The serif on the Kennedy "I" could have broken off the master hub or even the original plaster model. And so all working dies from that hub/model would be missing the serif.
Each master hub comes from the plaster model.
Approximately how many master hubs would you expect to be needed to produce 2500 dies?
1.
In those days, one master hub would produce several master dies. Each master die was then used to produce many working hubs. Each working hub produced many dies.
The serif on the Kennedy "I" could have broken off the master hub or even the original plaster model. And so all working dies from that hub/model would be missing the serif.
Each master hub comes from the plaster model.
Approximately how many master hubs would you expect to be needed to produce 2500 dies?
1.
In those days, one master hub would produce several master dies. Each master die was then used to produce many working hubs. Each working hub produced many dies.
Thanks again.
I'll take this to mean that if they are two different types then there were at least two different master hubs and probably two plaster casts.
The serif on the Kennedy "I" could have broken off the master hub or even the original plaster model. And so all working dies from that hub/model would be missing the serif.
Each master hub comes from the plaster model.
Approximately how many master hubs would you expect to be needed to produce 2500 dies?
1.
In those days, one master hub would produce several master dies. Each master die was then used to produce many working hubs. Each working hub produced many dies.
Thanks again.
I'll take this to mean that if they are two different types then there were at least two different master hubs and probably two plaster casts.
In the case of the 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar, there are two obverse hub types ("Accented Hair" and normal hair). It is unknown whether there were two separate plaster sculpts, or if the original plaster sculpt was reworked to change the hair and fix the "I". But in either case, the master hub came from essentially different sources.
The serif on the Kennedy "I" could have broken off the master hub or even the original plaster model. And so all working dies from that hub/model would be missing the serif.
Each master hub comes from the plaster model.
Approximately how many master hubs would you expect to be needed to produce 2500 dies?
1.
In those days, one master hub would produce several master dies. Each master die was then used to produce many working hubs. Each working hub produced many dies.
Thanks again.
I'll take this to mean that if they are two different types then there were at least two different master hubs and probably two plaster casts.
In the case of the 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar, there are two obverse hub types ("Accented Hair" and normal hair). It is unknown whether there were two separate plaster sculpts, or if the original plaster sculpt was reworked to change the hair and fix the "I". But in either case, the master hub came from essentially different sources.
Thanks again. this is much clearer to me. Another question and an observation;
If there were two different designs being used simultaneously, especially if this went on for years, would this not demand that there are two different plaster sculpts?
Most years there were minor reverse changes to the Washington quarter during those years so they were making new plasters each year. I suppose they had to make new ones to change the date as well?
I guess if these really are distinct varieties then this was well known at the mint and a significant project. At least dozens of people would have been directly or indirectly involved.
They say "during [1985/'86] they further developed single squeeze". This certainly doesn't eliminate the possibility they had been experimenting for years and dumping those experiments into circulation. It would be expensive to run off literally tens of millions of coins and then merely destroy them. Dies made nearly a million coins in those days though apparently the first experimental dies were failing early.
It also says "the new process has been used for master dies and work hubs and is in pilot testing for working dies". In MintSpeak this could mean that not all working dies are single squeeze. Perhaps only the quarter reverse was 100% single squeeze dies in 1985/'86, and over the next several years all dies became single squeeze. The '85 through '87 quarters appear with what might be single squeeze obverses and in 1988 there was a hybrid that appeared on all quarters.
It might have been well into the '90's that all mint dies for regular issue coins were single squeeze.
I have most of these mint reports but can't seem to locate any from the mid to late-'80's. There wee many years I didn't send for them. I've always believed these modern annual reports are chiefly for the purpose of justifying their expenses and overhead rather than keeping anyone informed about how coins were made and how that changed from year to year. There is valuable information in many of them but then it won't tell you things like most of the Gems are in mint sets or most varieties end up in a very small area. They will help you understand the gross but not so much the subtle. These are written by bureaucrats from an industrial perspective and not numismatic.
@cladking said:
These are written by bureaucrats from an industrial perspective and not numismatic.
Note how they dump the fixed costs of coin production onto the dime and quarter making it appear that one cent coins are inexpensive to make rather than being the primary driver of all mint fixed costs. Of course there are political and sociological reasons for this as well. It is desirable to the powers that be to make it appear that the penny is justified in the current economy. As long as the penny is "valuable" in peoples' minds the dollar is at least 100 times more valuable. Never mind that circulating pennies are dirty corroded slugs that don't even circulate since most people are using credit cards anyway. Who'd wanna touch pennies? So every year half the productive capacity of the mint goes to making ever more garbage and wasting ever more resources.
We need to view the mint with the same distance they see numismatists.
I answer to the owner of this post on an another forum.
What him pointed I think has two explanations: 1. Hub deterioration and 2. Die Age.
What was presented in the firsts photos I saw 3 different stages of Dies.
For me the theory of the Phil polishing the Dies for proof do not work. From facts I know that the San Francisco made the Die special polish for the Proof and also they prepare also the blanks for proof.
Now in my studies for the Quarters I already find that for 1983 we can have the RDV-011 and RDV-012 but the differences are not on the thickness of the letters. To establish the really variety I need the full real coins O and R. Till now I was not able to pair the O varieties (Hub of the 1977 and the new Hub of 1983) of 1983's coins with the Reverse.
PS: Nice to see you here Cladking hope not to disturb you to much..
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE. MARK TWAIN
The serif on the Kennedy "I" could have broken off the master hub or even the original plaster model. And so all working dies from that hub/model would be missing the serif.
Each master hub comes from the plaster model.
Approximately how many master hubs would you expect to be needed to produce 2500 dies?
1.
In those days, one master hub would produce several master dies. Each master die was then used to produce many working hubs. Each working hub produced many dies.
Thanks again.
I'll take this to mean that if they are two different types then there were at least two different master hubs and probably two plaster casts.
In the case of the 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar, there are two obverse hub types ("Accented Hair" and normal hair). It is unknown whether there were two separate plaster sculpts, or if the original plaster sculpt was reworked to change the hair and fix the "I". But in either case, the master hub came from essentially different sources.
Thanks again. this is much clearer to me. Another question and an observation;
If there were two different designs being used simultaneously, especially if this went on for years, would this not demand that there are two different plaster sculpts?
Most years there were minor reverse changes to the Washington quarter during those years so they were making new plasters each year. I suppose they had to make new ones to change the date as well?
I guess if these really are distinct varieties then this was well known at the mint and a significant project. At least dozens of people would have been directly or indirectly involved.
I do not know for certain, but I would expect that, for a range of years, there would be a plaster sculpt that had the "19" but lacked the last two date digits. A plaster "negative" can be made from a plaster "positive" and vice-versa. So each year a new plaster could be made by transfer from the original plaster, and then the new plaster would have the date digits added. Occasionally, for whatever reason, an entirely new "master plaster" would be made.
As we know, sometimes proof coins and business coins came from different plasters, one for ease of striking (business coins) and one for clarity of detail (proof coins).
As we know, sometimes proof coins and business coins came from different plasters, one for ease of striking (business coins) and one for clarity of detail (proof coins).
I agree and also dcarr 100% know more then me of the internal productions. Me I use the reports they give me access.
For 1983 by fact I know that was one plaster special for proof. Reason : the new Observe design was slightly reduced from the rim. In this case the internal forces during the strike change and the flow of the material change from the previous strike dies pairs. The proofs of the 1983 show a high relief compare with the previous year which pair the observe design of 1977 with reverse design of 1977.
The observe new design do not start in January, was later in the year (have to go to the reports to push down the date).
So in my theory to be confirmed with samples: we have the Dies prepared in 1982 and the new Dies prepared in 1983. This could explain the more PL 1983 business coins for the second half of that year.
I already have samples of (design versions):
1. '77 O - '77 R
2. '77 O - '83 R
3. '83 O - '83 R
4.** '83 O - '77 R (unconfirmed, not have)**
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE. MARK TWAIN
Now in my studies for the Quarters I already find that for 1983 we can have the RDV-011 and RDV-012 but the differences are not on the thickness of the letters. To establish the really variety I need the full real coins O and R. Till now I was not able to pair the O varieties (Hub of the 1977 and the new Hub of 1983) of 1983's coins with the Reverse.
Is there a P.U.P. for these differences?
To what do you attribute all those quarters ibn circulation with thin letters or the thick letters struck by brand new dies?
PS: Nice to see you here Cladking hope not to disturb you to much..
Ouch! I must have a terrible reputation.
I don't know how people can tell I'm pounding on my keyboard.
The serif on the Kennedy "I" could have broken off the master hub or even the original plaster model. And so all working dies from that hub/model would be missing the serif.
Each master hub comes from the plaster model.
Approximately how many master hubs would you expect to be needed to produce 2500 dies?
1.
In those days, one master hub would produce several master dies. Each master die was then used to produce many working hubs. Each working hub produced many dies.
Thanks again.
I'll take this to mean that if they are two different types then there were at least two different master hubs and probably two plaster casts.
In the case of the 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar, there are two obverse hub types ("Accented Hair" and normal hair). It is unknown whether there were two separate plaster sculpts, or if the original plaster sculpt was reworked to change the hair and fix the "I". But in either case, the master hub came from essentially different sources.
Thanks again. this is much clearer to me. Another question and an observation;
If there were two different designs being used simultaneously, especially if this went on for years, would this not demand that there are two different plaster sculpts?
Most years there were minor reverse changes to the Washington quarter during those years so they were making new plasters each year. I suppose they had to make new ones to change the date as well?
I guess if these really are distinct varieties then this was well known at the mint and a significant project. At least dozens of people would have been directly or indirectly involved.
I do not know for certain, but I would expect that, for a range of years, there would be a plaster sculpt that had the "19" but lacked the last two date digits. A plaster "negative" can be made from a plaster "positive" and vice-versa. So each year a new plaster could be made by transfer from the original plaster, and then the new plaster would have the date digits added. Occasionally, for whatever reason, an entirely new "master plaster" would be made.
As we know, sometimes proof coins and business coins came from different plasters, one for ease of striking (business coins) and one for clarity of detail (proof coins).
Thanks again.
I read an article long ago on the subject but I believe they were still using a Janvier reducing lathe. If I remember correctly they were sculpting new dates onto it.
Perhaps like other industrial plants the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at the mint.
It will be interesting to see if this can be solved and much more interesting if they really are experiments in hubbing. It would create a lot of interest in moderns and in the coins in circulation. I've been trying to figure these out for a very long time. Even if they are nothing but polished dies or poorly hubbed dies it will be interesting to know.
The Reverse on those coins is relative easy to recognize fast. The
RDV-011 starting in 1977 1, The N in UNUM = no sheriff and 2. N and I in UNITED merge on the top
RDV-012 starting in 1980 1. The N in UNUM = Sheriff and 2. N and I in United merge on top and bottom.
There are other differences but will be in the book. I have to mention that some proofs as 1983 and 1984 some differences and 1985 complete apart.
For the Observe it is very easy due to the fact that in 1983 the introduction of the smaller design which was reduced from the rim.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE. MARK TWAIN
@silviosi said:
The Reverse on those coins is relative easy to recognize fast. The
RDV-011 starting in 1977 1, The N in UNUM = no sheriff and 2. N and I in UNITED merge on the top
RDV-012 starting in 1980 1. The N in UNUM = Sheriff and 2. N and I in United merge on top and bottom.
There are other differences but will be in the book. I have to mention that some proofs as 1983 and 1984 some differences and 1985 complete apart.
For the Observe it is very easy due to the fact that in 1983 the introduction of the smaller and was reduced from the rim.
Thank you very much. I never noticed these and will start looking.
I suddenly have an urge to run out and get a bunch of rolls to look and relook at all of these coins.
Machine doubling has a step-like or shelf-like look to it. The edge is sharp, not rounded. The doubling is thin, usually less than a millimeter. And the doubling occurs on one side of the design – this is due to the movement of the planchet in relation to the die during the pressing.
Look at the thickness of the doubling on this. The edges are rounded. And look at the direction of the change in the design, especially inside the "A" in "STATES" and around the bottom of the legs in the "R" in "AMERICA".
Here are some close-ups. The doubling goes on different directions.
Here’s an overall picture/map of the positioning of the diagnostics & direction of change in the doubling.
I’d say this is a Class 3 (III) Doubling – which is Design Hub Doubling.
Thank you for the welcome and the compliments. I’m glad to be in the right place and I thank you all for being engaging and contributing as well.
Btw, I use a smartphone and a 30X loupe. The first part is getting the focus – this means adjusting the distance from the loupe to the coin and from the phone to the loupe. Hope that helps
I know I’ve posed a lot of questions for you, and I thank you for answering them and hopefully answering my other questions as well, such as the ones regarding die wear and how this would create the diagnostics on both varieties. I also have some new ones
Do you consider the 3 PCGS graded examples I presented above, of “early die-state”?
I also would like to present yet another example of a very well-known & popular variety with a diagnostic that is tiny & minute - the Bugs Bunny Franklin Half Dollar.
“All of these shown above have actual differences in the hubs”
How is this known or determined? I know from my research that the Mint is not really forthcoming with this info. I’ve looked thru microfiche archives of Mint documents thru the 80s, and there isn’t much there to look at. I looked the Denver archives - maybe there are more docs at the Philly location.
I’m glad you’ve also noticed the difference in the "N" which I ‘coined’ (pun intended) the higher ‘armpit’, like the high armpit on custom tailored suits.
Great eye and even greater find with the leaf. I completely missed that. I actually haven’t looked much at the bottom half of the reverse. There could be more diagnostics hiding in plain sight there. Interesting to note - I did look at my "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR and I don’t see any doubling on that leaf.
Comments
1.
In those days, one master hub would produce several master dies. Each master die was then used to produce many working hubs. Each working hub produced many dies.
Thanks again.
I'll take this to mean that if they are two different types then there were at least two different master hubs and probably two plaster casts.
In the case of the 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar, there are two obverse hub types ("Accented Hair" and normal hair). It is unknown whether there were two separate plaster sculpts, or if the original plaster sculpt was reworked to change the hair and fix the "I". But in either case, the master hub came from essentially different sources.
Thanks again. this is much clearer to me. Another question and an observation;
If there were two different designs being used simultaneously, especially if this went on for years, would this not demand that there are two different plaster sculpts?
Most years there were minor reverse changes to the Washington quarter during those years so they were making new plasters each year. I suppose they had to make new ones to change the date as well?
I guess if these really are distinct varieties then this was well known at the mint and a significant project. At least dozens of people would have been directly or indirectly involved.
A few other things here;
https://conecaonline.org/so-just-when-did-single-squeeze-hubbing-begin/
They say "during [1985/'86] they further developed single squeeze". This certainly doesn't eliminate the possibility they had been experimenting for years and dumping those experiments into circulation. It would be expensive to run off literally tens of millions of coins and then merely destroy them. Dies made nearly a million coins in those days though apparently the first experimental dies were failing early.
It also says "the new process has been used for master dies and work hubs and is in pilot testing for working dies". In MintSpeak this could mean that not all working dies are single squeeze. Perhaps only the quarter reverse was 100% single squeeze dies in 1985/'86, and over the next several years all dies became single squeeze. The '85 through '87 quarters appear with what might be single squeeze obverses and in 1988 there was a hybrid that appeared on all quarters.
It might have been well into the '90's that all mint dies for regular issue coins were single squeeze.
I have most of these mint reports but can't seem to locate any from the mid to late-'80's. There wee many years I didn't send for them. I've always believed these modern annual reports are chiefly for the purpose of justifying their expenses and overhead rather than keeping anyone informed about how coins were made and how that changed from year to year. There is valuable information in many of them but then it won't tell you things like most of the Gems are in mint sets or most varieties end up in a very small area. They will help you understand the gross but not so much the subtle. These are written by bureaucrats from an industrial perspective and not numismatic.
Note how they dump the fixed costs of coin production onto the dime and quarter making it appear that one cent coins are inexpensive to make rather than being the primary driver of all mint fixed costs. Of course there are political and sociological reasons for this as well. It is desirable to the powers that be to make it appear that the penny is justified in the current economy. As long as the penny is "valuable" in peoples' minds the dollar is at least 100 times more valuable. Never mind that circulating pennies are dirty corroded slugs that don't even circulate since most people are using credit cards anyway. Who'd wanna touch pennies? So every year half the productive capacity of the mint goes to making ever more garbage and wasting ever more resources.
We need to view the mint with the same distance they see numismatists.
To "cladking" and "NCCC":
I answer to the owner of this post on an another forum.
What him pointed I think has two explanations: 1. Hub deterioration and 2. Die Age.
What was presented in the firsts photos I saw 3 different stages of Dies.
For me the theory of the Phil polishing the Dies for proof do not work. From facts I know that the San Francisco made the Die special polish for the Proof and also they prepare also the blanks for proof.
Now in my studies for the Quarters I already find that for 1983 we can have the RDV-011 and RDV-012 but the differences are not on the thickness of the letters. To establish the really variety I need the full real coins O and R. Till now I was not able to pair the O varieties (Hub of the 1977 and the new Hub of 1983) of 1983's coins with the Reverse.
PS: Nice to see you here Cladking hope not to disturb you to much..
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.
FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.
THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.
MARK TWAIN
I do not know for certain, but I would expect that, for a range of years, there would be a plaster sculpt that had the "19" but lacked the last two date digits. A plaster "negative" can be made from a plaster "positive" and vice-versa. So each year a new plaster could be made by transfer from the original plaster, and then the new plaster would have the date digits added. Occasionally, for whatever reason, an entirely new "master plaster" would be made.
As we know, sometimes proof coins and business coins came from different plasters, one for ease of striking (business coins) and one for clarity of detail (proof coins).
I agree and also dcarr 100% know more then me of the internal productions. Me I use the reports they give me access.
For 1983 by fact I know that was one plaster special for proof. Reason : the new Observe design was slightly reduced from the rim. In this case the internal forces during the strike change and the flow of the material change from the previous strike dies pairs. The proofs of the 1983 show a high relief compare with the previous year which pair the observe design of 1977 with reverse design of 1977.
The observe new design do not start in January, was later in the year (have to go to the reports to push down the date).
So in my theory to be confirmed with samples: we have the Dies prepared in 1982 and the new Dies prepared in 1983. This could explain the more PL 1983 business coins for the second half of that year.
I already have samples of (design versions):
1. '77 O - '77 R
2. '77 O - '83 R
3. '83 O - '83 R
4.** '83 O - '77 R (unconfirmed, not have)**
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.
FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.
THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.
MARK TWAIN
Is there a P.U.P. for these differences?
To what do you attribute all those quarters ibn circulation with thin letters or the thick letters struck by brand new dies?
Ouch! I must have a terrible reputation.
I don't know how people can tell I'm pounding on my keyboard.
Thanks again.
I read an article long ago on the subject but I believe they were still using a Janvier reducing lathe. If I remember correctly they were sculpting new dates onto it.
Perhaps like other industrial plants the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at the mint.
It will be interesting to see if this can be solved and much more interesting if they really are experiments in hubbing. It would create a lot of interest in moderns and in the coins in circulation. I've been trying to figure these out for a very long time. Even if they are nothing but polished dies or poorly hubbed dies it will be interesting to know.
The Reverse on those coins is relative easy to recognize fast. The
RDV-011 starting in 1977 1, The N in UNUM = no sheriff and 2. N and I in UNITED merge on the top
RDV-012 starting in 1980 1. The N in UNUM = Sheriff and 2. N and I in United merge on top and bottom.
There are other differences but will be in the book. I have to mention that some proofs as 1983 and 1984 some differences and 1985 complete apart.
For the Observe it is very easy due to the fact that in 1983 the introduction of the smaller design which was reduced from the rim.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.
FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.
THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.
MARK TWAIN
Thank you very much. I never noticed these and will start looking.
I suddenly have an urge to run out and get a bunch of rolls to look and relook at all of these coins.
telephoto1:
Machine doubling has a step-like or shelf-like look to it. The edge is sharp, not rounded. The doubling is thin, usually less than a millimeter. And the doubling occurs on one side of the design – this is due to the movement of the planchet in relation to the die during the pressing.
Look at the thickness of the doubling on this. The edges are rounded. And look at the direction of the change in the design, especially inside the "A" in "STATES" and around the bottom of the legs in the "R" in "AMERICA".
Here are some close-ups. The doubling goes on different directions.
Here’s an overall picture/map of the positioning of the diagnostics & direction of change in the doubling.
I’d say this is a Class 3 (III) Doubling – which is Design Hub Doubling.
Jzyskowski1:
Thank you for the welcome.
Wayne:
Thank you for the welcome and the compliments. I’m glad to be in the right place and I thank you all for being engaging and contributing as well.
Btw, I use a smartphone and a 30X loupe. The first part is getting the focus – this means adjusting the distance from the loupe to the coin and from the phone to the loupe. Hope that helps
dcarr:
I know I’ve posed a lot of questions for you, and I thank you for answering them and hopefully answering my other questions as well, such as the ones regarding die wear and how this would create the diagnostics on both varieties. I also have some new ones
Do you consider the 3 PCGS graded examples I presented above, of “early die-state”?
I also would like to present yet another example of a very well-known & popular variety with a diagnostic that is tiny & minute - the Bugs Bunny Franklin Half Dollar.
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1956-50c-bugs-bunny-fs-401/147874
“All of these shown above have actual differences in the hubs”
How is this known or determined? I know from my research that the Mint is not really forthcoming with this info. I’ve looked thru microfiche archives of Mint documents thru the 80s, and there isn’t much there to look at. I looked the Denver archives - maybe there are more docs at the Philly location.
ifthevamzarockin:
I’m glad you’ve also noticed the difference in the "N" which I ‘coined’ (pun intended) the higher ‘armpit’, like the high armpit on custom tailored suits.
Great eye and even greater find with the leaf. I completely missed that. I actually haven’t looked much at the bottom half of the reverse. There could be more diagnostics hiding in plain sight there. Interesting to note - I did look at my "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR and I don’t see any doubling on that leaf.
Awesome post and contributions. Still a newbie and just soaking up this knowledge. Thank you all.
Still not a new variety or a doubled die.