Why are Full Bands so rare on 1945-P dimes?

CaptHenway

Does anybody have a good theory as to why "Full Bands" are so tough on 1945-P dimes? It does not appear to have anything to do with the relief of the hubs, since the dies provided to Denver and San Francisco could produce them. And, we know that the bands were on the dies, since there are a few broadstruck errors in the 1945-P that display Full Bands.

If we were talking Morgan dollars my best guess would be that the working dies were somehow basined improperly so that they were not convex enough, as happened with the early New Orleans dollars which were typically weakly struck about the ear, but Mercury head dies were not basined, to the best of my knowledge. The only other thing I can think of that would be Mint-specific would be a change in the way that the planchets were upset. Does anybody have any other plausible ideas?

TD

keyman64

I believe the dies were used for a much longer period of time and not replaced. The dies were worn out and they kept using them over and over again...

keyman64

David W. Lange shared the following in his 2005 book. LINKY


The reason for this issue being so rare with full center bands has never been satisfactorily explained. Since the dies for all three mints were prepared at Philadelphia, there was nothing fundamentally different about them. Even if some of the revere dies lacked center bands altogether, due to inadequate hubbing, their distribution would have been random among the three mints. The mints were likewise using very similar equipment in striking the coins, all presses of that period being electrically powered and having a knuckle action.

There were only two variables in the minting equation: One was the collars, as these typically were machined onsite at each of the different mints. The second variable is the upsetting mill, which applied a raised rim to each planchet before it was sent to the coin press. Slight differences in the diameter of the collar or the curvature of the rims could result in detectable variations in the finished coins. An excellent example of this influence is found in the 1921(P) dimes, which almost invariably have full bands, yet typically are weak at their peripheries.

Ironically, the coins of this date most likely to have split or full bands are error pieces. The unconventional displacement of metal associated with broadstruck, off-centered or struck-through dimes has left many with strong central details, including the center bands! For some examples of this curious phenomenon see Chapter 2.

CaptHenway

OK, if the 1921-P dime planchets were very weakly upset at the rims, then the centers of the dies could have come together better before the outer regions of the dies met resistance from the upset rims.

Conversely, if the 1945-P dime planchets were overly upset, then the dies could have been meeting resistance earlier than normal.

As another suggestion, RWB suggested ATS that perhaps the planchets were not annealed properly. A good possibility.

Does anybody have pictures of an off-center 1945-P dime that might show the characteristics of the upset rim? I suppose that pictures of other off-center mercury dimes from the 1940's would also be good for comparison.

TD

oreville

FDR passed away in April 1945 but it was well known his health was failing before then.

It was pretty well known that the mercury dime was going to be replaced in 1946 by a FDR dime.

The mintage of the 1945-P dime was quadruple that of the 1945-D and 1945-S dime and thus the dies were in use much longer than in Denver and SF. the economy on the East coast was booming because the soldiers were coming home from Europe WWII much sooner than the Pacific WWII side and the demand was much greater on the Philly Mint than anticipated.

It is my theory that the Philly Mint lowered the minting pressure of the machines to extend the life of the dies creating a loss of detail at the high point which was the center bands on the reverse. The SF and Denver mints were not under the same pressure to ramp up production of the dimes.

This has been discussed in earlier threads.

CaptHenway

The problem with blaming the lack of Full Bands on excessive die wear is that those dies had to have been new for a while, and if they were otherwise normal they should have produced a few Full strikes before they got excessively worn.

The ratios of Philadelphia to Denver to San Francisco strikes were comparable in 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945, but the central striking issue was noticably different in 1945 alone.

cladking

<< <i>FDR passed away in April 1945 but it was well known his health was failing before then.

It was pretty well known that the mercury dime was going to be replaced in 1946 by a FDR dime.

The mintage of the 1945-P dime was quadruple that of the 1945-D and 1945-S dime and thus the dies were in use much longer than in Denver and SF. the economy on the East coast was booming because the soldiers were coming home from Europe WWII much sooner than the Pacific WWII side and the demand was much greater on the Philly Mint than anticipated.

It is my theory that the Philly Mint lowered the minting pressure of the machines to extend the life of the dies creating a loss of detail at the high point which was the center bands on the reverse. The SF and Denver mints were not under the same pressure to ramp up production of the dimes.

This has been discussed in earlier threads. >>



I'm in general agreement. Dies were overused and even new die strikes often don't have
as much detail as others. Since there is significant scarcity involved there may well be other
factors also. If they used a lot fewer dies then there were a lot fewer opportunities to make
one of them right. Like '66 quarters almost none of them are well made.

keyman64

Here is a coin I used to own in case you have an interest. Uncentered Broadstruck...but Full Band due to the error.

leothelyon

Absolutely amazing strike on the bands for the 45-P OC. Yep, for sure, the design was in the dies. Same effect with OC Jefferson nickels that brought out the 6 steps in the die. This only supports the ideology that the mint made every effort to produce "collector coins" before taming the hammer down in the presses to strike the huge amount of circulating coins needed for commerce.


Leo

CaptHenway

@Keyman ... Yep, I've seen those before (think Bill Fivaz had one) and from your picture it does not appear that the upset rim was anything unusual.

I think that RWB's sugestion of improper annealing is the best suggestion so far. Excessive die wear on every die state of every die just does not make sense.

tradedollarnut

Note that Oreville did not state excessive die wear as the reason - rather he stated the Mint lowered striking pressure to prevent excessive die wear. Thus the lower striking pressure is the cause.

EastonCollection

excellent reading and discussion - love reading more in these areas.

keyman64

<< <i>Note that Oreville did not state excessive die wear as the reason - rather he stated the Mint lowered striking pressure to prevent excessive die wear. Thus the lower striking pressure is the cause. >>

Correct. I have not noticed excessively weak OBVERSE strikes on 1945 Mercs...weak strikes sure, but not excessively weak like we see on the REVERSE. I would think if striking pressure was reduced to extend the life of the dies and this was the approach then the lowered pressure would have been noticed on the obverse equally? Just some random thoughts...

Could someone provide a good description of the "annealing process" and how it might be done improperly? I am not sure I have that straight in my head. Thanks!

Current PCGS Pops show 114 1945 Mercs with Full Bands...just thought I would add that to the conversation...so there is a good chance there are fewer than 200 total, maybe lower than 150...just a random guess.

CaptHenway

The annealing oven I saw in use at the Philadelphia Mint in 2009 was essentially a cylindrical screw within a tube, set at an angle, that carried planchets up from the input box through a heated chamber. When they came out through the upper end of the tube they fell into a hopper where they were allowed to cool before striking.

I would imagine that several things could be done wrong. The heated chamber might not be hot enough, the screw could be turning too fast so that the planchets did not spend enough time in the chamber, or the screw could be overloaded with planchets so that the hot air could not reach and warm the planchets sufficiently.

georgiacop50

<< <i>I think that RWB's sugestion of improper annealing is the best suggestion so far. >>



Yep. Either the oven was not hot enuff, or the planchets were put through too quickly and did not spend enuff time at the "proper" temperature. This would result in "harder than normal" planchets.

RWB has proferred the same theory for S-mint Franklins and the relative scarcity of FBL's for issues like the 1953-S.

Another plausible "side effect" of the improper annealing is the characteristic S-mint luster seen on San Fran coinage.

Do 1945-P dimes have any unusual luster characteristics?

keyman64

<< <i>Do 1945-P dimes have any unusual luster characteristics? >>

I have never noticed anything like that. I would say, no.

georgiacop50

The improperly annealed planchet theory would be easily proved or disproved by performing metallurgical analysis ofunstruck plachet hardness if it could be verified that the unstruck planchets were indeed from the strike rarity mint/year.

So anybody got blank planchets from a sealed bag of 45-p dimes or 53-S Franklins? That's what is needed.

CaptHenway

<< <i>The improperly annealed planchet theory would be easily proved or disproved by performing metallurgical analysis ofunstruck plachet hardness if it could be verified that the unstruck planchets were indeed from the strike rarity mint/year.

So anybody got blank planchets from a sealed bag of 45-p dimes or 53-S Franklins? That's what is needed. >>



We don't have such planchets to test, but might it be worthwhile to do something like a Rockwell Hardness Test on a few average circulated examples from each of the three 1945 mints?

mustangmanbob

Any possibility that we were 4 years into a war, supplies of everything had been used and reused, and making dimes of an off the wall chart that didn't exist at the time was not a big concern.

oreville

<< <i>
Note that Oreville did not state excessive die wear as the reason - rather he stated the Mint lowered striking pressure to prevent excessive die wear. Thus the lower striking pressure is the cause. >>



THat was exactly my point. I am surprised no one else besides TDN and so few others understood my post.

By the way, the Philly Mint problems seem to have begun in late 1944 as even the 1944 P Mint dimes show a noticeable drop in Center FB?

Could there also have been an issue about some of the Philly Mint minting presses themselves?

I am not disputing RWB's theory as a contributing factor as it is possible both things may have happened. It is not necessarily one OR the other as a causal factor.

astrorat

<< <i>

<< <i>
Note that Oreville did not state excessive die wear as the reason - rather he stated the Mint lowered striking pressure to prevent excessive die wear. Thus the lower striking pressure is the cause. >>



THat was exactly my point. I am surprised no one else besides TDN and so few others understood my post.

By the way, the Philly Mint problems seem to have begun in late 1944 as even the 1944 P Mint dimes show a noticeable drop in Center FB?

Could there also have been an issue about some of the Philly Mint minting presses themselves?

I am not disputing RWB's theory as a contributing factor as it is possible both things may have happened. It is not necessarily one OR the other as a causal factor. >>

I understood your post so there was no reason to comment on it.

Coinstudy

Did all three mints recieve their stock/blanks/planchets from the same supply?

Could one mint recieve a harder material than another?

ColonelJessup

<< <i>

<< <i>
Note that Oreville did not state excessive die wear as the reason - rather he stated the Mint lowered striking pressure to prevent excessive die wear. Thus the lower striking pressure is the cause. >>



THat was exactly my point. I am surprised no one else besides TDN and so few others understood my post.

By the way, the Philly Mint problems seem to have begun in late 1944 as even the 1944 P Mint dimes show a noticeable drop in Center FB?

Could there also have been an issue about some of the Philly Mint minting presses themselves?

I am not disputing RWB's theory as a contributing factor as it is possible both things may have happened. It is not necessarily one OR the other as a causal factor. >>



Merc's were my first love (read my CDN Monthly articles from April and May of 1980). I have never considered any other putative causative factor besides striking pressure to be of much import.

I can't support RWB's thesis that an annealing issue is the crux of the problem. 159,000,000 planchets? Am I misunderstanding this?

CaptHenway

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>
Note that Oreville did not state excessive die wear as the reason - rather he stated the Mint lowered striking pressure to prevent excessive die wear. Thus the lower striking pressure is the cause. >>



THat was exactly my point. I am surprised no one else besides TDN and so few others understood my post.

By the way, the Philly Mint problems seem to have begun in late 1944 as even the 1944 P Mint dimes show a noticeable drop in Center FB?

Could there also have been an issue about some of the Philly Mint minting presses themselves?

I am not disputing RWB's theory as a contributing factor as it is possible both things may have happened. It is not necessarily one OR the other as a causal factor. >>



Merc's were my first love (read my CDN Monthly articles from April and May of 1980). I have never considered any other putative causative factor besides striking pressure to be of much import.

I can't support RWB's thesis that an annealing issue is the crux of the problem. 159,000,000 planchets? Am I misunderstanding this? >>



He published some interesting Mint correspondence ATS that shows that improper annealing over many years was the cause of the chronic striking problems among N.O. silver dollars.

I like the theory. That does not mean that anything is proven yet, but I am leaning that way.

keyman64

Some things RWB shared ATS....


A thread by CaptHenway on PCGS and NGC message boards regarding the general absence of full-band 1945-P Mercury dimes, led to suggestion of multiple causes. The most commonly mentioned was incorrect striking pressure. This is, by far, the most prevalent explanation for poorly struck coins and certainly makes sense. However, it may turn out to be a much less frequent cause of the problem than assumed.

A few years ago I was searching for an explanation of the 1900-O/CC Morgan dollars. There are multiple reverse dies involved and each is a unique die with its own wear and repair progression. It is a much more significant anomaly than less common O/S varieties because the two mints operations were separated by nearly a decade of time. The under type ranges from very clear to just a couple of curved lines, but in all instances there has never been a satisfactory explanation for why the O/CC dies were made.

In searching page-by-page through Mint archives, I located an engineering report from 1900. A senior engineer from Philadelphia had been sent to New Orleans to determine why silver dollar dies were failing at an unusually high rate. The report established that is was a long-term problem at New Orleans and had occurred during most production years since 1879. A lengthy list of accusatory letters had been exchanged between the Philadelphia Mint engraver and coiner, and the coiner and Superintendent at New Orleans. These exchanges dated back to 1879 and were renewed every year or two up to 1900.

The engineer examined all coinage operations and concluded that the New Orleans annealing furnaces were not able to heat the planchets to the required temperature to soften the silver. To compensate, the coiner had increased pressure on each of the dollar presses. This quickly damaged the dies causing cracking and eventual failure. The dollars made were nearly all substandard. The problem occurred when Mint HQ demanded 1 million coins per month, but the annealing furnaces could not operate correctly on that much silver.

Prior to finding the engineer’s report, I had assumed, like almost everyone else that the dies were defective or the pressure was set too low for full strikes. I was proven wrong. Based on this example, and other research done for the book “From Mine to Mint,” it seems that whenever a large percentage of a specific coin issue are defective, the first option to examine is related to overall process, and not to a single piece of equipment.

In CaptHenway’s example, most 1945-P dimes lack full detail. With the coins being made by the millions, from thousands of die pairs and on a dozen or more presses, the cause is probably not with one or more dies, or one or more presses. Further, each press was adjusted using a wedge – a notoriously imprecise mechanism where each 1/10,000 of an inch is critical.

Thus, my suggestion is that if poorly detailed coins are endemic for a certain year/mint, then the first thing to examine is metal hardness. (This is, of course, not the only explanation and in some instances, such as the Buffalo nickel, we have authoritative comments from the engraver that rule out planchet hardness.)

When time permits, I’ll prepare a full research article for a future JNR issue. For now, I hope this is helpful.


More...


Coin hardness studies were performed by the Royal Mint in the 1880s. They showed that the deformed surface was harder than that immediately below the surface. There are also other hardness tests, but my memory fails at the moment.

PS: Basining of dies was done at Philadelphia, except for SF. The other mints were not supposed to alter the radius. Local repair and polishing was permitted and that could have changed the radius of dies in a random manner. Likewise, planchet upset specifications were developed in Philly and then transmitted to the other mints.

Again - lots of answers are in "From Mine to Mint."