Do the 1907 High Relief $20's REALLY not stack well? Let's find out.

DaveWcoins · July 31, 2018 10:25AM

As some of you may have gleaned from another thread I posted here, last week a collection came in that contained three high grade 1907 high relief $20's.

It was suggested here on the forum that I should try to see if they stack, since that was mentioned as one of the reasons the mint switched to the low relief design later in 1907.

Good idea -- so I did so.

I carefully stacked each coin. First, I stacked all the obverses:

Secondly, I stacked reverse/obverse/reverse:

While far from a definitive test, they seemed to stack about as well as the later Saint Gaudens $20's do.

Was this myth busted? Maybe so.

PS: Yes --I was a bit sloppy in how I stacked them. But I didn't want to slide one against the other.

mvs7 · July 31, 2018 10:27AM

I'm liking that toned one even more after seeing the stack

RogerB · July 31, 2018 10:27AM

As noted elsewhere, "stacking" refers to the height of a pile of coins, not to the coins "wobbling." A pile of 20 DE was the informal standard.

oih82w8 · July 31, 2018 10:28AM

Looks like some "air gap" in between the bottom and 2nd coin, on both images. I would still say "no", they don't stack well, based on these three.

originalisbest · July 31, 2018 10:28AM

It's a pleasure to see the bold, starred edges of these. I can say this is the first time I've ever seen that particular view of a high relief!

ChrisH821 · July 31, 2018 10:56AM

This thread gives me a strange sort of anxiety. Thanks for testing!

divecchia · July 31, 2018 10:57AM

Wow, they look amazing stacked like that!!!

Thanks for sharing photos of the edges.

Edited to add: You really get a feel of the height of the relief from these photos. Unfortunately you don't get that when they are inside a slab.

Donato

Insider2 · July 31, 2018 11:05AM

Based on this, I'll continue to believe the "old myth." I wish you would have made the overlap perfect (as on two pieces). There appears to be a space that looks more than just an offset. Eventually, slabs will eliminate the opportunity to do experiments such as this with MS coins.

panexpoguy · July 31, 2018 11:18AM

@oih82w8 said:
Looks like some "air gap" in between the bottom and 2nd coin, on both images. I would still say "no", they don't stack well, based on these three.

That is referred to as numismatic ‘thigh gap’

WinLoseWin · July 31, 2018 11:18AM

@RogerB said:
As noted elsewhere, "stacking" refers to the height of a pile of coins, not to the coins "wobbling." A pile of 20 DE was the informal standard.

Better grab 17 more raw ones.

Would it make any difference between Flat Rim and Wire Rim?

Justacommeman · July 31, 2018 11:21AM

@RogerB said:
As noted elsewhere, "stacking" refers to the height of a pile of coins, not to the coins "wobbling." A pile of 20 DE was the informal standard.

High Relief Jenga

m

msch1man · July 31, 2018 11:30AM

Ho hum, just another day in the office stacking up raw high relief $20’s.

asheland · July 31, 2018 11:37AM

Very cool!

Lakesammman · July 31, 2018 11:41AM

Man, not sending you my UHR Saints!

Jimnight · July 31, 2018 11:45AM

Nice.

RogerB · July 31, 2018 11:59AM

This letter might help. It is part of a much longer US Mint discussion of problems with the new Eagles and Double Eagles. Dimensions are in inches.

jwitten · July 31, 2018 12:44PM

Very cool, but far from busted. You would need to make sure the coins are lined up properly, AND rotate each coin a full 360 degrees to see if there is a certain rotation that does not stack well. Man, I really want that toner.

CaptHenway · July 31, 2018 12:45PM

@RogerB said:
As noted elsewhere, "stacking" refers to the height of a pile of coins, not to the coins "wobbling." A pile of 20 DE was the informal standard.

This.

Timbuk3 · July 31, 2018 12:49PM

Sweet, thanks !!!

ChrisH821 · July 31, 2018 12:49PM

"Difference in height nearly one piece"
I can see how that was a major concern. Great document!

topstuf · July 31, 2018 12:52PM

Here I thought "stacking" was acquiring bags and bundles of the subject coins.

I'd have real respeck for anyone who was stacking HRs.

Insider2 · July 31, 2018 12:53PM

Thanks Roger and Tom. Here is the thing about stacking. I can see both arguments. We do know for certain that the HR design was abandoned. I believe that bankers complained. So, the problem had to be with regard to counting the coins efficiently. That is "stacking." I also believe that a "stack" of these coins would wobble. Until we see a column of twenty HR Unc's that is straight as a rod....

topstuf · July 31, 2018 12:55PM

At the shop, they always jammed the coin counter when folks brought in bags of em.

RogerB · July 31, 2018 3:07PM

There is no "second argument" concerning wobbling. The only contemporary usage at the Mint, sub-Treasuries, and banks was stacking height of a pile of coins. That is how tellers and others counted coins when dealing with normal quantities. The Barber letter is direct and explicit.

The "wobbling" approach is a modern error in understanding - possibly promoted by earlier coin writers not explaining what was meant by "stacking" or ignorance on their part. (Wally Breen was a master of this kind of incomplete understanding, but I don;t feel he was responsible for this one. Now about those 'Roman' proofs....)

PS: The only references at present to DE or other US coins wobbling are, 1) 1849 DE and first 1850 pieces (not issued); and, 2) 1877 DE where the new obverse hub was in excess relief and coins with heads facing wobbled. A new hub was made. The problem was a rim that was lower than the portrait....design height/depth above the field or between planes is immaterial.

DaveWcoins · July 31, 2018 3:12PM

@RogerB said:
This letter might help. It is part of a much longer US Mint discussion of problems with the new Eagles and Double Eagles. Dimensions are in inches.

Wow -- great document. You are the best, RogerB!

That clears up the contemporary objections to them completely, in my book.

It's a real shame though. Just imagine putting together a date and mint set of $20's from 1907 to 1932 -- all high reliefs... and at today's prices for the common ones. That would have been the world's coolest (and most beautiful) coin set.

BAJJERFAN · July 31, 2018 3:13PM

@CaptHenway said:

@RogerB said:
As noted elsewhere, "stacking" refers to the height of a pile of coins, not to the coins "wobbling." A pile of 20 DE was the informal standard.

This.

Except that you could likely create a higher stack if you used coins that didn't cause wobble.

RogerB · July 31, 2018 3:19PM

Coin handling in that era was a matter of practical use and training. Stacks of 10 or 20 larger coins - halves, Eagles, DE and dollars were practical and universally used (except at the Mints where counting boards were used). Smaller coins were piled in units, such as quarters in $1 stacks, or flat piles for most others. A teller or cashier was trained to handle only one denomination at a time, and never mix minor and silver, or silver and gold on the same counter-top for review. Every cashier was personally responsible for their till - a discrepancy had to be made up immediately from the teller's own funds.

Insider2 · July 31, 2018 3:21PM

@RogerB said:
There is no "second argument" concerning wobbling. The only contemporary usage at the Mint, sub-Treasuries, and banks was stacking height of a pile of coins. That is how tellers and others counted coins when dealing with normal quantities. The Barber letter is direct and explicit.

The "wobbling" approach is a modern error in understanding - possibly promoted by earlier coin writers not explaining what was meant by "stacking" or ignorance on their part. (Wally Breen was a master of this kind of incomplete understanding, but I don;t feel he was responsible for this one. Now about those 'Roman' proofs....)

PS: The only references at present to DE or other US coins wobbling are, 1) 1849 DE and first 1850 pieces (not issued); and, 2) 1877 DE where the new obverse hub was in excess relief and coins with heads facing wobbled. A new hub was made. The problem was a rim that was lower than the portrait....design height/depth above the field or between planes is immaterial.

Better get the word out to a much wider audience in a short article with the letter. You changed my mind!
Is it in one of your books?

topstuf · July 31, 2018 3:30PM

I know this is heresy, but ...maybe... the mint just had a harder (read "more costly") time striking decent coins with such nice detail.

Witness the later designs and their ...um... plainness.

Swampboy · July 31, 2018 3:42PM

They're beautiful

RogerB · July 31, 2018 4:20PM

RE: "Better get the word out to a much wider audience in a short article with the letter. You changed my mind! Is it in one of your books?"

Nope. There is a lot of information scattered throughout US Mint materials. Publishing it is a problem since there is no clear focus. There are 12 pages of related material on piling and stacks (including volunteer transcriptions), and several other comments over a 100-year period. There's a group of documents on Henry Mitchell's coin designs; other documents about the Philadelphia Mint site and questions about the deed, drainage, etc. There's all the testimony in the Dimmick trial; and hundreds of pages of legal depositions about the New Orleans mint and San Francisco Mint....and on and on. What is of interest and what is not - what about future interest?

Material derived from these and other sources is in most of my books and articles. It's normally references in the footnotes and bibliography.

@topstuf said:
I know this is heresy, but ...maybe... the mint just had a harder (read "more costly") time striking decent coins with such nice detail.

Witness the later designs and their ...um... plainness.

There's considerable difference between the detail that can be brought up with one blow of a toggle press (or a modern Schuler press), and three blows from a medal press.

mustangmanbob · July 31, 2018 4:25PM

To ensure objectivity, please send the 3 coins to me, and I will rerun the tests to determine if the difference in gravity due difference in altitude and latitude is a significant factor.

Insider2 · July 31, 2018 4:29PM

The letter is the best part that "proves" the case.

blitzdude · July 31, 2018 5:03PM

Appears to stack fine to me. Congrats.

PS if you don't want them I will gladly take off your hands at these bargain prices.

Coinosaurus · July 31, 2018 6:09PM

Stacking high relief $20s - you are a brave man.

Thomas Elder described these as "kind wouldn't stack." He wasn't worried about a nick on a coin costing him thousands of dollars, so I'll take his word for it.

BustDMs · July 31, 2018 6:40PM

Now you need to stack them edgewise

SeattleSlammer · July 31, 2018 6:48PM

@Swampboy said:
They're beautiful

I’m drooling on my iPhone. So meaty looking and raw!

Smudge · July 31, 2018 7:28PM

That would be a nice problem to have.

ricko · August 1, 2018 6:46AM

I can honestly say, I have never tried to stack high relieve double eagles... Of course, I have never had enough of them to even consider the task. :'( I do appreciate the contribution of @RogerB... since this puts the old belief to rest... Though I also like the OP images....Cheers, RickO