An interesting answer. I do appreciate the confirmation, however, that the revisionist theory is merely an opinion.
The trouble is that, unlike those who formulated the revisionist theory, I have actually read the appropriate mint documents and ledgers. In addition I have discussed at length – with the acknowledged U.S. expert on minting technology – details of the Gobrecht dollar mintages.
Denga - you are completely incorrect. Pardon for asking - are you using the tinfoil for something else???
*******************
How clever of you to realize this. Actually I just found it and the first message was from your keeper, saying that you had once more forgotten to take your meds.
Perhaps, in support of your assertion that coins struck on a screw press cannot have rotated dies, you would be so kind as to explain how the coins struck on a screw press in this inventory came to be?
For those of you that do not know, Denga is Robert W. Julian and he has done an enormous amount of research on American coinage.
Don't dismiss him quite so quickly.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
Perhaps, in support of your assertion that coins struck on a screw press cannot have rotated dies, you would be so kind as to explain how the coins struck on a screw press in this inventory came to be? Inventory of rotated die coinage
**********
Irrelevant again. The Gobrechts were struck on the large screw press designed specifically for dollars and medals. Perhaps you will tell me which of the coins on that list were struck on this specific press. As far as I can see, the answer is none.
I was under the false impression that denga is michael - who pissed me off royally not too long ago. Since he's not, I had no right to act the way I was acting.
An additional question arises: in a thread, oh, about a year ago now, we had a discussion regarding the 1827 original proof quarters. At the time it was noted that the reverses on the quarters progressed in rotation. Were these quarters minted on the medal press as denga suggests and if so, how did their reverses rotate?
Wow. I've learned a lot in this post. Thanks to all ... and back to the Gobrechts! K
P.S. Why are not all the 39's patterns? Never mind the die rotation. The issue was not adopted yet; seated $ in production quantities came out in 1840. Also, does it mean a coin is a regular issue when it is released from banks in small numbers (1836)? Again, forget about die rotation.
1. Eagle flying level – pressman did not understand the aesthetics of the design and aligned the reverse die incorrectly. Close enough for government work, so the coins were shipped to banks.
2. Eagle flying level–die rotated in the press by coincidence just enough to attain a level eagle
3. Eagle flying level–nitwits at the mint making restrikes did not understand the aesthetics of the design but were familiar with the Flyer cent and misaligned the die
4. Eagle flying at various angles--Honcho's at the mint were experimenting with the aesthetics of the reverse die and intentionally had them struck at different alignments, which was easier than making separate dies with varying angles of the eagle's flight. {Not mentioned above but who's to say that is not what happened}
By the way, why did they scrap the reverse entirely? Were they getting feedback to the effect that "nice coin but the eagle is slanted?" I can imagine that happening and then the mint director and staff looking at the level flyer and saying no way, that ruins the whole look, and just scrapping the whole idea, saying the heck with it, if people have no sense of aesthetics we'll just go with the same old reverse design that they've been seeing for the last 30 years.
Please educate us why coins on the small screw press can have rotated dies and those on the large screw press cannot.
****************
There is no particular reason except to note the following:
1) Screw presses were used for all coinages prior to 1836 but during 1836 various denominations began to use the steam press, starting with the cent in late March. Several of the readers of this forum are presumably aware of the well-known Steam Coinage medals of that year including the very rare February 22 piece when the ceremony had to be aborted for mechanical reasons.
2) The large screw press was designed specifically for medals and large coins such as the dollar. Medal striking required that absolute precision be maintained between the dies and therefore this entailed a very good locking system. The reason this was true for medals in particular was that the blanks were annealed (softened) between strikes as it often took several blows to bring up a large medal and the design would have been ruined had there been the slightest rotation.
3) Is it then possible for coinage dies to have rotated on the large screw press? Generally speaking the answer is no but if the die was not tightened properly this was remotely possible; it is also unlikely as most proof coinage runs were relatively short for a given denomination.
4) The above comments also hold for the Gobrecht restrikes of the late 1850s. The strikings would have again been more or less on demand and, if the dies were not fastened in precisely the same position, apparent die rotation would result but not actual rotation. Because the Gobrecht restriking was done in a semi-clandestine manner under Mint Director James Ross Snowden, we have no clear idea of how many were made, or when, but the fact that the program (which included other restruck coins, such as the 1856 Flying Eagle cent) seems to have gone on for more than three years, we can assume that the Gobrechts were made on several different occasions. Dies could have rotated during a coinage run but it is far more likely that the dies were simply not put back in exactly the same way.
5) For those who like numismatic mysteries it is interesting to note that the Mint coinage ledger for May 29, 1857, indicates that 490 silver dollars had been struck but, for some unknown reason, this did not appear in the annual report. Was this a report of Gobrecht restrikes accidentally entered onto the register? It seems too early for that many Gobrechts but whatever the reason it is an odd entry.
Craig Sholley has stated, from Mint documents, that cents and quarters were the first business strikes from the steam press in 1836. All four 1836 quarter obverse dies were shattered. Were bust half dimes and dimes struck still struck on the screw press in 1837? Or did the transistion take place with the Seated Liberty design? What about the Classic Head gold $2.50 and $5 in 1836 and 1837? Three of the 1836 $5 obverse dies had massive bisecting cracks. Is there further documentation in Mint archives about the transition from the screw press to the steam press for business strikes? Thanks
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Denga, Craig Sholley has stated, from Mint documents, that cents and quarters were the first business strikes from the steam press in 1836. All four 1836 quarter obverse dies were shattered. Were bust half dimes and dimes struck still struck on the screw press in 1837? Or did the transistion take place with the Seated Liberty design? What about the Classic Head gold $2.50 and $5 in 1836 and 1837? Three of the 1836 $5 obverse dies had massive bisecting cracks. Is there further documentation in Mint archives about the transition from the screw press to the steam press for business strikes? Thanks
***********
I will defer to Craig on the matter of the 1836 timing as he has also read the original documents and understands the minting processes very well. If memory serves correctly, all of the 1837 coinage, except for the Gobrecht dollars, was struck on a steam press. There was a considerable delay in early 1837 before the first gold and silver coins were delivered (mid February) and this was probably due to mechanical problems in the new system. If Craig is reading this thread he may want to comment further.
<< <i>Craig Sholley has stated, from Mint documents, that cents and quarters were the first business strikes from the steam press in 1836. All four 1836 quarter obverse dies were shattered. Were bust half dimes and dimes struck still struck on the screw press in 1837? Or did the transistion take place with the Seated Liberty design? What about the Classic Head gold $2.50 and $5 in 1836 and 1837? Three of the 1836 $5 obverse dies had massive bisecting cracks. Is there further documentation in Mint archives about the transition from the screw press to the steam press for business strikes? Thanks >>
Nysoto,
A "little birdy" told me you asked a question. I am work but the short answer off the top of my head is that all silver, copper, and small gold coinage was struck on the new "steam press" starting in 1836. There was a problem w/ striking half dollars as the first press wasn't designed for larger coin.
There is a significant body of documentation on the transition. I have copies at home in my files. I'm a little busy right now with other projects, business and home stuff (including golf - finally!!!!), hopefully I can find time to give you a more thorough answer in the near future. PM me with your email or snailer.
As to the Gobreachts, IMHO Julian has it right. There is significant documentation re the design and official instructions. Also, other Mint operational documents and the design and operation of the presses, specifically the large medal and hubbing press, clearly supports Julian's argument. Some years ago I discussed this with Julian and a couple others and I was going to write an article, but the subject is to me a minor and fairly boring point usually argued by folks who've never been to the archives or even seen a screw press, thus I saw little point in discussing.
BTW, one should never refer to coins prior to 1858 or so as "proofs". The Mint did not use this term. They used "Master Coin" or "specimen". Julian and I have discussed this. He uses proof because that is the commonly understood term. IMHO, Breen got this one right and they really shouldn't be called proofs. Probably semantic but I tend to be "nit-picky" about this stuff. Also the process for making a Master Coin was not as strict as that for modern proofs: sometimes they did not receive multiple strikes, etc. This causes much confusion for current day numismatists who aren't familiar with the archival record and operation of a screw press.
BTW, one should never refer to coins prior to 1858 or so as "proofs". The Mint did not use this term. They used "Master Coin" or "specimen".
I agree that a different term needs to be applied to the earlier issues, but shouldn't the cutoff date between PR & SP be based on a change in the method of manufacture, not on the language used by the Mint? If so, what date(s) would you suggest?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>BTW, one should never refer to coins prior to 1858 or so as "proofs". The Mint did not use this term. They used "Master Coin" or "specimen".
I agree that a different term needs to be applied to the earlier issues, but shouldn't the cutoff date between PR & SP be based on a change in the method of manufacture, not on the language used by the Mint? If so, what date(s) would you suggest? >>
First, read all of what I wrote including the sentance: "Also the process for making a Master Coin was not as strict as that for modern proofs: sometimes they did not receive multiple strikes, etc."
Secondly, I disagree with your premise. The Mint used specific language to refer specific processes, equipments and operations. Changing the terms to what one feels comfortable with or what one decides on their own is a good fit then makes it difficult to reconcile with the archival records and creates confusion. Would you change the term "screw press" simply because you don't feel the language of the Mint was appropriate?
Wow! What a treat to see Rittenhouse and Denga weighing in on a thread here!
This is like chatting colonials with Dr. Hall and Sly Crosby. People in 100 years will be jealous of the folks who get to absorb the extraordinary knowledge of these two today.
There is a discussion of this semantic point in mint documents from the late 1930s relating to compilation of a complete list of "proof" coins produced by the Philadelphia Mint. I'll post it later, when I can get to my home computer and access the documents. If my memory is not shot from this morning's meetings, the terms "master coin," "specimen," and "proof" were not related to technology.
Man, have I got a lot to learn when I take a look at the responses by Denga and Rittenhouse!
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
First, read all of what I wrote including the sentance: "Also the process for making a Master Coin was not as strict as that for modern proofs: sometimes they did not receive multiple strikes, etc."
If you look at the coins, it's obvious that most of the 1827-1857 silver and gold "master coins" were up to the later "proof" standards. This is not to say that we can't use the Mint's own terminology. It's just that if we only use their language, we won't be doing complete justice to the coins themselves.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Would you change the term "screw press" simply because you don't feel the language of the Mint was appropriate?
If the screw press were known by a different name today, I would use the current name so that people would know what I was talking about.
Similarly, the current generation of collectors has been taught that "Proof" is a method of manufacture. I'd choose to leave it at that and fight some other battle.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
about a year ago now, we had a discussion regarding the 1827 original proof quarters. At the time it was noted that the reverses on the quarters progressed in rotation.
TDN - I've searched for that thread and can't find it. Help, please!
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
OK. Here are some of the mint's internal comments from an article I am working on:
Specially struck coins for collectors were first issued in sets in 1858. Initially, these were called “Master coins,” “specimen coins,” or “proof coins” with the three terms being more or less synonymous. After about 1863 the term “proof coins” is used with increasing regularity until it became firmly established in the numismatic vocabulary. A letter dated March 23, 1939 reviewing the background of proof coins states in part:
"Prior to March 7, 1865, the deliveries of proof or specimen coins were not noted on the records of the coining department. From July 2, 1867 to February 18, 1873 the gold coins were known as “Specimen coins” and so recorded in the coiner’s ledger… Prior to 1863, the ledgers of the coining department do not show any deliveries of silver coins that can be classed as proof coins. The entries from 1863 to 1867…were frequently designated in the Cashier’s books as “Specimen coins.” A delivery of $193.00 in silver coin on June 20, 1867 was designated “proof coin” and was the first entry in the Coiner’s silver ledger to be so designated, although some of the entries prior to that date were designated “Specimen.”
The earliest correspondence referring to sets of proof coins made for collectors is a letter written on March 6, 1858 from mint director James Ross Snowden to Winslow J. Howard a clock and watch repairer employed by Tiffany & Co. in New York City. It obviously refers to earlier letters which are now lost.
"I had hoped by this time to be able to send you a full series of proof coins of silver for 1858 but they are not yet prepared. I send you a half dollar and a cent; the others I will take pleasure in sending as soon as the specimen pieces are struck. "…I will see, as requested, “Whether any bright coins in silver or copper of the year 1853 can be obtained” for you, and inform you when I send the remaining specimen pieces for 1858."
The letter suggests that Snowden considered “specimen” and “proof” to mean the same thing, and that “bright” (as in shiny or polished?) might also be used. It is also evident that Mr. Howard knew of previous “bright” coins being available at least as far back as 1853. Further, because all of the copper and silver proof coins were not available as of March 6, it is probable that the mint did not necessarily strike complete groups of proofs at one time. Two weeks later, Snowden sent a follow-up letter enclosing additional coins:
"I send enclosed specimen coins as follows: $1.00; 25¢; 1 dime; one half dime; 3 cent piece; which, with the coins heretofore sent you, make a full series of the latest coins of the U. S."
With many collectors requesting proof coins for 1858, the mint decided it needed a formal set of regulations to cover the production and sale of the coins to collectors. The first regulations concerning the sale of proof or specimen coins to the public were prepared by Director of the Mint James Ross Snowden in 1858. The earliest printed circular advertising the availability of proof coins for collectors was dated December 20, 1859. The regulations issued March 8, 1860 are typical:
"To carry into effect the directions as to the giving out of Master Coins, contained in the Circular of the 20th of December, 1859, the following regulations are made:
1. The Chief Coiner will deliver them [i.e.: Master Coins] to the Treasurer [of the mint] as other coins are delivered, and shall, as in other cases, be credited by the weight of the coins."
<< <i> "Prior to March 7, 1865, the deliveries of proof or specimen coins were not noted on the records of the coining department. From July 2, 1867 to February 18, 1873 the gold coins were known as “Specimen coins” and so recorded in the coiner’s ledger… Prior to 1863, the ledgers of the coining department do not show any deliveries of silver coins that can be classed as proof coins. The entries from 1863 to 1867…were frequently designated in the Cashier’s books as “Specimen coins.” A delivery of $193.00 in silver coin on June 20, 1867 was designated “proof coin” and was the first entry in the Coiner’s silver ledger to be so designated, although some of the entries prior to that date were designated “Specimen.”
The earliest correspondence referring to sets of proof coins made for collectors is a letter written on March 6, 1858 from mint director James Ross Snowden to Winslow J. Howard a clock and watch repairer employed by Tiffany & Co. in New York City. It obviously refers to earlier letters which are now lost.
"I had hoped by this time to be able to send you a full series of proof coins of silver for 1858 but they are not yet prepared. I send you a half dollar and a cent; the others I will take pleasure in sending as soon as the specimen pieces are struck. "…I will see, as requested, “Whether any bright coins in silver or copper of the year 1853 can be obtained” for you, and inform you when I send the remaining specimen pieces for 1858."
Two weeks later, Snowden sent a follow-up letter enclosing additional coins:
"I send enclosed specimen coins as follows: $1.00; 25¢; 1 dime; one half dime; 3 cent piece; which, with the coins heretofore sent you, make a full series of the latest coins of the U. S."
With many collectors requesting proof coins for 1858, the mint decided it needed a formal set of regulations to cover the production and sale of the coins to collectors. The first regulations concerning the sale of proof or specimen coins to the public were prepared by Director of the Mint James Ross Snowden in 1858. The earliest printed circular advertising the availability of proof coins for collectors was dated December 20, 1859. The regulations issued March 8, 1860 are typical:
"To carry into effect the directions as to the giving out of Master Coins, contained in the Circular of the 20th of December, 1859, the following regulations are made:
1. The Chief Coiner will deliver them [i.e.: Master Coins] to the Treasurer [of the mint] as other coins are delivered, and shall, as in other cases, be credited by the weight of the coins." >>
Bingo, RWB! You've found the same letters I did. There's also the Sept 26, 1850 letter by Patterson quoted by Breen referring to "Gold Master Coins".
------
In response to Andy Lustig:
<< <i>If you look at the coins, it's obvious that most of the 1827-1857 silver and gold "master coins" were up to the later "proof" standards. This is not to say that we can't use the Mint's own terminology. It's just that if we only use their language, we won't be doing complete justice to the coins themselves.
If the screw press were known by a different name today, I would use the current name so that people would know what I was talking about.
Similarly, the current generation of collectors has been taught that "Proof" is a method of manufacture. I'd choose to leave it at that and fight some other battle. >>
1. Disagree w/ your position. By not using the Mint terminology we aren't doing the history justice and we are introducing confusion when trying to reconcile commonly used terms against the historical record. Simply because folks are being taught wrong is no reason to perpetuate the error. However, I do note that this would cause a good bit of difficulty in marketing the coins.
2. It is known by a different name: a "fly" press.
OK. Here are some of the mint's internal comments from an article I am working on:
Specially struck coins for collectors were first issued in sets in 1858. Initially, these were called “Master coins,” “specimen coins,” or “proof coins” with the three terms being more or less synonymous. After about 1863 the term “proof coins” is used with increasing regularity until it became firmly established in the numismatic vocabulary. A letter dated March 23, 1939 reviewing the background of proof coins states in part:
"Prior to March 7, 1865, the deliveries of proof or specimen coins were not noted on the records of the coining department. From July 2, 1867 to February 18, 1873 the gold coins were known as “Specimen coins” and so recorded in the coiner’s ledger… Prior to 1863, the ledgers of the coining department do not show any deliveries of silver coins that can be classed as proof coins. The entries from 1863 to 1867…were frequently designated in the Cashier’s books as “Specimen coins.” A delivery of $193.00 in silver coin on June 20, 1867 was designated “proof coin” and was the first entry in the Coiner’s silver ledger to be so designated, although some of the entries prior to that date were designated “Specimen.” Agreed, with a couple of minor additions:
1) The 1939 letter is not quite correct as the Mint ledgers show the first formal delivery of proofs on March 8, 1860. There were 1,000 each of the silver coins except for the dollar with 1,330. The first gold proofs were delivered in April; neither delivery had any label, however, just a list of pieces delivered by the chief coiner. (The early 1860s deliveries are covered in the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine of March 25, 1966.)
2) In a technical sense, proof sets were available prior to 1858 but not until later in the year when all of the denominations had been struck. The principal change for 1858 was to have the full sets ready much earlier in the year.
"…I will see, as requested, “Whether any bright coins in silver or copper of the year 1853 can be obtained” for you, and inform you when I send the remaining specimen pieces for 1858."
The letter suggests that Snowden considered “specimen” and “proof” to mean the same thing, and that “bright” (as in shiny or polished?) might also be used. It is also evident that Mr. Howard knew of previous “bright” coins being available at least as far back as 1853.
Given that the request was specifically for 1853 coins, a year from which "proofs" are far less mirrored than usual, it seems more likely that Howard's request for "bright" examples was a request for examples with better mirrors. Therefore, I wouldn't be so quick to believe that "bright" could have been a synonym for "proof".
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The following is an excerpt from Coins, Coinage and Bullion by Jacob Eckfeldt and William DuBois, 1852, third edition. I was fortunate to finally obtain a copy of this reference recently.
Page 68:
............from that date to 1834. At that time, however, the standard of the gold coin was changed, and a modification of device became necessary; and after the public taste had recovered from its alarm at the removal of "E pluribus unum", it was less difficult to progress in the path of change and improvement. The year 1836 was remarkable for new patterns and projects. It was supposed that Liberty might be symbolized by other forms than the matronly bust, and that the eagle might change its perch. Hence we have the famous new dollar of that year. There was also produced, obedient to calls of committees of Congress, the gold dollar, and the two-cent billon piece, the latter being a mixture in which two cents' worth of silver was contained, or lost, in a sizable proportion of copper; but neither was approved. Further varieties, especially in the half-dollar, appear in 1837; and in 1838 there are a number of half-dollar trial-pieces, none of which were adopted. In that year the gold eagle reappears; and all the gold coin is in a new dress. The silver dollars continue very scarce until 1840, when the flying eagle is discontinued; and the entire coinage remains unaltered from that date to present. (Some material changes are, however, in contemplation.)
There sure are some heavy-hitters posting to this thread. Hope the above excerpt helps in some way.
The following is an excerpt from Coins, Coinage and Bullion by Jacob Eckfeldt and William DuBois, 1852, third edition. I was fortunate to finally obtain a copy of this reference recently. Page 68: ............from that date to 1834. At that time, however, the standard of the gold coin was changed, and a modification of device became necessary; and after the public taste had recovered from its alarm at the removal of "E pluribus unum", it was less difficult to progress in the path of change and improvement. The year 1836 was remarkable for new patterns and projects. It was supposed that Liberty might be symbolized by other forms than the matronly bust, and that the eagle might change its perch. Hence we have the famous new dollar of that year. There was also produced, obedient to calls of committees of Congress, the gold dollar, and the two-cent billon piece, the latter being a mixture in which two cents' worth of silver was contained, or lost, in a sizable proportion of copper; but neither was approved. Further varieties, especially in the half-dollar, appear in 1837; and in 1838 there are a number of half-dollar trial-pieces, none of which were adopted. In that year the gold eagle reappears; and all the gold coin is in a new dress. The silver dollars continue very scarce until 1840, when the flying eagle is discontinued; and the entire coinage remains unaltered from that date to present. (Some material changes are, however, in contemplation.)
**********************
Thanks for printing the excerpt. I have the second edition (1851) and find that the wording is the same. There is always the possibility that new material is added for a further printing.
<< <i> "…I will see, as requested, “Whether any bright coins in silver or copper of the year 1853 can be obtained” for you, and inform you when I send the remaining specimen pieces for 1858."
The letter suggests that Snowden considered “specimen” and “proof” to mean the same thing, and that “bright” (as in shiny or polished?) might also be used. It is also evident that Mr. Howard knew of previous “bright” coins being available at least as far back as 1853.
Given that the request was specifically for 1853 coins, a year from which "proofs" are far less mirrored than usual, it seems more likely that Howard's request for "bright" examples was a request for examples with better mirrors. Therefore, I wouldn't be so quick to believe that "bright" could have been a synonym for "proof". >>
Be careful. You are looking at 19th century documents with "21st century eyes". Not good. One must always view archival documents within their own context and not introduce current concepts.
The collectors of the 19th century did not have the wealth of information available to us today. The terminology for what we call proof coins was not well developed as previously discussed - collectors simply didn't know how to refer to these coins. I have seen several letters just like the Howard letter. Additionally, collectors of this time did not have the opportunity to view large numbers of coins next to each other. They thus had little appreciation for the differences and they were not as "appearance sensitive" as we are today.
Mickley used the term "proof" in the early 1850s. This was in the Mickley diary in the ANS Journal a few years back. So, regardless of what the Mint called them, at least one (prominent) collector was calling them proofs before 1858.
Comments
****************
An interesting answer. I do appreciate the confirmation, however, that the revisionist theory is merely an opinion.
The trouble is that, unlike those who formulated the revisionist theory, I have actually read the appropriate mint documents and ledgers.
In addition I have discussed at length – with the acknowledged U.S. expert on minting technology – details of the Gobrecht dollar mintages.
Denga
Denga - you are completely incorrect. Pardon for asking - are you using the tinfoil for something else???
*******************
How clever of you to realize this. Actually I just found it and the first message was from your keeper, saying
that you had once more forgotten to take your meds.
Denga
Inventory of rotated die coinage
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Don't dismiss him quite so quickly.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
Perhaps, in support of your assertion that coins struck on a screw press cannot have rotated dies, you would be so kind as to explain how the coins struck on a screw press in this inventory came to be?
Inventory of rotated die coinage
**********
Irrelevant again. The Gobrechts were struck on the large screw press designed specifically for dollars and medals.
Perhaps you will tell me which of the coins on that list were struck on this specific press. As far as I can see, the
answer is none.
Denga
Well, Lloyd, I'm glad I didn't act like a wisenheimer. How 'bout you?
This is gettin' good.
Although my coin budget will never allow me to own a Gobrecht $1, I do find this very interesting reading.
-------------
etexmike
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
I was under the false impression that denga is michael - who pissed me off royally not too long ago. Since he's not, I had no right to act the way I was acting.
P.S. Why are not all the 39's patterns? Never mind the die rotation. The issue was not adopted yet; seated $ in production quantities came out in 1840. Also, does it mean a coin is a regular issue when it is released from banks in small numbers (1836)? Again, forget about die rotation.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
1. Eagle flying level – pressman did not understand the aesthetics of the design and aligned the reverse die incorrectly. Close enough for government work, so the coins were shipped to banks.
2. Eagle flying level–die rotated in the press by coincidence just enough to attain a level eagle
3. Eagle flying level–nitwits at the mint making restrikes did not understand the aesthetics of the design but were familiar with the Flyer cent and misaligned the die
4. Eagle flying at various angles--Honcho's at the mint were experimenting with the aesthetics of the reverse die and intentionally had them struck at different alignments, which was easier than making separate dies with varying angles of the eagle's flight. {Not mentioned above but who's to say that is not what happened}
By the way, why did they scrap the reverse entirely? Were they getting feedback to the effect that "nice coin but the eagle is slanted?" I can imagine that happening and then the mint director and staff looking at the level flyer and saying no way, that ruins the whole look, and just scrapping the whole idea, saying the heck with it, if people have no sense of aesthetics we'll just go with the same old reverse design that they've been seeing for the last 30 years.
CG
Please educate us why coins on the small screw press can have rotated dies and those on the large screw press cannot.
****************
There is no particular reason except to note the following:
1) Screw presses were used for all coinages prior to 1836 but during 1836 various denominations began to use the steam press,
starting with the cent in late March. Several of the readers of this forum are presumably aware of the well-known Steam Coinage medals
of that year including the very rare February 22 piece when the ceremony had to be aborted for mechanical reasons.
2) The large screw press was designed specifically for medals and large coins such as the dollar. Medal striking required
that absolute precision be maintained between the dies and therefore this entailed a very good locking system. The reason this was true for
medals in particular was that the blanks were annealed (softened) between strikes as it often took several blows to bring up a large medal
and the design would have been ruined had there been the slightest rotation.
3) Is it then possible for coinage dies to have rotated on the large screw press? Generally speaking the answer is no but if the die was not tightened
properly this was remotely possible; it is also unlikely as most proof coinage runs were relatively short for a given denomination.
4) The above comments also hold for the Gobrecht restrikes of the late 1850s. The strikings would have again been more or less on demand and, if
the dies were not fastened in precisely the same position, apparent die rotation would result but not actual rotation. Because the Gobrecht restriking
was done in a semi-clandestine manner under Mint Director James Ross Snowden, we have no clear idea of how many were made, or when, but
the fact that the program (which included other restruck coins, such as the 1856 Flying Eagle cent) seems to have gone on for more than three years,
we can assume that the Gobrechts were made on several different occasions. Dies could have rotated during a coinage run but it is far more likely that
the dies were simply not put back in exactly the same way.
5) For those who like numismatic mysteries it is interesting to note that the Mint coinage ledger for May 29, 1857, indicates that 490 silver dollars had
been struck but, for some unknown reason, this did not appear in the annual report. Was this a report of Gobrecht restrikes accidentally entered onto
the register? It seems too early for that many Gobrechts but whatever the reason it is an odd entry.
Denga
Craig Sholley has stated, from Mint documents, that cents and quarters were the first business strikes from the steam press in 1836. All four 1836 quarter obverse dies were shattered. Were bust half dimes and dimes struck still struck on the screw press in 1837? Or did the transistion take place with the Seated Liberty design? What about the Classic Head gold $2.50 and $5 in 1836 and 1837? Three of the 1836 $5 obverse dies had massive bisecting cracks. Is there further documentation in Mint archives about the transition from the screw press to the steam press for business strikes? Thanks
Denga,
Craig Sholley has stated, from Mint documents, that cents and quarters were the first business strikes from the steam press in 1836. All four 1836 quarter obverse dies were shattered. Were bust half dimes and dimes struck still struck on the screw press in 1837? Or did the transistion take place with the Seated Liberty design? What about the Classic Head gold $2.50 and $5 in 1836 and 1837? Three of the 1836 $5 obverse dies had massive bisecting cracks. Is there further documentation in Mint archives about the transition from the screw press to the steam press for business strikes? Thanks
***********
I will defer to Craig on the matter of the 1836 timing as he has also read the original documents and understands the minting processes very well. If memory serves
correctly, all of the 1837 coinage, except for the Gobrecht dollars, was struck on a steam press. There was a considerable delay in early 1837 before the first gold
and silver coins were delivered (mid February) and this was probably due to mechanical problems in the new system. If Craig is reading this thread he may want
to comment further.
Denga
<< <i>Craig Sholley has stated, from Mint documents, that cents and quarters were the first business strikes from the steam press in 1836. All four 1836 quarter obverse dies were shattered. Were bust half dimes and dimes struck still struck on the screw press in 1837? Or did the transistion take place with the Seated Liberty design? What about the Classic Head gold $2.50 and $5 in 1836 and 1837? Three of the 1836 $5 obverse dies had massive bisecting cracks. Is there further documentation in Mint archives about the transition from the screw press to the steam press for business strikes? Thanks >>
Nysoto,
A "little birdy" told me you asked a question. I am work but the short answer off the top of my head is that all silver, copper, and small gold coinage was struck on the new "steam press" starting in 1836. There was a problem w/ striking half dollars as the first press wasn't designed for larger coin.
There is a significant body of documentation on the transition. I have copies at home in my files. I'm a little busy right now with other projects, business and home stuff (including golf - finally!!!!), hopefully I can find time to give you a more thorough answer in the near future. PM me with your email or snailer.
As to the Gobreachts, IMHO Julian has it right. There is significant documentation re the design and official instructions. Also, other Mint operational documents and the design and operation of the presses, specifically the large medal and hubbing press, clearly supports Julian's argument. Some years ago I discussed this with Julian and a couple others and I was going to write an article, but the subject is to me a minor and fairly boring point usually argued by folks who've never been to the archives or even seen a screw press, thus I saw little point in discussing.
BTW, one should never refer to coins prior to 1858 or so as "proofs". The Mint did not use this term. They used "Master Coin" or "specimen". Julian and I have discussed this. He uses proof because that is the commonly understood term. IMHO, Breen got this one right and they really shouldn't be called proofs. Probably semantic but I tend to be "nit-picky" about this stuff. Also the process for making a Master Coin was not as strict as that for modern proofs: sometimes they did not receive multiple strikes, etc. This causes much confusion for current day numismatists who aren't familiar with the archival record and operation of a screw press.
I agree that a different term needs to be applied to the earlier issues, but shouldn't the cutoff date between PR & SP be based on a change in the method of manufacture, not on the language used by the Mint? If so, what date(s) would you suggest?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>BTW, one should never refer to coins prior to 1858 or so as "proofs". The Mint did not use this term. They used "Master Coin" or "specimen".
I agree that a different term needs to be applied to the earlier issues, but shouldn't the cutoff date between PR & SP be based on a change in the method of manufacture, not on the language used by the Mint? If so, what date(s) would you suggest? >>
First, read all of what I wrote including the sentance: "Also the process for making a Master Coin was not as strict as that for modern proofs: sometimes they did not receive multiple strikes, etc."
Secondly, I disagree with your premise. The Mint used specific language to refer specific processes, equipments and operations. Changing the terms to what one feels comfortable with or what one decides on their own is a good fit then makes it difficult to reconcile with the archival records and creates confusion. Would you change the term "screw press" simply because you don't feel the language of the Mint was appropriate?
This is like chatting colonials with Dr. Hall and Sly Crosby. People in 100 years will be jealous of the folks who get to absorb the extraordinary knowledge of these two today.
Glad to see you both on the boards!
Betts medals, colonial coins, US Mint medals, foreign coins found in early America, and other numismatic Americana
Man, have I got a lot to learn when I take a look at the responses by Denga and Rittenhouse!
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
If you look at the coins, it's obvious that most of the 1827-1857 silver and gold "master coins" were up to the later "proof" standards. This is not to say that we can't use the Mint's own terminology. It's just that if we only use their language, we won't be doing complete justice to the coins themselves.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If the screw press were known by a different name today, I would use the current name so that people would know what I was talking about.
Similarly, the current generation of collectors has been taught that "Proof" is a method of manufacture. I'd choose to leave it at that and fight some other battle.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
TDN - I've searched for that thread and can't find it. Help, please!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Specially struck coins for collectors were first issued in sets in 1858. Initially, these were called “Master coins,” “specimen coins,” or “proof coins” with the three terms being more or less synonymous. After about 1863 the term “proof coins” is used with increasing regularity until it became firmly established in the numismatic vocabulary. A letter dated March 23, 1939 reviewing the background of proof coins states in part:
"Prior to March 7, 1865, the deliveries of proof or specimen coins were not noted on the records of the coining department. From July 2, 1867 to February 18, 1873 the gold coins were known as “Specimen coins” and so recorded in the coiner’s ledger… Prior to 1863, the ledgers of the coining department do not show any deliveries of silver coins that can be classed as proof coins. The entries from 1863 to 1867…were frequently designated in the Cashier’s books as “Specimen coins.” A delivery of $193.00 in silver coin on June 20, 1867 was designated “proof coin” and was the first entry in the Coiner’s silver ledger to be so designated, although some of the entries prior to that date were designated “Specimen.”
The earliest correspondence referring to sets of proof coins made for collectors is a letter written on March 6, 1858 from mint director James Ross Snowden to Winslow J. Howard a clock and watch repairer employed by Tiffany & Co. in New York City. It obviously refers to earlier letters which are now lost.
"I had hoped by this time to be able to send you a full series of proof coins of silver for 1858 but they are not yet prepared. I send you a half dollar and a cent; the others I will take pleasure in sending as soon as the specimen pieces are struck.
"…I will see, as requested, “Whether any bright coins in silver or copper of the year 1853 can be obtained” for you, and inform you when I send the remaining specimen pieces for 1858."
The letter suggests that Snowden considered “specimen” and “proof” to mean the same thing, and that “bright” (as in shiny or polished?) might also be used. It is also evident that Mr. Howard knew of previous “bright” coins being available at least as far back as 1853. Further, because all of the copper and silver proof coins were not available as of March 6, it is probable that the mint did not necessarily strike complete groups of proofs at one time.
Two weeks later, Snowden sent a follow-up letter enclosing additional coins:
"I send enclosed specimen coins as follows: $1.00; 25¢; 1 dime; one half dime; 3 cent piece; which, with the coins heretofore sent you, make a full series of the latest coins of the U. S."
With many collectors requesting proof coins for 1858, the mint decided it needed a formal set of regulations to cover the production and sale of the coins to collectors. The first regulations concerning the sale of proof or specimen coins to the public were prepared by Director of the Mint James Ross Snowden in 1858. The earliest printed circular advertising the availability of proof coins for collectors was dated December 20, 1859. The regulations issued March 8, 1860 are typical:
"To carry into effect the directions as to the giving out of Master Coins, contained in the Circular of the 20th of December, 1859, the following regulations are made:
1. The Chief Coiner will deliver them [i.e.: Master Coins] to the Treasurer [of the mint] as other coins are delivered, and shall, as in other cases, be credited by the weight of the coins."
<< <i> "Prior to March 7, 1865, the deliveries of proof or specimen coins were not noted on the records of the coining department. From July 2, 1867 to February 18, 1873 the gold coins were known as “Specimen coins” and so recorded in the coiner’s ledger… Prior to 1863, the ledgers of the coining department do not show any deliveries of silver coins that can be classed as proof coins. The entries from 1863 to 1867…were frequently designated in the Cashier’s books as “Specimen coins.” A delivery of $193.00 in silver coin on June 20, 1867 was designated “proof coin” and was the first entry in the Coiner’s silver ledger to be so designated, although some of the entries prior to that date were designated “Specimen.”
The earliest correspondence referring to sets of proof coins made for collectors is a letter written on March 6, 1858 from mint director James Ross Snowden to Winslow J. Howard a clock and watch repairer employed by Tiffany & Co. in New York City. It obviously refers to earlier letters which are now lost.
"I had hoped by this time to be able to send you a full series of proof coins of silver for 1858 but they are not yet prepared. I send you a half dollar and a cent; the others I will take pleasure in sending as soon as the specimen pieces are struck.
"…I will see, as requested, “Whether any bright coins in silver or copper of the year 1853 can be obtained” for you, and inform you when I send the remaining specimen pieces for 1858."
Two weeks later, Snowden sent a follow-up letter enclosing additional coins:
"I send enclosed specimen coins as follows: $1.00; 25¢; 1 dime; one half dime; 3 cent piece; which, with the coins heretofore sent you, make a full series of the latest coins of the U. S."
With many collectors requesting proof coins for 1858, the mint decided it needed a formal set of regulations to cover the production and sale of the coins to collectors. The first regulations concerning the sale of proof or specimen coins to the public were prepared by Director of the Mint James Ross Snowden in 1858. The earliest printed circular advertising the availability of proof coins for collectors was dated December 20, 1859. The regulations issued March 8, 1860 are typical:
"To carry into effect the directions as to the giving out of Master Coins, contained in the Circular of the 20th of December, 1859, the following regulations are made:
1. The Chief Coiner will deliver them [i.e.: Master Coins] to the Treasurer [of the mint] as other coins are delivered, and shall, as in other cases, be credited by the weight of the coins." >>
Bingo, RWB! You've found the same letters I did. There's also the Sept 26, 1850 letter by Patterson quoted by Breen referring to "Gold Master Coins".
------
In response to Andy Lustig:
<< <i>If you look at the coins, it's obvious that most of the 1827-1857 silver and gold "master coins" were up to the later "proof" standards. This is not to say that we can't use the Mint's own terminology. It's just that if we only use their language, we won't be doing complete justice to the coins themselves.
If the screw press were known by a different name today, I would use the current name so that people would know what I was talking about.
Similarly, the current generation of collectors has been taught that "Proof" is a method of manufacture. I'd choose to leave it at that and fight some other battle. >>
1. Disagree w/ your position. By not using the Mint terminology we aren't doing the history justice and we are introducing confusion when trying to reconcile commonly used terms against the historical record. Simply because folks are being taught wrong is no reason to perpetuate the error. However, I do note that this would cause a good bit of difficulty in marketing the coins.
2. It is known by a different name: a "fly" press.
OK. Here are some of the mint's internal comments from an article I am working on:
Specially struck coins for collectors were first issued in sets in 1858. Initially, these were called “Master coins,” “specimen coins,” or “proof coins” with the three terms being more or less synonymous. After about 1863 the term “proof coins” is used with increasing regularity until it became firmly established in the numismatic vocabulary. A letter dated March 23, 1939 reviewing the background of proof coins states in part:
"Prior to March 7, 1865, the deliveries of proof or specimen coins were not noted on the records of the coining department. From July 2, 1867 to February 18, 1873 the gold coins were known as “Specimen coins” and so recorded in the coiner’s ledger… Prior to 1863, the ledgers of the coining department do not show any deliveries of silver coins that can be classed as proof coins. The entries from 1863 to 1867…were frequently designated in the Cashier’s books as “Specimen coins.” A delivery of $193.00 in silver coin on June 20, 1867 was designated “proof coin” and was the first entry in the Coiner’s silver ledger to be so designated, although some of the entries prior to that date were designated “Specimen.”
Agreed, with a couple of minor additions:
1) The 1939 letter is not quite correct as the Mint ledgers show the first formal delivery of proofs on March 8, 1860. There were 1,000 each of the silver coins except for the dollar with 1,330. The first gold proofs were delivered in April; neither delivery had any label, however, just a list of pieces delivered by the chief coiner. (The early 1860s deliveries are covered in the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine of March 25, 1966.)
2) In a technical sense, proof sets were available prior to 1858 but not until later in the year when all of the denominations had been struck. The principal change for 1858 was to have the full sets ready much earlier in the year.
RWJ
The letter suggests that Snowden considered “specimen” and “proof” to mean the same thing, and that “bright” (as in shiny or polished?) might also be used. It is also evident that Mr. Howard knew of previous “bright” coins being available at least as far back as 1853.
Given that the request was specifically for 1853 coins, a year from which "proofs" are far less mirrored than usual, it seems more likely that Howard's request for "bright" examples was a request for examples with better mirrors. Therefore, I wouldn't be so quick to believe that "bright" could have been a synonym for "proof".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The following is an excerpt from Coins, Coinage and Bullion by Jacob Eckfeldt and William DuBois, 1852, third edition. I was fortunate to finally obtain a copy of this reference recently.
Page 68:
............from that date to 1834. At that time, however, the standard of the gold coin was changed, and a modification of device became necessary; and after the public taste had recovered from its alarm at the removal of "E pluribus unum", it was less difficult to progress in the path of change and improvement. The year 1836 was remarkable for new patterns and projects. It was supposed that Liberty might be symbolized by other forms than the matronly bust, and that the eagle might change its perch. Hence we have the famous new dollar of that year. There was also produced, obedient to calls of committees of Congress, the gold dollar, and the two-cent billon piece, the latter being a mixture in which two cents' worth of silver was contained, or lost, in a sizable proportion of copper; but neither was approved. Further varieties, especially in the half-dollar, appear in 1837; and in 1838 there are a number of half-dollar trial-pieces, none of which were adopted. In that year the gold eagle reappears; and all the gold coin is in a new dress. The silver dollars continue very scarce until 1840, when the flying eagle is discontinued; and the entire coinage remains unaltered from that date to present. (Some material changes are, however, in contemplation.)
There sure are some heavy-hitters posting to this thread. Hope the above excerpt helps in some way.
The following is an excerpt from Coins, Coinage and Bullion by Jacob Eckfeldt and William DuBois, 1852, third edition. I was fortunate to finally obtain a copy of this reference recently.
Page 68:
............from that date to 1834. At that time, however, the standard of the gold coin was changed, and a modification of device became necessary; and after the public taste had recovered from its alarm at the removal of "E pluribus unum", it was less difficult to progress in the path of change and improvement. The year 1836 was remarkable for new patterns and projects. It was supposed that Liberty might be symbolized by other forms than the matronly bust, and that the eagle might change its perch. Hence we have the famous new dollar of that year. There was also produced, obedient to calls of committees of Congress, the gold dollar, and the two-cent billon piece, the latter being a mixture in which two cents' worth of silver was contained, or lost, in a sizable proportion of copper; but neither was approved. Further varieties, especially in the half-dollar, appear in 1837; and in 1838 there are a number of half-dollar trial-pieces, none of which were adopted. In that year the gold eagle reappears; and all the gold coin is in a new dress. The silver dollars continue very scarce until 1840, when the flying eagle is discontinued; and the entire coinage remains unaltered from that date to present. (Some material changes are, however, in contemplation.)
**********************
Thanks for printing the excerpt. I have the second edition (1851) and find that the wording is the same. There is always the possibility that new material is added for a further printing.
Denga
<< <i> "…I will see, as requested, “Whether any bright coins in silver or copper of the year 1853 can be obtained” for you, and inform you when I send the remaining specimen pieces for 1858."
The letter suggests that Snowden considered “specimen” and “proof” to mean the same thing, and that “bright” (as in shiny or polished?) might also be used. It is also evident that Mr. Howard knew of previous “bright” coins being available at least as far back as 1853.
Given that the request was specifically for 1853 coins, a year from which "proofs" are far less mirrored than usual, it seems more likely that Howard's request for "bright" examples was a request for examples with better mirrors. Therefore, I wouldn't be so quick to believe that "bright" could have been a synonym for "proof". >>
Be careful. You are looking at 19th century documents with "21st century eyes". Not good. One must always view archival documents within their own context and not introduce current concepts.
The collectors of the 19th century did not have the wealth of information available to us today. The terminology for what we call proof coins was not well developed as previously discussed - collectors simply didn't know how to refer to these coins. I have seen several letters just like the Howard letter. Additionally, collectors of this time did not have the opportunity to view large numbers of coins next to each other. They thus had little appreciation for the differences and they were not as "appearance sensitive" as we are today.