies. The Philadelphia dies were properly hardened, and held up well. The Denver dies were overhardened, and held their detail but cracked a lot. The San Francisco dies were too soft, and the detail got all mushy.
It wasn't just the dollar dies during the 1920's that appear to have been improperly hardened. Look at the 1922 Denver cent dies, how mushy the obverses and reverses get. Likewise the 1926-S cents, and the 1926-D&S nickel dies. There is one 1926 nickel die where the mint mark is so mushed down that we never could decide if it was a D or an S.
Since the dies were all made in Philadelphia from the same die steel stock, the only logical explanation is that the branch mints were not properly hardening the dies they received from Philadelphia.
TD >>
Tom,
My other questions still apply, is not weakness in strike (mushy strike) also possible from other factors such as
incorrect pressure used in the coining press, inproper annealing of the planchets before being struck, or something else?
How could the SF and D Mints suddenly loose their ability/knowledge to harden working dies? I believed the Barber series was
relatively the same as the Phila counterparts, were working dies shipped softened to the branch mints for these series?
Do you believe they were sent softened throughout, or just for certain time periods or series?
I am not arguing that the BMs did a poor job during certain periods, I would just respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
Kevin >>
As to how can the Mint suddenly lose their ability/knowledge to harden working dies, workers can die or retire or get drafted into the military without properly training their replacements. Look at all the overdates circa 1823 when Robert Scot died, the 1844/1844-O half from the year Gobrecht died, and the repunched dates from 1869 when Longacre died.
Look at the number of improperly set (rotated) dies in 1864, and the overdates of 1918 and 1942 & 43. Look at the early Proofs of 1936 and 1950, and see how the Mint forgot how to make Proofs from the previous eras.
Mints lose technology all the time. Look at the Athenian owl coins. Who ever matched them?
TD
<< <i>As to how can the Mint suddenly lose their ability/knowledge to harden working dies, workers can die or retire or get drafted into the military without properly training their replacements. Look at all the overdates circa 1823 when Robert Scot died, the 1844/1844-O half from the year Gobrecht died, and the repunched dates from 1869 when Longacre died.
Look at the number of improperly set (rotated) dies in 1864, and the overdates of 1918 and 1942 & 43. Look at the early Proofs of 1936 and 1950, and see how the Mint forgot how to make Proofs from the previous eras.
Mints lose technology all the time. Look at the Athenian owl coins. Who ever matched them?
TD >>
Tom,
I agree over longer periods, such as between 1917 and 1936, and even shorter periods such as 1942 to 1950, especially when there is probably a turn over at the Mint of personnel, that knowledge was lost,
my point was more towards one year to the next, i.e. 1919 to 1920, to 1921. JP Morgan was the Chief Engraver during this period starting in 1917. If 1919 SF and D are struck well, i.e. the dies are not mushy,
why in 1921 are they mushy.
Longacre died January 1, 1869, the working dies would have probably have been done by then for that year, plus both Barbers were assistant engravers, plus I doubt that JBL was striking the date on each working dies,
I would believe (without proof), that this task would have been assign to a lower level person. Plus, there are not that many die varieties for 1869 as compared to 1868 and 1870, not sure what your point is here.
On the 1844 half RPD, you believe that this was somehow related to Gobrecht's death and Longacre being inexperienced? You believe Longacre did not have an eye for detail? That he would have been extra careful?
You believe that Gobrecht was in full capacity physically and mentally the last few years? I believe (without proof) that many of these dramatic die varieties created during the late 1840s (not just 1844, look at the 1846 proof
RPD), were created in part by Franklin Peale who was competing for the Mint equipment for his own medal making purposes (which is documented), and wanted in part to making the engraving dept look bad.
Kevin
<< <i>Mushy dies have nothing to do with the power behind the strike. Assuming it is properly hubbed, a new die starts out life with even fields and a considerable degree of die detail.
If the die is hardened properly and the press is generating sufficient striking pressure, you will get both good die detail and good striking detail. The die detail will slowly erode under extended usage, but unless the die is damaged by clashing and/or overpolishing most of the detail will still remain. Think of an 1881-S dollar.
If the die is hardened properly but the press is not generating sufficient striking pressure, you can get a coin with strong details where the die comes into contact with the planchet but weak or missing details where the planchet is not squeezed all the way into the recesses in the die. Think of an 1883-O dollar.
If the die is not hardened properly and the press is generating normal striking pressure, the details in the surface of the die can slump down and become "mushy" under the earliest strikes of the die. The field may also distort and get a bit wavy. These early strikes can then work harden the die so that, even though the appearance of the die is that of a very late state, the die has a normal lifespan ahead of it. The result is a date and mint mark with mushy strikes being the norm, as with 1926-D&S nickels.
If the die is not hardened properly AND the press is generatiing insufficient striking pressure, you get mushy die detail AND weakly struck high points. Think of 1924-S and 1925-S Peace dollars.
The way that the rims of the planchets were upset and the curvature of the basining of the dies can also affect the striking, but the question at hand is the hardening of the dies so we will not get into that here.
TD >>
Tom,
Part of my point is, even if you are right about certain years, the BMs hardened the dies and did a poor job, how does this prove that during all of the 19th century when Phila was creating working dies for the BMs, that they sent them softened to each branch mint.
Do you have any actual evidence that they were hardened at the BMs?
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>Mushy dies have nothing to do with the power behind the strike. Assuming it is properly hubbed, a new die starts out life with even fields and a considerable degree of die detail.
If the die is hardened properly and the press is generating sufficient striking pressure, you will get both good die detail and good striking detail. The die detail will slowly erode under extended usage, but unless the die is damaged by clashing and/or overpolishing most of the detail will still remain. Think of an 1881-S dollar.
If the die is hardened properly but the press is not generating sufficient striking pressure, you can get a coin with strong details where the die comes into contact with the planchet but weak or missing details where the planchet is not squeezed all the way into the recesses in the die. Think of an 1883-O dollar.
If the die is not hardened properly and the press is generating normal striking pressure, the details in the surface of the die can slump down and become "mushy" under the earliest strikes of the die. The field may also distort and get a bit wavy. These early strikes can then work harden the die so that, even though the appearance of the die is that of a very late state, the die has a normal lifespan ahead of it. The result is a date and mint mark with mushy strikes being the norm, as with 1926-D&S nickels.
If the die is not hardened properly AND the press is generatiing insufficient striking pressure, you get mushy die detail AND weakly struck high points. Think of 1924-S and 1925-S Peace dollars.
The way that the rims of the planchets were upset and the curvature of the basining of the dies can also affect the striking, but the question at hand is the hardening of the dies so we will not get into that here.
TD >>
Tom,
Part of my point is, even if you are right about certain years, the BMs hardened the dies and did a poor job, how does this prove that during all of the 19th century when Phila was creating working dies for the BMs, that they sent them softened to each branch mint.
Do you have any actual evidence that they were hardened at the BMs?
Kevin >>
No, just as you have no evidence that the Philadelphia Mint hardened the dies before sending them out, which you would present if you did.
All I have is the experience of having looked at a lot of coins while authenticating and grading for the ANA and elsewhere, and the ability to make logical conclusions based upon those observations.
The theory that the Philadelphia Mint shipped unhardened dies to the branch mints is the simplest explanation for the observed results. I claim Occam's Razor to support my theory.
linky
"Our Trade Dollar dies were sent from the Philadelphia Mint without the base of the die being hardened and tempered, so that they might be filled to the Coining Press here.
We have no facilities for hardening and tempering them properly, we have had had to use them untempered. The result has been that under the requisite pressure for coinage those we have used sunk 1/32 to 2/32 of an inch and their radius has been destroyed.
At present we have only four sets perfect. Of these we have sent two pairs to the San Francisco Mint to get them properly tempered throughout.
I enclose a sketch of the exact size of our trade dollar die when fitted to the press, with no pieces, the exact height of the obverse and reverse dies fitted. Will you be kind enough to order from the Philadelphia Mint for us
6 Reverse Trade Dollar dies
4 obverse Trade Dollar dies
of the dimensions of the sketch, hardened and tempered throughout."
Conclusions drawn
1. CC Mint did not have facilities to harden and temper working dies during this period
2. SF Mint could harden and temper working dies during this period
3. The CC Mint was sent Trade Dollar working dies with the top of the working die with the design element hardened and tempered, but the bottom the working die not tempered so as to help fit it in the Coining Press
4. The CC Mint specifically requested Trade Dollars to be prepared that were hardened and tempered.
Of course, this is only one time period and does not mean this was done during the entire 19th century.
I have literally thousands and thousands of copies of archive records, I remembered this example, but it took me a while to find.
I have another that I will include tomorrow.
Kevin
<< <i>Interesting. And certainly news to me and many other students of the Mint. References? Sources?
This would seem to contradict the posts made here by CaptHenway, Astrorat, and LoveMyLiberty, plus the research done by Walter Breen, Don Taxay, and countless contributors to the Gobrecht Journal. If you have evidence supporting your theory, please share it with the rest of us. >>
I just went through Taxey's U.S. Mint and Coinage, did not see reference to working dies being hardened and sent to Branch Mints. I did see a photo on page 299 that references dies being hardened, but this appears to be in the early 1940s. I did not see any references to this for the 19th century. Please correct me if I am wrong. Or is this in another of Taxey's books?
I read through the 4 volumes (I believe there is a 5th also) of the LSCC Ledger, do not remember evidence supporting this either way, can you provide reference please.
Astrorat simply drew a conclusion, did not support his assertion with evidence
I agree, LoveMyLiberty provided a quote from Bower's book which included a letter from 1870 establishing the MM was added at the BM.
Research done by Walter Breen? I only wish that our collective knowledge and ability to challenge and push each other was there 40 years ago. I believe if people challenged Breen's writings back then, I believe he would have taken the time to actually validate it. I have found from archive research and studying the coins, that there is so much wrong with his Encyclopedia and Proof book, it drives me nuts, especially when I heard many times over and over, it must be true, because Breen put it in writing.
It would greatly help the discussion here if you provided specific references for the above
Thanks
Kevin
In 1876, San Francisco was having problems with half dollar working dies sent.
Letter from SF Coiner, August 26, 1876
"I beg to inform you that the 18 obverse half dollar dies last received per requisition of July 19, are unfit for use. They are too much concaved - in other words to flat.
The steel of the body of the dies is much too brittle; were it of the same temper as that of the Trade Dollar dies, it would be satisfactory. The half dollar dies reverse are finished on a 14 inch radius, the obverse on a 17 inch radius, if the former were finished on a radius of the size of the latter, and the latter on the size of the former, it would be much better. I may be able to use 3 or 4 out of the 18 to advantage, but that will be all.
The pieces struck with these dies will not stack well, in a pile of 40 pieces, the height will differ the thickness of one piece, from a pile of an equal number of pieces struck with other dies, besides the piles will not stand straight and steady."
Letter from Acting Director Preston to Phila Sup. Pollock dated Sept 6, 1876
"I transmit herewith a copy of a letter from the Coiner of the Mint at San Francisco in relation to the condition of dies sent to him from your Mint.
I will thank you to show this letter to your Engraver and Coiner, and submit to this office an expression on of their opinion thereon, and also state whether the dies sent to San Francisco differ in any manner from those used at your Mint"
Letter from Director Linderman to Phila Sup Pollock dated Oct 6, 1876
"I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th inst, covering a communication from the Coiner and Engraver of your Mint in relation to alleged defective dies received from San Francisco.
I will thank you to cause to be prepared and transmitted to the Mint at San Francisco, two sets of Half Dollar dies, tempered and finished in every respect like the dies in use in your Mint, and ready to be placed in the press. These dies should be made similar in size to those returned from San Francisco, in order that they may fit their presses without further adjustment.
You will have these dies pretested before shipment and trasmit a sample of the coins struck by them, to this office for comparison with those which will be sent from San Francisco.
You will also procure and ship the Mint at San Francisco, a complete set of basins."
Letter from William Barber to Phila Sup Pollock dated Oct 7, 76
"In response to your letter of the 6th inst, calling for two sets of half dollar dies for the Mint at San Francisco, tempered and finished in every respect like those in use in our Mint, and ready to be placed in the press.
I respectfully hand in the dies herein named fulfilling all the requirements mentioned, excepting that as the gentlemen at San Francisco only sent us back the obverse die, and not the reverse, they wil have to shorten the latter from the bottom to whatever length as die they require, those dies sent out by Mr. Downing where in the same state, and the reversre were shortened to suit themselves."
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting. And certainly news to me and many other students of the Mint. References? Sources?
This would seem to contradict the posts made here by CaptHenway, Astrorat, and LoveMyLiberty, plus the research done by Walter Breen, Don Taxay, and countless contributors to the Gobrecht Journal. If you have evidence supporting your theory, please share it with the rest of us. >>
I just went through Taxey's U.S. Mint and Coinage, did not see reference to working dies being hardened and sent to Branch Mints. I did see a photo on page 299 that references dies being hardened, but this appears to be in the early 1940s. I did not see any references to this for the 19th century. Please correct me if I am wrong. Or is this in another of Taxey's books?
I read through the 4 volumes (I believe there is a 5th also) of the LSCC Ledger, do not remember evidence supporting this either way, can you provide reference please.
Astrorat simply drew a conclusion, did not support his assertion with evidence
I agree, LoveMyLiberty provided a quote from Bower's book which included a letter from 1870 establishing the MM was added at the BM.
Research done by Walter Breen? I only wish that our collective knowledge and ability to challenge and push each other was there 40 years ago. I believe if people challenged Breen's writings back then, I believe he would have taken the time to actually validate it. I have found from archive research and studying the coins, that there is so much wrong with his Encyclopedia and Proof book, it drives me nuts, especially when I heard many times over and over, it must be true, because Breen put it in writing.
It would greatly help the discussion here if you provided specific references for the above
Thanks
Kevin >>
I just skimmed through Taxay's "Counterfeit, Mis-Struck and Unofficial U.S. Coins," and see nothing on the subject of branch mint dies being sent out hardened or unhardened.
Obviously, there were exceptions, such as the 1870-S Three Dollar gold coin, which was said to have had the S engraved at the San Fran Mint. One thought on this, normally, you would want the working die to be annealed to strike the mint mark on. BUT, the question here, is if engraving, or cutting the mint mark into the working die by hand, would it be relevant if the working die was hardened or not such as was done before 1836 when the Engraver cut the entire design onto the face of the master die.
I admire people like TD who state what they believe and why the believe in it.
Kevin
<< <i>Going back to the original question, it is believed that for the majority of working dies for the Branch Mint in the 19th century, the mint mark was added at the Philadelphia Mint. There is no evidence I have found to contradict this.
Obviously, there were exceptions, such as the 1870-S Three Dollar gold coin, which was said to have had the S engraved at the San Fran Mint. One thought on this, normally, you would want the working die to be annealed to strike the mint mark on. BUT, the question here, is if engraving, or cutting the mint mark into the working die by hand, would it be relevant if the working die was hardened or not such as was done before 1836 when the Engraver cut the entire design onto the face of the master die.
On another point, I find it interesting, that during a discussion, when you call on some people who have made statements/conclusions/assertions/claims to provide proof/evidence/basis of their statements, or just provide where they got their information, some people just go poof, gone, disappeared, no more.
I admire people like TD who state what they believe and why the believe in it.
Kevin >>
Thank you. And while we sometimes disagree, I always respect your opinion.
And FWIW, my wife and I had to take her daughter to an art class around the corner from the ANA Tuesday morning, so after a trip downtown to our favorite bookstore and then bakery we stopped in at the ANA and I took another look at the 1870-S in the Bass Collection. Still marvelous as ever!