Calling Expert Numismatists...Upper Die? Lower Die?
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
I never gave this question much thought. However, I know "experts" in the different coin series have and I'm pretty sure the information is published - yet spread out over many sources! Perhaps with all the knowledge here on CU some of you will post what you know in this discussion.
This question came to mind while reading an entry for the 1806 quarter in the Tompkins Reference. On one 1806 coin variety there is a major die break (cud) on the reverse. Some believe that this indicates that the reverse die was the upper die as the piece broke and "fell out." Another researcher suggests that when a coin is found with a misaligned die, the misaligned die side is more than likely to be the upper die. The conflict may indicate that, for these coins, the placement of the obverse or reverse die did not matter. If that was the case I expect at a certain date, the die placement may have become standardized.
Additionally, I have noticed that many coins have drag lines on their edges - most easily seen on PE coins. That suggests to me that the planchet was pushed out to the collar yet one part (top or bottom) of the edge either did not come in complete contact with the collar OR one part of the edge was a little wider in diameter and rubbed against the collar (leaving) drag lines. It seems to me that the direction of this effect and where it peters out (top or bottom) should indicate which die was at the top of the press.
I have put a lot into one discussion. I should prefer NO GUESSING and hopefully a reasonable explanation (or the reference book) for your opinion. There may not be a universal correct answer. Hopefully, it can be determined that for some coin types a particular die was at the top. For example, somewhere along the line I was told that the obverse of our Lincoln cents was the upper die.
PS While we are posting about edges, which coin types were struck first and the edge applied later. Which coins had the edge applied first and were then struck?
All of us/me less informed THANK YOU in advance!!
Comments
Lettered-edge coins usually had the edge applied prior to striking, although there are some varieties of CBHs that were lettered post-striking. Plain edge copper prior to 1816 was rimming prior to striking.
All reeded-edge coinage was collar struck. Collars were introduced on large cents in 1816 and half cents in 1825.
The vertical scrape marks you see on plain-edge coinage are usually ejection marks from the edge scraping the collar during ejection. However, collars do become lined from repeated striking, so you can find lines that repeat on PE pieces, even across varieties.
The easiest way to tell upper (hammer) from lower (anvil) die on collar struck coinage is to measure the coin at the obv and rev. The hammer side will be ever so slightly larger than the anvil side since the collar had to be wider at top to allow ejection from the collar and the feed fingers to push it out of the press and into the ejection chute (the next planchet was fed simultaneously - see Denis Cooper's book for some excellent period drawings and images of period presses). I've measured tapers from .001" to as much as .004".
Lettered-edge coinage will also often show a taper towards the anvil die - this is a purely mechanical effect of striking.
Is this part a quiz or contest?
Easiest cases to answer: some Sac and all Pres dollars - struck first with plain edge then the edge lettering added afterward, except for proofs, where edge lettering was part of the collar, so struck with the coin.
LOL. Honest question. HONEST!
BTW, I didn't remember this: "Some Sac and all Pres dollars struck first with plain edge then the edge lettering added afterward, except for proofs." Thanks for the wake-up!
...see Denis Cooper's book for some excellent period drawings and images of period presses.
Yes, I had my hands on a copy of this book long ago and read parts of it. I did not buy one at the time.
VERY STUPID decision on my part.
For Mercury Dimes and Buffalo Nickels the Reverse is the Hammer Die. I am pretty sure this is in Lange's book on Mercury Dimes. I confirmed the information on a Web Site called Error-ref. com under Inverted Dies.
Ken
Fairlaneman beat me to it -
Buffs and Mercs have the reverse die as the upper or Hammer Die -
easily determined by all the partial collar strikes there are- and the
fact that the only known Die Cap Buffalo Nickel is from a Reverse Die.
Someplace I have a list, published in the Numismatist, years ago, that
lists earlier type coins struck with Rev. Dies as the upper die.
Interestingly, at least to me, is that after seeing Partial Collar Morgan
dollars for over 45 years, I finally found ONE (1878) that has the
reverse die as the upper die. It's the only one known struck like this.
Early half dimes, dimes and quarters, and all early gold, had their Reeded edges applied before striking. Reeded collars came later .
@FredWeinberg said: "Someplace I have a list, published in the Numismatist, years ago, that
lists earlier type coins struck with Rev. Dies as the upper die."
Thanks. This information needs to be published again. Time to put the ANA Librarian to work!
I found it: it was Page 41 from the April 1997 issue.
I just copied the one page, and although it doesn't say
'Numismatist' at the bottom of the page, I'm fairly certain
that's where it came from, 21 years ago.
Other than the 1878 Morgan Fred cites above, the obverse is the hammer die. On Peace dollars, the reverse is the hammer die for 1922-35. I'm not positive, but thought I heard or read that for 1921, the obverse is the hammer die.
Other indicators of this on coins are scrape marks from feed fingers "buffing" an area of the anvil die over time (on Morgans, above each wing, on Peace dollars, below IGWT) and collar clashes, where a misaligned hammer die hits the collar die, leaving reeding on the rim.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Do you know which die pair this was?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Sorry Tom, but NO!!! JD, Brad Karoleff, and I disproved that old myth many years ago. All reeded coinage was collar struck. Unlike the lettered and plain edge pieces struck sans collar which are thus ovate, reeded coinage is "perfectly" round to within .005" or so, the reeding never shows gaps or overlaps, and as Brad's study of off-center CHQ's showed, all out of collar strikes are missing the reeding.
@messydesk said: "Other indicators of this on coins are scrape marks from feed fingers "buffing" an area of the anvil die over time (on Morgans, above each wing, on Peace dollars, below IGWT) and collar clashes, where a misaligned hammer die hits the collar die, leaving reeding on the rim."
@FredWeinberg
This is what I asked you about one time: "scrape marks from feed fingers "buffing" an area of the anvil die over time (on Morgans, above each wing, on Peace dollars, below IGWT).
This reason for the scrape like, long, POLISHED-OUT PL SURFACE marks on coins is said to be caused by feed fingers buffing the dies. This explanation for these marks has made it into the literature and on to the internet. I'll get an image up as I want clarification from more folks such as Messy As best I can recall, I've seen these marks on both sides of coins.
I don't know what die pair it is,
but I'll pull it out next week,
take a look at it, and see if I can
find any VAM identifiers.
(there's a chance it's an 1879)
Interesting thread.... I learned a bit today.... Thanks guys for the information. Cheers, RickO
Interesting. I wish I had access to a Turban Head $10 we had in at ANACS while I was there. The piece was first struck as a brockage with a normal obverse and an incused obverse, and then put back into the press and struck at least another six times (that I could count) to obliterate the brockage. I do not recall that it was abnormally large, but neither do I recall any damage caused by it being forced back down into a reeded collar.
That would be interesting to see. If they whapped it that many times, you might not see any damage to the reeding. Being gold, I'd guess just two strikes in-collar would be enough to pretty much obliterate any previous reed impressions.
Getting it back in the collar would depend on how far in the collar the original strike was, how much taper there was to the collar, and how much the coin contracted after the pressure was off. Might be able to get it back in fairly easy. 'Course, you could always just press it in with the press.
JD had a similar 5, Classic, I think. I'll ask if he recalls anything of the reeding. I don't, but we must have looked at it. But it was larger than a normal coin, so the last strikes were probably out-of-collar.
Another way you can tell the reeded coinage was collar struck is to look at the reeding and the edge. The reeding is very consistent and the edges are flat.
If applied by a milling machine and then struck sans collar, the coins would all be ovate and thus the reed spacing would vary. Also, the edge would not be flat. Look at lettered-edge. They typically have a concave or convex edge as there is nothing to prevent metal flow. If the edge was hardened enough during rimming, the upper and lower rims tend to flow out beyond the edge and you get concave. If not, you get convex. And, I've seen both on the same piece. Something you do get a fairly flat edge, but not for the whole coin.
BTW, Mark Borckardt did a study of the 1795 Reeded cent, S-79. Found they were also collar struck! Round to .005", if I recall. He's supposed to do a book. Email him and see if you can get him off his duff.
Only question JD and I have is the 1792 issues. We suspect they were collar struck, but we have not measured. Maybe I can convince Rob Rodriguez to crack or have a TPG measure.
@Rittenhouse,
You are far more informed than I yet I'm going to ask you to be more specific about the appearance of the edge of a coin struck inside a collar.
I understand the "The reeding is very consistent" but I don't understand ..."and the edges are flat."
What is the "edge?" The end of the reed? The end of the "groove?" The sides (edge?) of the reed on each side of the groove?
After you reply I'll post my comments as we may not agree on parts of your post.
What I mean is the surface profile of the edge is a flat as compared to the curve of a lettered piece. The shape of the reeding does not matter. Imagine if there were no reeding; if the piece was plain-edge. What's the shape? Flat. If you drew a line touching the upper edge, center, and lower edge, what shape would it be? Flat.
This only holds for sharply struck pieces. If a piece is weakly struck the edges at the intersection with obv and rev may not be fully impressed and the edge will appear slightly bowed.
I just found my Morgan Dollar Partial Collar
struck with the Reverse Die as the upper, or
Hammer Die.
It's an 1879-S, PCGS AU-50
It's the first and only Morgan dollar I've ever seen
or heard of with the Partial Collar strike having
the Reverse Die as the Hammer Die.
OK, then the only thing I disagree with is the "uniformity" of the reeding. This is just a "nit." From what I've seen, the edge reeding on counterfeits is more uniform than the genuine pieces.
Now, back to my OP. When I look inside the groove of the reeding I can often see drag marks. Can these be used to tell which die was the hammer? I'll post images soon. Thanks!
Thanks. Rev. of '78 or '79?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I don't know about the "expert" part, but here are some things to consider.
19th century Chief Coiners considered the obverse more important than the reverse. They also felt that one die position gave more "blow" to the coin and so they tried to place the obverse in the position to receive the most force. But, some toggle press types had a fixed lower die holder and others had a lower holder that moved when a coin was ejected. These basic mechanical differences likely affected which position was the best for maximum obverse detail.
The famous two-headed Indian cents were made to test the effects of obverse die placement.
@RogerB said: "...The famous two-headed Indian cents were made to test the effects of obverse die placement."
Image somewhere?
Snow's book?
The explanation, if I remember correctly, is n one of A.L. Snowden's letters from the 1880s. Don't remember where I saw the photos, though. 1859 or 1858?
The coin is dated 1859 with two obverses.
There is an image of it as a J-229a in "United States Pattern Coins"
10th edition, page 73.
There is also an image & discussion of the two head error on page 25
of Richard E. Snow's "The Flying Eagle & Indian Cent Attribution Guide
2nd Edition volume 2 1859-1869.
R.I.P. Bear
I'm no expert, except I can spot schlock and dreck easily.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I'm surprised that piece slabbed with the big scratch on the edge. Perhaps somebody was testing to see if two obverses had been glued together? I guess the slab covers the scratch.
If you cannot see something, is it really there? I'll bet the nonsense of putting corroded, damaged, or test cut edged coins in slabs ended a long time ago. Besides, it they were ever cracked out and discovered...
Happened to me twice in the 1980's. In one case a totally, under graded gem Type Three gold dollar - todays MS-66+ in an MS-63 slab. No brainer up-grade to MS-65 (one of the highest grades back then)! Oops! Test cut.
Somebody want to get a view of the edge on this?
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2018/02/march-kagins-off-center-1818-5-capped-bust-quarter-dollar.html
@TwoSides2aCoin said: "I'm no expert, except I can spot schlock and dreck easily."
Please explain this post. What does schlock and dreck refer to in this thread. Thanks.
I find anomalies like die cracks, breaks, cuds, etc., in almost every series.
And while I'm not an expert on whether it was the working die or hub die that sustained damage during coining, or which side had the problem; the condition of the coins (by the time I find them) slipped into a category many experts refer to as "worthy of the junk pile". In other words, these coins that were problematic by the nature of their manufacture, often fell by the wayside as "undesireable" pieces. This , from my experiences with such coins.
It wasn't as complex a statement as my explanation of it. I just mean the cracks, breaks, gouges, etc., are easy enough to find/spot, but it's not desireable for most collectors as collectible, from my experience.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
@TwoSides2aCoin
I think CRH and error collectors like that sort of "dreck." This week on CU, someone posted about finding a quarter with five die chips! We all get excited by different things.
I find the edges of coins very interesting. Even low grade coins have the drag lines I'm asking about whether PE or reeded. Liberty and Shield nickels are a good place to check. Are they unusual - no. Do they add value to a coin - no. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure the placement of the "drag" will be more pronounced on one part (upper or lower) of the edge. Then there should be a sure-fire way to tell the die placement in the press.