1861/0 half dime so called overdate
kevinj
Posts: 989 ✭✭✭
There are coins from four different 1861 half dime obverse working dies that have been called 1861/0 overdates.
The diagnostics from the four dies around the date are exactly the same, supporting the conclusion that this was the result of a damaged date punch.
The shape, size, contour of the metal around the 1 is not in the same as a 0, therefore this cannot be an overdate.
Another alternative theory was presented by Bill Fivaz. He believed that the date punch contained remnants of a 0.
Below is my analysis of this, seeking any feedback
Kevin
===================================
In The Gobrecht Journal Collective Volume Number Three, Bill Fivaz wrote an article titled An Update on the 1861/0 Half Dime. On page 134, he speculates that date punch contained remnants of a 0 from when it was created, and therefore a valid overdate. Bill states that Tom DeLorey stated that "during this era it was not uncommon to manufacture a date punch by first sinking individual number punches into a steel block. This area of the block was then struck with a blank punch, forming the raised numbers on the logo." Bill states further that it was theoretically possible that an 1860 date had been punched into the block, that the block was abraded down, leaving only remnants of a 0, then the 1861 date was punched into the block.
If the Mint did punch single digits into a block of metal, then we should see the same digits showing a consistent size and shape in sequential years. In comparing the dates used for the half-dimes for 1860, 1861, and 1862, the 6 used for each is different.
This theory implies that the Mint would have a block of metal for each denomination for each year, that they would use to strike single digits into. It also implies that the Mint would purposefully make the metal thick enough so that they could use it for sequential years and that they would spend the time and effort or abrade down each block for each denomination to remove the previous year, so that they could then use it for the following year for each denomination.
This method would require the block to be annealed, digits to be struck into the block, and the block hardened. Then the rod with the blank block being annealed and struck into the block, attempting to have the metal from the date punch block to squeeze down into the incused design of the digits in the block. This step has several problems. If we examine a similar procedure in the hubbing press, whereas the metal from a coned shaped top working hub is squeezed into the incused design elements of the master die, hundreds of tons of pressure is used at a controlled speed to push the annealed metal of the working die into the shape of the design elements. If you place a blank flat block of metal onto another block of metal, with several digits incused into it, if you strike the blank block, the top of the blank date punch will primarily come in contact with the highest part of the block with the digits compressing the entire top of the blank date punch, and creating resistance. In order to push metal into the incused digits, the entire top of the blank date punch would have to be pushed hard enough to disperse the metal on top to the depth of the intended digits. The striking of a blank date punch implies instant striking force, not controlled pushing, allowing the metal to be squeezed into the recesses. This is why in the hubbing press, a coned shaped top helps reduce the resistance where the field touch, and also has an incremental squeezing of metal, with the least amount of metal in the top of the cone, increasing in volume as you go down the cone. Of course, striking a raised date punch with concave inward digits, forming a thinner top to the digits, into the annealed working die or a annealed block of steel, is entirely different from attempting to strike a blank date punch into a block to obtain the incused digits.
In addition, this would have also been difficult in the Fall, when the Mint was preparing working dies for the current year and also for the following year. What if the date punch of the current year broke? Would a new block have to be prepared if the block was changed to the next year? When the 1865 Fancy 5 date punch for the Two cent pieces became damaged, and was replaced by the 1865 Plain 5 date punch, if a block existed with the 1865 date the size used for the Two cent pieces, why could not a new date punch be created that was the same if this practice was used? There is no evidence that the Mint used the method for creating date punches. The normal procedure was to use a block of metal, anneal it, and carve the digits into the end of the block. When the digits are being carved, it is possible that extra metal is left at the base of the digits on the date punch or metal is left on the base of the block between the digits.
The diagnostics from the four dies around the date are exactly the same, supporting the conclusion that this was the result of a damaged date punch.
The shape, size, contour of the metal around the 1 is not in the same as a 0, therefore this cannot be an overdate.
Another alternative theory was presented by Bill Fivaz. He believed that the date punch contained remnants of a 0.
Below is my analysis of this, seeking any feedback
Kevin
===================================
In The Gobrecht Journal Collective Volume Number Three, Bill Fivaz wrote an article titled An Update on the 1861/0 Half Dime. On page 134, he speculates that date punch contained remnants of a 0 from when it was created, and therefore a valid overdate. Bill states that Tom DeLorey stated that "during this era it was not uncommon to manufacture a date punch by first sinking individual number punches into a steel block. This area of the block was then struck with a blank punch, forming the raised numbers on the logo." Bill states further that it was theoretically possible that an 1860 date had been punched into the block, that the block was abraded down, leaving only remnants of a 0, then the 1861 date was punched into the block.
If the Mint did punch single digits into a block of metal, then we should see the same digits showing a consistent size and shape in sequential years. In comparing the dates used for the half-dimes for 1860, 1861, and 1862, the 6 used for each is different.
This theory implies that the Mint would have a block of metal for each denomination for each year, that they would use to strike single digits into. It also implies that the Mint would purposefully make the metal thick enough so that they could use it for sequential years and that they would spend the time and effort or abrade down each block for each denomination to remove the previous year, so that they could then use it for the following year for each denomination.
This method would require the block to be annealed, digits to be struck into the block, and the block hardened. Then the rod with the blank block being annealed and struck into the block, attempting to have the metal from the date punch block to squeeze down into the incused design of the digits in the block. This step has several problems. If we examine a similar procedure in the hubbing press, whereas the metal from a coned shaped top working hub is squeezed into the incused design elements of the master die, hundreds of tons of pressure is used at a controlled speed to push the annealed metal of the working die into the shape of the design elements. If you place a blank flat block of metal onto another block of metal, with several digits incused into it, if you strike the blank block, the top of the blank date punch will primarily come in contact with the highest part of the block with the digits compressing the entire top of the blank date punch, and creating resistance. In order to push metal into the incused digits, the entire top of the blank date punch would have to be pushed hard enough to disperse the metal on top to the depth of the intended digits. The striking of a blank date punch implies instant striking force, not controlled pushing, allowing the metal to be squeezed into the recesses. This is why in the hubbing press, a coned shaped top helps reduce the resistance where the field touch, and also has an incremental squeezing of metal, with the least amount of metal in the top of the cone, increasing in volume as you go down the cone. Of course, striking a raised date punch with concave inward digits, forming a thinner top to the digits, into the annealed working die or a annealed block of steel, is entirely different from attempting to strike a blank date punch into a block to obtain the incused digits.
In addition, this would have also been difficult in the Fall, when the Mint was preparing working dies for the current year and also for the following year. What if the date punch of the current year broke? Would a new block have to be prepared if the block was changed to the next year? When the 1865 Fancy 5 date punch for the Two cent pieces became damaged, and was replaced by the 1865 Plain 5 date punch, if a block existed with the 1865 date the size used for the Two cent pieces, why could not a new date punch be created that was the same if this practice was used? There is no evidence that the Mint used the method for creating date punches. The normal procedure was to use a block of metal, anneal it, and carve the digits into the end of the block. When the digits are being carved, it is possible that extra metal is left at the base of the digits on the date punch or metal is left on the base of the block between the digits.
Kevin J Flynn
0
Comments
<< <i>There are coins from four different 1861 half dime obverse working dies that have been called 1861/0 overdates.
The diagnostics from the four dies around the date are exactly the same, supporting the conclusion that this was the result of a damaged date punch.
The shape, size, contour of the metal around the 1 is not in the same as a 0, therefore this cannot be an overdate.
Another alternative theiry was presented by Bill Fivaz and Tom DeLorey. They believed that the date punch contained remnants of a 0.
Below is my analysis of this, seeking any feedback
Kevin
===================================
In The Gobrecht Journal Collective Volume Number Three, Bill Fivaz wrote an article titled An Update on the 1861/0 Half Dime. On page 134, he speculates that date punch contained remnants of a 0 from when it was created, and therefore a valid overdate. Bill states that Tom DeLorey stated that "during this era it was not uncommon to manufacture a date punch by first sinking individual number punches into a steel block. This area of the block was then struck with a blank punch, forming the raised numbers on the logo." Bill states further that it was theoretically possible that an 1860 date had been punched into the block, that the block was abraded down, leaving only remnants of a 0, then the 1861 date was punched into the block.
If the Mint did punch single digits into a block of metal, then we should see the same digits showing a consistent size and shape in sequential years. In comparing the dates used for the half-dimes for 1860, 1861, and 1862, the 6 used for each is different.
This theory implies that the Mint would have a block of metal for each denomination for each year, that they would use to strike single digits into. It also implies that the Mint would purposefully make the metal thick enough so that they could use it for sequential years and that they would spend the time and effort or abrade down each block for each denomination to remove the previous year, so that they could then use it for the following year for each denomination.
This method would require the block to be annealed, digits to be struck into the block, and the block hardened. Then the rod with the blank block being annealed and struck into the block, attempting to have the metal from the date punch block to squeeze down into the incused design of the digits in the block. This step has several problems. If we examine a similar procedure in the hubbing press, whereas the metal from a coned shaped top working hub is squeezed into the incused design elements of the master die, hundreds of tons of pressure is used at a controlled speed to push the annealed metal of the working die into the shape of the design elements. If you place a blank flat block of metal onto another block of metal, with several digits incused into it, if you strike the blank block, the top of the blank date punch will primarily come in contact with the highest part of the block with the digits compressing the entire top of the blank date punch, and creating resistance. In order to push metal into the incused digits, the entire top of the blank date punch would have to be pushed hard enough to disperse the metal on top to the depth of the intended digits. The striking of a blank date punch implies instant striking force, not controlled pushing, allowing the metal to be squeezed into the recesses. This is why in the hubbing press, a coned shaped top helps reduce the resistance where the field touch, and also has an incremental squeezing of metal, with the least amount of metal in the top of the cone, increasing in volume as you go down the cone. Of course, striking a raised date punch with concave inward digits, forming a thinner top to the digits, into the annealed working die or a annealed block of steel, is entirely different from attempting to strike a blank date punch into a block to obtain the incused digits.
In addition, this would have also been difficult in the Fall, when the Mint was preparing working dies for the current year and also for the following year. What if the date punch of the current year broke? Would a new block have to be prepared if the block was changed to the next year? When the 1865 Fancy 5 date punch for the Two cent pieces became damaged, and was replaced by the 1865 Plain 5 date punch, if a block existed with the 1865 date the size used for the Two cent pieces, why could not a new date punch be created that was the same if this practice was used? There is no evidence that the Mint used the method for creating date punches. The normal procedure was to use a block of metal, anneal it, and carve the digits into the end of the block. When the digits are being carved, it is possible that extra metal is left at the base of the digits on the date punch or metal is left on the base of the block between the digits. >>
Kevin, you have completely mis-stated my position. I have NEVER thought that the so-called 1861/0 Half Dime was a true overdate. If you will read the citation that you give, you will see that I said in it that I did not believe that this was an overdate.
Tom DeLorey
FYI - can't wait for the half dime book(check is en route)
https://imdb.com/name/nm1835107/
After reading the OP's post I was about to dispute his comment regarding Tom DeLorey's statement about the 1861/0, but I see that Tom beat me to it. Better to hear it from Tom than me, anyway. I will merely concur with what Tom said in his reply. Tom and I have had numerous discussions about this so-called variety (1861/0), and his efforts to have it removed from the Red Book.
<< <i>Kevin, you have completely mis-stated my position. I have NEVER thought that the so-called 1861/0 Half Dime was a true overdate. If you will read the citation that you give, you will see that I said in it that I did not believe that this was an overdate.
Tom DeLorey >>
Tom,
Sorry, I see in the beginning, in my opening statements, that used used the words "They believed", that is misworded and I corrected.
But at the same time, your assertions regarding the use of the block in creating a date punch, was the basis of Bill's theory. These assertions on the use of a block are not supported by fact, evidence, or logic.
In my analysis, the first paragraph states and quotes that you stated a block was used to punch digits in, then a blank date punch punch was punched into it.
Then I state that Bill uses this to theorize that this process could have created an 1861 punch with remnants of a zero.
My analysis thereafter was relevant to if this process was used, problems and technical difficulties with it, and whether this process could have created an overdated date punch.
If you could respond as to this process, and proof or evidence that it was used, that would be helpful.
Kevin
<< <i>If you could respond as to this process, and proof or evidence that it was used, that would be helpful. >>
Helpful to write your book for you?
<< <i>I appreciate the work that goes into writing posts like this Kevin. I truly want to understand the process better, but I get so lost in understanding the step by step with a piece of metal, blocks cut into it, dates annealed, etc. As if you aren't busy enough already, ever thought of doing a simplified step by step video of these different processes? You don't have to use metal, just use stuff around the house. "This cereal box is a block of metal", something like that.
FYI - can't wait for the half dime book(check is en route) >>
This would be nice, obviously it would be great to experiment and present using die steel so as to understand completely metal flow.
Over the years, Daniel Carr, who owns and operates all the machinery for striking coins, has been helpful with expermienting with concepts such as this.
The best example I have done in a classroom environment is using clay, which is greatly simplified, but can demonstrate some of the general properties and motions that will occur.
Taking this to a parallel example to show the general properties
Use a block of wood, representing a hardened block of steel.
Cut small slits into the block of wood representing the digits.
Use a small box, filled with clay representing the annealed blank date punch, with the clay above the rim of the box about 1/8 of an inch. The box is used to hold the clay to support it and so as to be able to strike it.
place the clay over the block of wood, slowly press the box of clay into the wood, what happens?
Do again, and strike the box with a swift blow what happens?
In both experiments, the wood is stronger than the clay, and the clay expands primarily outward,
In both cases, the clay did not fill out the incused slits in the wood,
but in the experiment where the clay was slowly pressed into the wood, more of the clay went into the slit than when it was struck.
The same general principle will occur if you attempt to strike a annealed blank date punch into a block of hardened steel. The metal from the blank date punch will not fill out the incused digits.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>If you could respond as to this process, and proof or evidence that it was used, that would be helpful. >>
Helpful to write your book for you? >>
yeah in part
but also more importantly to present an alternative solutions, so that the reader does not just read my perspective, but also those of others who have expertise in an area, and which may support their assertions.
<< <i>Question, if a writer of a book asks others to write specific chapters and/or pertinent subject matters and successfully delegates it all out to others is the writer of a book the author or complier? >>
Alan,
A 275 page book, 2 pages are written by others (in the half dime book), what do you think?
When I request others to write a section, it goes under their title and name, as they wrote it and receive direct credit for it.
Almost all books, especially those relating to coins, have contributions by others in some way or form, for example, the loaning of coins, photographs, information, and so on. Based upon your belief, every author of every coin book would simply be a compiler, irrelevant to the thousands of hours, lets say researching at the archives, taking scanning photographs, typing everything in, researching every fact, story or anything else on a subject.
I would suggest you write a book and answer the question yourself.
Kevin
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.