I'm not on the defensive, but rather on the edge of my ability to understand what happened. At some point, this will be explained and the explanation will be only partially satisfying, like with the reappearing serif on the 05 105. It's going to be as satisfying as an aborted sneeze. I am absolutely certain that this is not a double struck coin like the CBHs, but nothing else.
Remember that a PCGS error expert (Fred Weinberg?) couldn't figure it out in whatever time allotment he had and made the defensive call, but too many really good numismatists disagree. The challenge is 'what is it?' and all we have so far is some partial explanations.
<< <i>Double struck with the second strike coming from a brockage? >>
Maybe?? How would you explain the reverse collar impressions if that is the case?
<< <i>For all its worth....I may not be adding to this thread, but sure as the sun rises- I am following it intently. >>
Same here! It keeps me going when others are following. Sometimes threads fall off and sink like a rock, leaving the impression that no one is looking. With BB now a member, more good discussion has taken place lately on early halves than in the recent past.
1809 O.102 has some tracks above the eagle that look like a screw was pressed into the die. Dr. Schertz wrote a paper on that ~10 years ago offering a likely explanation, but that was something different than this.
It's probably time to move the discussion on. I will be typing up a description of the device that Eckfeldt invented in 1793 for automatically feeding and ejecting of the planchets.
Hopefully this will shed some light on the subject.
If anyone out there has a good description of how this feeding device worked and what it looked like please post it here as the Wailes 1829 description leaves quite a few questions but is informative nevertheless and suitable for understanding how a planchet could encounter a problem while being struck.
Hopefully this will add some insight into the discussion at hand. If not it is still very interesting and informative for early bust collectors interested in the minting process.
Taxay at page 96 writes: “The importance of the automatic feed can be inferred from Pistrucci’s description for the 19th century London Mint, where ever “moneyer” had lost at least one of his finger joints.”
I can relate to that. In my part of the world we had an abundance of cedar shingle mills in operation in the 1970’s. The sawyer had to work close to the saw blades as he fed the cedar blocks and retrieved the shingle. Likewise shake sawyers worked close to a large band saw blade all shift long. Many, if not most, sawyers had missing finger digits.
So it was with great accomplishment and ingenuity that in 1793 Adam Eckfeldt devised an automatic planchet feeder and ejector. This saved fingers and allowed for increased production. Unfortunately I know of no exacting diagram or illustration as to how it looked. Taxay relies on an account in B.L.C. Wailes 1829 journal to make a mental description of the feeding mechanism.
Before I begin the quote it is noted that in 1829 nippers were used in the process that Wailes observed but they were not used in early bust half coinage, although there may have been a parallel purpose and a similar device used for other reasons than imparting edge impressions. This may, in fact, be the open collar which acted much in the same manner as the nipper.
Wailes 1829, Quote: “This (the coining press) is a very powerful, ingenious, simple (tho very perfect) piece of machinery. It consists (like the cutting machine) of a very powerful upright screw, to the top of which is affixed a heavy & strong lever worked with great apparent ease by one man at each end, & by which the screw is made to make about one fourth of a revolution & returning instantly to its former position. At the lower end of the screw is affixed the die which gives the impression on the upper side, & immediately under it is the die containing the impression for the reverse of the coin, around which a pair of nippers (which gives the milling or impression on the edges), & by which placing as a rivet after it receives the impression. Near the lower end of the Screw stands a tube sufficiently large to admit a considerable number of the coins, one on top of the other, which may be termed the hopper, at the bottom of which is an apparatus in the file (or hopper) is struck out with great accuracy by a thin piece of iron made to strike edgewise at each movement of the lever and is conveyed by a channel formed for the purpose & is conveyed directly on & under the dye. The screw is brought down & the nippers close with a force that makes the impression. The lever is instantly brought back, the nippers open, the stamped coins is struck out of its place & conveyed into a Box by a spout ( or conductor) as the Screw rises, and another unstamped coin takes its place, & the Screw comes down again.”
Plenty of meat in that description. Please note again that nippers were used in 1829 but not for bust half dollar coinage. Please note again that the open collar may have acted like the nippers in bust half coinage.
<< <i>Double struck with the second strike coming from a brockage? >>
No. The second strike was a very light one with the already struck coin halfway out of the coining chamber, laying at an angle on the lip of the open collar. TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The second strike was a very light one with the already struck coin halfway out of the coining chamber, laying at an angle on the lip of the open collar.
In my opinion, if the half was lying at an angle, halfway out of the chamber when it was struck again, then the coin would be bent to some degree. Thin planchet....a lot of force....and the fact that the coin would have a "point contact" with the collar (vs. planar). I would expect the half to be bent slightly.
<< <i>Double struck with the second strike coming from a brockage? >>
No. The second strike was a very light one with the already struck coin halfway out of the coining chamber, laying at an angle on the lip of the open collar. TD >>
I am trying to breath new life into Slumlords observation that the dentils are facing the wrong direction rather than an optical illusion or restrike.
I am applying the Taxay / Wailes description of the nippers to what we commonly call the open collar. If they are the same basic design element then I can see where Slumlord's scenario of the coin rolling on the edge against the outside die is possible.
Keep in mind the nipper, as described by Wailes, was used to apply markings on the edge of the coin but also served as a rivet to keep the coin locked in place while being struck. Just change that to the striking of early bust halves where the nippers (collar) closed but not so tight as to impair the edge lettering while the coin was being struck, but closed enough to hold the coin in basically the correct position for striking. Of course there was a little bit of slack inside the nipper chamber which allowed the planchet some laterally movement, hence the thousands of the slightly off center bust half strikes. But then the nippers (collor) must open to allow the coin to be ejected in a sliding motion out of the way and into a storage box
During this opening and closing process many different senarios can develop with jamming, partial ejections, and perhaps a coin tilted on edge.
Hopefully by the time the day is over I will have a photo of a drawing or working model to demonstrate.
I typed up a long reply, only to have the server bounce it. Maybe that's a sign? In response to Numisma, it didn't rock on a piece of glass, but the strike must not have been very strong.
Here is an image of the last incuse dentil heading north. This is the most obvious sign that it is incuse. Also, I'm basing my thought that it was hit with the outside of the die because there is a depression outside the row of dentils that may be from the outside of the die. I'm waiting for a response from the person I consider to be the foremost error expert on early type and will add his response.
For clarification, the pie-shaped wedge above the R pointing WSW is not a denticle. It is the space between the outer ends of two denticles. As the ridge between two depressions in the die, it would leave an incused mark in the coin relative to the two raised denticles bracketing it. TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i> It is the space between the outer ends of two denticles >>
You are still right. It is a space. The dentils are not incuse, just seemingly backward. There is a deep incuse line behind the dentils that may have been left by the outside edge of the die.
<< <i>Wish someone would brave their reputation and describe exactly how the open collar looked and how it worked. >>
No one knows for sure. There are no drawings or good contemporary descriptions of the collar or the feeder mechanism according to Henry. Don't know who A.C. is??? Hopefully, Henry will respond before I tire.
There's a picture of an O/C 1829 in an earlier post. Would someone please post a picture of the same variety, not O/C? I'd like to compare the shape of the dentils of the two coins.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
. No one knows for sure. There are no drawings or good contemporary descriptions of the collar or the feeder mechanism according to Henry. Don't know who A.C. is??? Hopefully, Henry will respond
Hmmmmm. Looks like we are missing a key ingredient in the puzzle if this is a "Kissing" matter.
If no one comes forward on this key ingredient I will see if I can arouse my old nemesis Alabaster Carp. That may take awhile but he may be interested in seeing me grovelling around on my knees and consent to presenting a model or display of a 1803 working collar.
So, in order to save me from this embarassment, would somone raise to the occassion and describe what the collar looked like and how it worked in 1803 ??
As far as I know there are no known accurate descriptions of the feeding device, no known diagrams or blueprints. No known image of the open collar used in the striking of the Capped Bust halves. No precise descriptive text in the Smithsonian papers either - I've looked. Friend and fellow researcher Craig Sholley has also poked around there and, to my knowledge, found nothing concerning this matter. Henry H. have you any leads in this direction or ever heard/seen anything specific? Anyone finding such proof would immediately have one great article for the numismatic press!
<< <i>As far as I know there are no known accurate descriptions of the feeding device, no known diagrams or blueprints. No known image of the open collar used in the striking of the Capped Bust halves. No precise descriptive text in the Smithsonian papers either - I've looked. Friend and fellow researcher Craig Sholley has also poked around there and, to my knowledge, found nothing concerning this matter. Henry H. have you any leads in this direction or ever heard/seen anything specific? Anyone finding such proof would immediately have one great article for the numismatic press! Edgar >>
Hi Fever
I likewise welcome you to the CU forum. It is an honor and I am sure many others feel the same. Unfortunately this is the forum where torching a discussion is a way of life, but with some finesse this can be worked around.
Since we are working on CaptHenways "Kissing" theory, in respect to the collar, I feel it fair that he at least provide some description of the working collar. However, I realize your theory does not require an exact explanation of the working collar so you are off the hook in this respect.
Knowing that I am a mere Charlatan in comparison to the working knowledge of most of those posting to this thread I hope the reader will not lose interest in my never ending questions? However, this is becoming more like a murder mystery where we can find no murder weapon, being that instrument or some type of mechanism that caused an 1803 US mint struck draped bust half dollar to have a row of unsightly edge denticals impressed upon the handsome face of Ms Liberty.
Calling CaptHenway. We need a working description of the collar used in 1803.
The complete Taxay / Wailes quote is posted above under Biddlesbank above. Here is the relevant portion for these two photos.
Near the lower end of the Screw stands a tube sufficiently large to admit a considerable number of the coins, one on top of the other, which may be termed the hopper, at the bottom of which is an apparatus in the file (or hopper) is struck out with great accuracy by a thin piece of iron made to strike edgewise at each movement of the lever and is conveyed by a channel formed for the purpose & is conveyed directly on & under the dye.
Crude but informative photos.
Next will be how the "open collar" works according to my old nemesis Alabaster Carp.
First off, Thank You all for the welcome and nice comments on the book.
Mr. Eureka - The earlier '29 OC is a O-112. My set piece does not have complete dentilation for an example for your comparison. Perhaps someone could post a photo of an 1829 O-112 with full dentilation?
Numisma - The "kiss" as you've mentioned then HAD TO be the first strike and not the second. First, I believe the planchet WAS setting partially within the open collar when it was first struck. And it probably did bend the planchet to a degree based upon the varying impact strength from the hammer die. Then it was popped over into the hole of the open collar and struck again. Why was it in this order and not the opposite? Because the dentil tracks were pushed up and into the device designs of the obverse die (in this case). They are sometimes very slightly distorted from the metal flowing into the cavities of the dies. If it had happened the other way around then the tracks would be heavier on the raised devices of the coin and lighter in the fields.
BiddlesBank, Slumlord98 and All - Somewhere, I have several images of a few original Capped Bust and also PreTurb Half dollar dies. (I've been looking for them for the last hour and am not sure where I put them). Nevertheless, when/if I can find them I'll post them as this might help in the discussion. BUT, if the answer is from a tilted planchet, not completely centered within the open collar die for the first strike, then centered within the collar and struck normally - how would you explain very long dentil tracks on the REVERSE of Capped Bust halves? Or was the planchet, in this case, flipped before being struck the second time with the dentil tracks from the first strike (obverse die) - then after turning over the planchet - appearing on the reverse of the half? Comments? Thoughts?
<< <i>Capt. Henway has mirrored the thoughts of several experts who looked at this coin at Baltimore a year ago.
Note the rim dings at K5 and K10. Those may be impressions of the open collar. A closer look- first at K5
and at K10-
>>
Does anybody have a raw one of these who could check to see if the denticle at the mark at K-5:30 is elongated like this on the die, or is this post-strike damage? TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i> The "kiss" as you've mentioned then HAD TO be the first strike and not the second. First, I believe the planchet WAS setting partially within the open collar when it was first struck. And it probably did bend the planchet to a degree based upon the varying impact strength from the hammer die. Then it was popped over into the hole of the open collar and struck again. Why was it in this order and not the opposite? Because the dentil tracks were pushed up and into the device designs of the obverse die (in this case). They are sometimes very slightly distorted from the metal flowing into the cavities of the dies. If it had happened the other way around then the tracks would be heavier on the raised devices of the coin and lighter in the fields. BiddlesBank, Slumlord98 and All - Somewhere, I have several images of a few original Capped Bust and also PreTurb Half dollar dies. (I've been looking for them for the last hour and am not sure where I put them). Nevertheless, when/if I can find them I'll post them as this might help in the discussion. BUT, if the answer is from a tilted planchet, not completely centered within the open collar die for the first strike, then centered within the collar and struck normally - how would you explain very long dentil tracks on the REVERSE of Capped Bust halves? Or was the planchet, in this case, flipped before being struck the second time with the dentil tracks from the first strike (obverse die) - then after turning over the planchet - appearing on the reverse of the half? Comments? Thoughts? Edgar >>
FEVER
Thank you for your in depth comments but first just a quick note. It was CaptHenway who has basically set forth the theory of the "kiss," Numisma had merely made a comment that if the coin had been partially in the collar it would have bent.
That said, I believe your first paragraph of explaining the dentil impressions set forth a logical argument as to why the dentils appear so even over the curvature of the devices. The only other way possible that I can think of is when Slumlord said: " It looks like the coin rolled across the die, leaving the arc of the dentils backward." Now I do not know how that would look but if it did roll against the edge of the descending die would it be possible to leave that pattern and still follow the curvature of the devices?
Last paragraph, aside from really wanting to see the die photos, I was a little confused. Were you restating the prior paragraph but with differering rhetorical questions? I mean, if the 1803 was off center struck laying flat on the die as versus off center struck laying on the edge of the collar would it make a difference? Otherwise, would the pattern look different since under either senario you employed it was struck a second time?
Now I am not sure if anyone is going to contest the wayward dentils being imparted on the first strike rather than the 2nd strike but the discussion is still open as far as I am concerned.
I just heard from Henry, who is known to BiddlesBank, FEVER (a belated welcome!) and myself. This coin was found by Brian Greer who sold it to a BHNC member who is highly knowledgeable about preturbs. All of these individuals agree that the coin was normally struck, then, during ejection, was lightly struck by the outside edge of the die, which left obverse dentil impressions and collar impressions on the reverse. The ejection mechanism may have been the cause, and not a second strike. Was the hammer die fully retracted? I dunno. Was it coming back down for another strike? Could the press operators have overcome the inertial force to stop it?
<< <i> The "kiss" as you've mentioned then HAD TO be the first strike and not the second. First, I believe the planchet WAS setting partially within the open collar when it was first struck. And it probably did bend the planchet to a degree based upon the varying impact strength from the hammer die. Then it was popped over into the hole of the open collar and struck again. Why was it in this order and not the opposite? Because the dentil tracks were pushed up and into the device designs of the obverse die (in this case). They are sometimes very slightly distorted from the metal flowing into the cavities of the dies. If it had happened the other way around then the tracks would be heavier on the raised devices of the coin and lighter in the fields. BiddlesBank, Slumlord98 and All - Somewhere, I have several images of a few original Capped Bust and also PreTurb Half dollar dies. (I've been looking for them for the last hour and am not sure where I put them). Nevertheless, when/if I can find them I'll post them as this might help in the discussion. BUT, if the answer is from a tilted planchet, not completely centered within the open collar die for the first strike, then centered within the collar and struck normally - how would you explain very long dentil tracks on the REVERSE of Capped Bust halves? Or was the planchet, in this case, flipped before being struck the second time with the dentil tracks from the first strike (obverse die) - then after turning over the planchet - appearing on the reverse of the half? Comments? Thoughts? Edgar >>
FEVER
Thank you for your in depth comments but first just a quick note.<STRONG> It was CaptHenway who has basically set forth the theory of the "kiss,"</STRONG> Numisma had merely made a comment that if the coin had been partially in the collar it would have bent.
That said, I believe your first paragraph of explaining the dentil impressions set forth a logical argument as to why the dentils appear so even over the curvature of the devices. The only other way possible that I can think of is when Slumlord said: " It looks like the coin rolled across the die, leaving the arc of the dentils backward." Now I do not know how that would look but if it did roll against the edge of the descending die would it be possible to leave that pattern and still follow the curvature of the devices?
Last paragraph, aside from really wanting to see the die photos, I was a little confused. Were you restating the prior paragraph but with differering rhetorical questions? I mean, if the 1803 was off center struck laying flat on the die as versus off center struck laying on the edge of the collar would it make a difference? Otherwise, would the pattern look different since under either senario you employed it was struck a second time?
Now I am not sure if anyone is going to contest the wayward dentils being imparted on the first strike rather than the 2nd strike but the discussion is still open as far as I am concerned.
BB >>
Going back to look at the closeup picture of the denticles above the R of LIBERTY on the 1803, I have to say that the very light off-center strike did come first. I did not see that feature on the original full obverse picture (always one of the drawbacks of working from pictures rather than the coin), and when I later commented on the pie-shaped depression being merely the trough between two raised denticles it did not occur to me at that time that these features are in an area too well protected by the letters of LIBERTY to have been imparted by a light, post-strike "kiss." They are.
After all, that theory had been originally proposed by me to explain the light dentil marks on the cheek of the coin that started this thread. I still think it is correct in that case.
It would have been nothing for the Mint coiners to have placed a weak off-center strike back into the press for a normal strike. While at ANACS I saw a Turban Head $10 that had started out as a full normal obverse/ incused obverse brockage, that was then put back in the press and given six normal strikes to obliterate the brockage. You could count the strikes.
Tom DeLorey
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Going back to look at the closeup picture of the denticles above the R of LIBERTY on the 1803, I have to say that the very light off-center strike did come first. I did not see that feature on the original full obverse picture (always one of the drawbacks of working from pictures rather than the coin), and when I later commented on the pie-shaped depression being merely the trough between two raised denticles it did not occur to me at that time that these features are in an area too well protected by the letters of LIBERTY to have been imparted by a light, post-strike "kiss." They are.
After all, that theory had been originally proposed by me to explain the light dentil marks on the cheek of the coin that started this thread. I still think it is correct in that case.
CaptHenway (aka Tom DeLorey) & Slumlord.
I have provide this photo to help the discussion but not necessarily to support the kissing theory as no one has come forward to show what the working collar looks like or how it worked. Once that is done, then the proposed kissing scenario would have to match the factual working of the mechanical devices employed in making the strike.
The reverse imprints as I understand it is the imprints left by the collar. Slumlord requested this mockup of the reverse illustration a few days ago. Sorry I took so long.
The discussion is still open for varying view points or clarification.
BB
EDITED TO SAY: WORKING COLLAR "CURVED EDGE" IN BELOW PHOTO TEXT. The collar was a flat piece of steel with a hole in it (collar opening) and was hinged so as to allow it to open and close, at least according to A.C.
I just want to add a couple of factors that should be considered while developing this theory. In 1803, the screw press would have been capable of striking up to 60 coins per minute, but more likely 30 per minute on average. The planchets were not hand loaded, but rather fed by a mechanism, as already stated by BB and others. The feeder mechanism was probably timed to the press with a cam, but that's just conjecture on my part. I am merely stating that the speed of the operation should be considered as well. The "kiss theory" still makes sense regardless of the speed, but there have been comments regarding the strength of the second impact which left the dentil tracks.
If the row of dentils on the 1803 came from a second strike, there would be displaced metal from the impression showing as lumps, and a raised ridge next to the incuse line. With my silversmithing hobby, displaced metal will seek the path of least resistance, which is UP the case of work hardened metal. Impressions on annealed silver can result in displaced metal expanding the silver, you can expand annealed sterling by planishing (light hammering). This is why there is little upward displacement of metal in the off center 1829, the annealed planchet expanded outward. With a work hardened struck coin, gouges, counterstamps, etc always display upwardly displaced metal.
Since the rims are raised by the rimming and edge lettered machine and not by the strike, the edge marks would still show in the second full strike, just as adjustments marks through the rim still will sometimes show on a struck coin, they are not always pressed out by the strike.
I believe the first strike was an off-center full strike, not a "kiss strike", followed by another full but centered second strike.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
<< <i>Great thread! I just want to add a couple of factors that should be considered while developing this theory. In 1803, the screw press would have been capable of striking up to 60 coins per minute, but more likely 30 per minute on average. The planchets were not hand loaded, but rather fed by a mechanism, as already stated by BB and others. The feeder mechanism was probably timed to the press with a cam, but that's just conjecture on my part. I am merely stating that the speed of the operation should be considered as well. The "kiss theory" still makes sense regardless of the speed, but there have been comments regarding the strength of the second impact which left the dentil tracks. >>
First Numisma then Nysoto.
Numisma, I am in complete agreement with what you say. Those planchets are flying through there thanks to Eckfeldt's 1793 invention to automatically feed planchets onto the reverse die. No more finger jobs. The guy observing the actually striking process just has to make sure everything is operating smoothly. No time to stop for a kiss.
<< <i>If the row of dentils on the 1803 came from a second strike, there would be displaced metal from the impression showing as lumps, and a raised ridge next to the incuse line. With my silversmithing hobby, displaced metal will seek the path of least resistance, which is UP the case of work hardened metal. Impressions on annealed silver can result in displaced metal expanding the silver, you can expand annealed sterling by planishing (light hammering). This is why there is little upward displacement of metal in the off center 1829, the annealed planchet expanded outward. With a work hardened struck coin, gouges, counterstamps, etc always display upwardly displaced metal. Since the rims are raised by the rimming and edge lettered machine and not by the strike, the edge marks would still show in the second full strike, just as adjustments marks through the rim still will sometimes show on a struck coin, they are not always pressed out by the strike. I believe the first strike was an off-center full strike, not a "kiss strike", followed by another full but centered second strike. >>
Hi Nysoto
Our paths keep crossing but we never see each other.
I agree that the "kiss strike" is not a viable senario, if for no other reason than the one given by Numisma just above your post. And I will add again:
"Those planchets are flying through there thanks to Eckfeldt's 1793 invention to automatically feed planchets onto the reverse die. No more finger jobs. The guy observing the actually striking process just has to make sure everything is operating smoothly. No time to stop for a kiss."
So the Kiss is out in my book unless someone whats to redeem by detailed description why it was feasible. Detailed emphasized.
Also Nysoto, your observations on silver smithing go a long way in helping FEVER'S explanation of the second strike over a previous off center strike.
Thank you. BB
However there is still one other scenario alive, although it will take some experimentation on this end to see if it is workable. It has to do with the 1803 being on it's edge or near edge and being pinned in the collar with another planchet. This could occur when the collar closed for the strike on the next planchet if the 1803 had not properly ejected from the collar on the previous strike. It is then possible that during ejection of the second struck planchet the 1803 came into contact with the edge of the die as Slumlord previously indicated when he said it looked like the 1803 came into contact with the edge of the die and not the face of the die.
Mental fatigue. I strongly disagreed with the notion that the O/C strike came first, but the valley above R which is a space between dentils, couldn't exist as an artifact from a second strike. When my mental fatigue subsides, I'll add some more.
In the meantime, answer the age old question, which came last, the chicken or the egg?
<< <i> ....Slumlord requested this mockup of the reverse illustration a few days ago. Sorry I took so long.
The discussion is still open for varying view points or clarification.
BB
>>
I find it problematic with the kissing theory since the marks on the rim have no semblance of denticles which would likely transfer when the metals made contact (even light compression would leave dentil marks, NO ?)
<< <i>Mental fatigue. I strongly disagreed with the notion that the O/C strike came first, but the valley above R which is a space between dentils, couldn't exist as an artifact from a second strike. When my mental fatigue subsides, I'll add some more. In the meantime, answer the age old question, which came last, the chicken or the egg? egg or chicken? >>
Understandable Slumlord.
I am actually too tired to make up an 1803 working collar for a photo illustration.
And thank you TwoSides2aCoin. It takes a brave heart to join this thread. There are mouse traps everywhere and a few bear traps for the big varmits.
By the way, the egg came first. Every farmer knows that.
. This is a case of theft. I captured this photo from johnathanb on another thread. Johnathanb's write up. Fits this thread just fine.
" and for the benefit for those who have never seen a real die crack before, one final close-up showing what a cracked die looks like before it strikes a coin. You can see it along the shaft of the die, then turn the corner into the striking face where it extends across the field a little above the date and then a bit into South America (it's also very visible in the head-on view above, once you realize what you're looking at):
Ok, of course a die cracked to this extent (in the above photo) could NEVER be lapped out. The image, however, using a non U.S. Mint made product can be misleading. Are you suggesting that all die cracks crack to this depth into the die? My reason for asking is because of the fact that I have seen them cracked nearly through the die, and I have seen them surface cracked. So, while the die image shows how a crack is formed it still doesn't necessarily answer the question as to whether a small letter to dentil crack or light "spider" crack can be lapped out. The image also cannot be truly compared to an EARLY U.S. Mint made die because the hardening process was completely different at the time. In fact, not even comparable to the more advanced European ways of die hardening. Basically, the U.S. "borrowed" the technology and the "secrets" as well. This is one of the things that Franklin Peale brought back with him from his trip to Europe in the mid 1830's and is documented. Further U.S. dies, on the Capped Bust half-dollars, for example, were not equal strength hardened all the way through. That was the problem for the Mint that constantly haunted them. They didn't even begin to come close to getting it right until the 1820's and it was for the most part trial and error on their part. Just look at the cracked dies of the teen years. And how many die cores cracked and sunk or collapsed due to center soft spots - which on the coins surface appeared as a "bulge". Just check the horrible dies used during 1817 on the Capped Bust halves. Some even show varying surface heights on the struck pieces. Nevertheless, as an analogy, if a die was only surface hardened, and developed a minute fracture of that surface, I believe it could be lapped out. This would be very similar to "flaking" or "spalling" of the die surface metal.
I read your posting on the above thread. I have a notion that the technology of the day...is nothing more than the common practice of "Blacksmithing"! Since abrasive technology was either the stone or sand and shark skin (mainly for wood). Reheating the die to soften the metal for surfacing may have caused all the problems. You said "...This would be very similar to "flaking" or "spalling" of the die surface metal. " Repeated reheating and cooling does that too. Creating a change in the way the metal particles line up. The die surface hardened, although a soft center may be back away from the surface. The now re-heat treated surface becoming more brittle than the rest of the die. Making it prone to pressure cracking. Possibly later, instead of water treated, oil treated became the acceptable practice. Making the die surface more resistant to wear (erosion).
Comments
I added this thread to this thread regarding numismatic mysteries.
What about the 1809's?
Remember that a PCGS error expert (Fred Weinberg?) couldn't figure it out in whatever time allotment he had and made the defensive call, but too many really good numismatists disagree. The challenge is 'what is it?' and all we have so far is some partial explanations.
Great thread, and welcome Fever----I too enjoy your book EVERY DAY.
Double struck with the second strike coming from a brockage?
<< <i>What about the 1809's? >>
Which 1809s are you referring to?
<< <i>Double struck with the second strike coming from a brockage? >>
Maybe?? How would you explain the reverse collar impressions if that is the case?
<< <i>For all its worth....I may not be adding to this thread, but sure as the sun rises- I am following it intently. >>
Same here! It keeps me going when others are following. Sometimes threads fall off and sink like a rock, leaving the impression that no one is looking. With BB now a member, more good discussion has taken place lately on early halves than in the recent past.
<< <i>Which 1809s are you referring to? >>
Can't remember which variety and it wasn't in reference to the coin under discussion but in reference to the orignal post.
It's the 1809 with the "dentil tracks", or whatever they are, in the upper reverse field above the eagle.
What is it the ???? 102? with the XXX edge?
It's probably time to move the discussion on. I will be typing up a description of the device that Eckfeldt invented in 1793 for automatically feeding and ejecting of the planchets.
Hopefully this will shed some light on the subject.
If anyone out there has a good description of how this feeding device worked and what it looked like please post it here as the Wailes 1829 description leaves quite a few questions but is informative nevertheless and suitable for understanding how a planchet could encounter a problem while being struck.
BB
Hopefully this will add some insight into the discussion at hand. If not it is still very interesting and informative for early bust collectors interested in the minting process.
Taxay at page 96 writes: “The importance of the automatic feed can be inferred from Pistrucci’s description for the 19th century London Mint, where ever “moneyer” had lost at least one of his finger joints.”
I can relate to that. In my part of the world we had an abundance of cedar shingle mills in operation in the 1970’s. The sawyer had to work close to the saw blades as he fed the cedar blocks and retrieved the shingle. Likewise shake sawyers worked close to a large band saw blade all shift long. Many, if not most, sawyers had missing finger digits.
So it was with great accomplishment and ingenuity that in 1793 Adam Eckfeldt devised an automatic planchet feeder and ejector. This saved fingers and allowed for increased production. Unfortunately I know of no exacting diagram or illustration as to how it looked. Taxay relies on an account in B.L.C. Wailes 1829 journal to make a mental description of the feeding mechanism.
Before I begin the quote it is noted that in 1829 nippers were used in the process that Wailes observed but they were not used in early bust half coinage, although there may have been a parallel purpose and a similar device used for other reasons than imparting edge impressions. This may, in fact, be the open collar which acted much in the same manner as the nipper.
Wailes 1829, Quote: “This (the coining press) is a very powerful, ingenious, simple (tho very perfect) piece of machinery. It consists (like the cutting machine) of a very powerful upright screw, to the top of which is affixed a heavy & strong lever worked with great apparent ease by one man at each end, & by which the screw is made to make about one fourth of a revolution & returning instantly to its former position. At the lower end of the screw is affixed the die which gives the impression on the upper side, & immediately under it is the die containing the impression for the reverse of the coin, around which a pair of nippers (which gives the milling or impression on the edges), & by which placing as a rivet after it receives the impression. Near the lower end of the Screw stands a tube sufficiently large to admit a considerable number of the coins, one on top of the other, which may be termed the hopper, at the bottom of which is an apparatus in the file (or hopper) is struck out with great accuracy by a thin piece of iron made to strike edgewise at each movement of the lever and is conveyed by a channel formed for the purpose & is conveyed directly on & under the dye. The screw is brought down & the nippers close with a force that makes the impression. The lever is instantly brought back, the nippers open, the stamped coins is struck out of its place & conveyed into a Box by a spout ( or conductor) as the Screw rises, and another unstamped coin takes its place, & the Screw comes down again.”
Plenty of meat in that description. Please note again that nippers were used in 1829 but not for bust half dollar coinage. Please note again that the open collar may have acted like the nippers in bust half coinage.
Your comments.
BB
<< <i>Double struck with the second strike coming from a brockage? >>
No. The second strike was a very light one with the already struck coin halfway out of the coining chamber, laying at an angle on the lip of the open collar.
TD
The second strike was a very light one with the already struck coin halfway out of the coining chamber, laying at an angle on the lip of the open collar.
In my opinion, if the half was lying at an angle, halfway out of the chamber when it was struck again, then the coin would be bent to some degree. Thin planchet....a lot of force....and the fact that the coin would have a "point contact" with the collar (vs. planar). I would expect the half to be bent slightly.
<< <i>
<< <i>Double struck with the second strike coming from a brockage? >>
No. The second strike was a very light one with the already struck coin halfway out of the coining chamber, laying at an angle on the lip of the open collar. TD >>
I am trying to breath new life into Slumlords observation that the dentils are facing the wrong direction rather than an optical illusion or restrike.
I am applying the Taxay / Wailes description of the nippers to what we commonly call the open collar. If they are the same basic design element then I can see where Slumlord's scenario of the coin rolling on the edge against the outside die is possible.
Keep in mind the nipper, as described by Wailes, was used to apply markings on the edge of the coin but also served as a rivet to keep the coin locked in place while being struck. Just change that to the striking of early bust halves where the nippers (collar) closed but not so tight as to impair the edge lettering while the coin was being struck, but closed enough to hold the coin in basically the correct position for striking. Of course there was a little bit of slack inside the nipper chamber which allowed the planchet some laterally movement, hence the thousands of the slightly off center bust half strikes. But then the nippers (collor) must open to allow the coin to be ejected in a sliding motion out of the way and into a storage box
During this opening and closing process many different senarios can develop with jamming, partial ejections, and perhaps a coin tilted on edge.
Hopefully by the time the day is over I will have a photo of a drawing or working model to demonstrate.
Here is an image of the last incuse dentil heading north. This is the most obvious sign that it is incuse. Also, I'm basing my thought that it was hit with the outside of the die because there is a depression outside the row of dentils that may be from the outside of the die. I'm waiting for a response from the person I consider to be the foremost error expert on early type and will add his response.
TD
His name wouldn't be Alabaster Carp would it?
Wish someone would brave their reputation and describe exactly how the open collar looked and how it worked.
BB
<< <i> It is the space between the outer ends of two denticles >>
You are still right. It is a space. The dentils are not incuse, just seemingly backward. There is a deep incuse line behind the dentils that may have been left by the outside edge of the die.
<< <i>Wish someone would brave their reputation and describe exactly how the open collar looked and how it worked. >>
No one knows for sure. There are no drawings or good contemporary descriptions of the collar or the feeder mechanism according to Henry. Don't know who A.C. is??? Hopefully, Henry will respond before I tire.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
No one knows for sure. There are no drawings or good contemporary descriptions of the collar or the feeder mechanism according to Henry. Don't know who A.C. is??? Hopefully, Henry will respond
Hmmmmm. Looks like we are missing a key ingredient in the puzzle if this is a "Kissing" matter.
If no one comes forward on this key ingredient I will see if I can arouse my old nemesis Alabaster Carp. That may take awhile but he may be interested in seeing me grovelling around on my knees and consent to presenting a model or display of a 1803 working collar.
So, in order to save me from this embarassment, would somone raise to the occassion and describe what the collar looked like and how it worked in 1803 ??
Edgar
<< <i>As far as I know there are no known accurate descriptions of the feeding device, no known diagrams or blueprints. No known image of the open collar used in the striking of the Capped Bust halves. No precise descriptive text in the Smithsonian papers either - I've looked. Friend and fellow researcher Craig Sholley has also poked around there and, to my knowledge, found nothing concerning this matter. Henry H. have you any leads in this direction or ever heard/seen anything specific? Anyone finding such proof would immediately have one great article for the numismatic press! Edgar >>
Hi Fever
I likewise welcome you to the CU forum. It is an honor and I am sure many others feel the same. Unfortunately this is the forum where torching a discussion is a way of life, but with some finesse this can be worked around.
Since we are working on CaptHenways "Kissing" theory, in respect to the collar, I feel it fair that he at least provide some description of the working collar. However, I realize your theory does not require an exact explanation of the working collar so you are off the hook in this respect.
Knowing that I am a mere Charlatan in comparison to the working knowledge of most of those posting to this thread I hope the reader will not lose interest in my never ending questions? However, this is becoming more like a murder mystery where we can find no murder weapon, being that instrument or some type of mechanism that caused an 1803 US mint struck draped bust half dollar to have a row of unsightly edge denticals impressed upon the handsome face of Ms Liberty.
Calling CaptHenway. We need a working description of the collar used in 1803.
The complete Taxay / Wailes quote is posted above under Biddlesbank above. Here is the relevant portion for these two photos.
Near the lower end of the Screw stands a tube sufficiently large to admit a considerable number of the coins, one on top of the other, which may be termed the hopper, at the bottom of which is an apparatus in the file (or hopper) is struck out with great accuracy by a thin piece of iron made to strike edgewise at each movement of the lever and is conveyed by a channel formed for the purpose & is conveyed directly on & under the dye.
Crude but informative photos.
Next will be how the "open collar" works according to my old nemesis Alabaster Carp.
BB
Mr. Eureka - The earlier '29 OC is a O-112. My set piece does not have complete dentilation for an example for your comparison. Perhaps someone could post a photo of an 1829 O-112 with full dentilation?
Numisma - The "kiss" as you've mentioned then HAD TO be the first strike and not the second. First, I believe the planchet WAS setting partially within the open collar when it was first struck. And it probably did bend the planchet to a degree based upon the varying impact strength from the hammer die. Then it was popped over into the hole of the open collar and struck again. Why was it in this order and not the opposite? Because the dentil tracks were pushed up and into the device designs of the obverse die (in this case). They are sometimes very slightly distorted from the metal flowing into the cavities of the dies. If it had happened the other way around then the tracks would be heavier on the raised devices of the coin and lighter in the fields.
BiddlesBank, Slumlord98 and All - Somewhere, I have several images of a few original Capped Bust and also PreTurb Half dollar dies. (I've been looking for them for the last hour and am not sure where I put them). Nevertheless, when/if I can find them I'll post them as this might help in the discussion. BUT, if the answer is from a tilted planchet, not completely centered within the open collar die for the first strike, then centered within the collar and struck normally - how would you explain very long dentil tracks on the REVERSE of Capped Bust halves? Or was the planchet, in this case, flipped before being struck the second time with the dentil tracks from the first strike (obverse die) - then after turning over the planchet - appearing on the reverse of the half? Comments? Thoughts?
Edgar
You will have to crack it out of the plastic so we can get a better look.
BB
<< <i>Capt. Henway has mirrored the thoughts of several experts who looked at this coin at Baltimore a year ago.
Note the rim dings at K5 and K10. Those may be impressions of the open collar. A closer look- first at K5
and at K10-
Does anybody have a raw one of these who could check to see if the denticle at the mark at K-5:30 is elongated like this on the die, or is this post-strike damage?
TD
<< <i> The "kiss" as you've mentioned then HAD TO be the first strike and not the second. First, I believe the planchet WAS setting partially within the open collar when it was first struck. And it probably did bend the planchet to a degree based upon the varying impact strength from the hammer die. Then it was popped over into the hole of the open collar and struck again. Why was it in this order and not the opposite? Because the dentil tracks were pushed up and into the device designs of the obverse die (in this case). They are sometimes very slightly distorted from the metal flowing into the cavities of the dies. If it had happened the other way around then the tracks would be heavier on the raised devices of the coin and lighter in the fields. BiddlesBank, Slumlord98 and All - Somewhere, I have several images of a few original Capped Bust and also PreTurb Half dollar dies. (I've been looking for them for the last hour and am not sure where I put them). Nevertheless, when/if I can find them I'll post them as this might help in the discussion. BUT, if the answer is from a tilted planchet, not completely centered within the open collar die for the first strike, then centered within the collar and struck normally - how would you explain very long dentil tracks on the REVERSE of Capped Bust halves? Or was the planchet, in this case, flipped before being struck the second time with the dentil tracks from the first strike (obverse die) - then after turning over the planchet - appearing on the reverse of the half? Comments? Thoughts? Edgar >>
FEVER
Thank you for your in depth comments but first just a quick note. It was CaptHenway who has basically set forth the theory of the "kiss," Numisma had merely made a comment that if the coin had been partially in the collar it would have bent.
That said, I believe your first paragraph of explaining the dentil impressions set forth a logical argument as to why the dentils appear so even over the curvature of the devices. The only other way possible that I can think of is when Slumlord said: " It looks like the coin rolled across the die, leaving the arc of the dentils backward." Now I do not know how that would look but if it did roll against the edge of the descending die would it be possible to leave that pattern and still follow the curvature of the devices?
Last paragraph, aside from really wanting to see the die photos, I was a little confused. Were you restating the prior paragraph but with differering rhetorical questions? I mean, if the 1803 was off center struck laying flat on the die as versus off center struck laying on the edge of the collar would it make a difference? Otherwise, would the pattern look different since under either senario you employed it was struck a second time?
Now I am not sure if anyone is going to contest the wayward dentils being imparted on the first strike rather than the 2nd strike but the discussion is still open as far as I am concerned.
BB
<< <i>
<< <i> The "kiss" as you've mentioned then HAD TO be the first strike and not the second. First, I believe the planchet WAS setting partially within the open collar when it was first struck. And it probably did bend the planchet to a degree based upon the varying impact strength from the hammer die. Then it was popped over into the hole of the open collar and struck again. Why was it in this order and not the opposite? Because the dentil tracks were pushed up and into the device designs of the obverse die (in this case). They are sometimes very slightly distorted from the metal flowing into the cavities of the dies. If it had happened the other way around then the tracks would be heavier on the raised devices of the coin and lighter in the fields. BiddlesBank, Slumlord98 and All - Somewhere, I have several images of a few original Capped Bust and also PreTurb Half dollar dies. (I've been looking for them for the last hour and am not sure where I put them). Nevertheless, when/if I can find them I'll post them as this might help in the discussion. BUT, if the answer is from a tilted planchet, not completely centered within the open collar die for the first strike, then centered within the collar and struck normally - how would you explain very long dentil tracks on the REVERSE of Capped Bust halves? Or was the planchet, in this case, flipped before being struck the second time with the dentil tracks from the first strike (obverse die) - then after turning over the planchet - appearing on the reverse of the half? Comments? Thoughts? Edgar >>
FEVER
Thank you for your in depth comments but first just a quick note.<STRONG> It was CaptHenway who has basically set forth the theory of the "kiss,"</STRONG> Numisma had merely made a comment that if the coin had been partially in the collar it would have bent.
That said, I believe your first paragraph of explaining the dentil impressions set forth a logical argument as to why the dentils appear so even over the curvature of the devices. The only other way possible that I can think of is when Slumlord said: " It looks like the coin rolled across the die, leaving the arc of the dentils backward." Now I do not know how that would look but if it did roll against the edge of the descending die would it be possible to leave that pattern and still follow the curvature of the devices?
Last paragraph, aside from really wanting to see the die photos, I was a little confused. Were you restating the prior paragraph but with differering rhetorical questions? I mean, if the 1803 was off center struck laying flat on the die as versus off center struck laying on the edge of the collar would it make a difference? Otherwise, would the pattern look different since under either senario you employed it was struck a second time?
Now I am not sure if anyone is going to contest the wayward dentils being imparted on the first strike rather than the 2nd strike but the discussion is still open as far as I am concerned.
BB >>
Going back to look at the closeup picture of the denticles above the R of LIBERTY on the 1803, I have to say that the very light off-center strike did come first. I did not see that feature on the original full obverse picture (always one of the drawbacks of working from pictures rather than the coin), and when I later commented on the pie-shaped depression being merely the trough between two raised denticles it did not occur to me at that time that these features are in an area too well protected by the letters of LIBERTY to have been imparted by a light, post-strike "kiss." They are.
After all, that theory had been originally proposed by me to explain the light dentil marks on the cheek of the coin that started this thread. I still think it is correct in that case.
It would have been nothing for the Mint coiners to have placed a weak off-center strike back into the press for a normal strike. While at ANACS I saw a Turban Head $10 that had started out as a full normal obverse/ incused obverse brockage, that was then put back in the press and given six normal strikes to obliterate the brockage. You could count the strikes.
Tom DeLorey
After all, that theory had been originally proposed by me to explain the light dentil marks on the cheek of the coin that started this thread. I still think it is correct in that case.
CaptHenway (aka Tom DeLorey) & Slumlord.
I have provide this photo to help the discussion but not necessarily to support the kissing theory as no one has come forward to show what the working collar looks like or how it worked. Once that is done, then the proposed kissing scenario would have to match the factual working of the mechanical devices employed in making the strike.
The reverse imprints as I understand it is the imprints left by the collar. Slumlord requested this mockup of the reverse illustration a few days ago. Sorry I took so long.
The discussion is still open for varying view points or clarification.
BB
EDITED TO SAY: WORKING COLLAR "CURVED EDGE" IN BELOW PHOTO TEXT. The collar was a flat piece of steel with a hole in it (collar opening) and was hinged so as to allow it to open and close, at least according to A.C.
Great thread!
I just want to add a couple of factors that should be considered while developing this theory. In 1803, the screw press would have been capable of striking up to 60 coins per minute, but more likely 30 per minute on average. The planchets were not hand loaded, but rather fed by a mechanism, as already stated by BB and others. The feeder mechanism was probably timed to the press with a cam, but that's just conjecture on my part. I am merely stating that the speed of the operation should be considered as well. The "kiss theory" still makes sense regardless of the speed, but there have been comments regarding the strength of the second impact which left the dentil tracks.
There's a bit of a discussion regarding die collars in this thread. Maybe rittenhouse will share his knowledge in this thread as well.
Since the rims are raised by the rimming and edge lettered machine and not by the strike, the edge marks would still show in the second full strike, just as adjustments marks through the rim still will sometimes show on a struck coin, they are not always pressed out by the strike.
I believe the first strike was an off-center full strike, not a "kiss strike", followed by another full but centered second strike.
<< <i>Great thread! I just want to add a couple of factors that should be considered while developing this theory. In 1803, the screw press would have been capable of striking up to 60 coins per minute, but more likely 30 per minute on average. The planchets were not hand loaded, but rather fed by a mechanism, as already stated by BB and others. The feeder mechanism was probably timed to the press with a cam, but that's just conjecture on my part. I am merely stating that the speed of the operation should be considered as well. The "kiss theory" still makes sense regardless of the speed, but there have been comments regarding the strength of the second impact which left the dentil tracks. >>
First Numisma then Nysoto.
Numisma, I am in complete agreement with what you say. Those planchets are flying through there thanks to Eckfeldt's 1793 invention to automatically feed planchets onto the reverse die. No more finger jobs. The guy observing the actually striking process just has to make sure everything is operating smoothly. No time to stop for a kiss.
BB
<< <i>If the row of dentils on the 1803 came from a second strike, there would be displaced metal from the impression showing as lumps, and a raised ridge next to the incuse line. With my silversmithing hobby, displaced metal will seek the path of least resistance, which is UP the case of work hardened metal. Impressions on annealed silver can result in displaced metal expanding the silver, you can expand annealed sterling by planishing (light hammering). This is why there is little upward displacement of metal in the off center 1829, the annealed planchet expanded outward. With a work hardened struck coin, gouges, counterstamps, etc always display upwardly displaced metal. Since the rims are raised by the rimming and edge lettered machine and not by the strike, the edge marks would still show in the second full strike, just as adjustments marks through the rim still will sometimes show on a struck coin, they are not always pressed out by the strike. I believe the first strike was an off-center full strike, not a "kiss strike", followed by another full but centered second strike. >>
Hi Nysoto
Our paths keep crossing but we never see each other.
I agree that the "kiss strike" is not a viable senario, if for no other reason than the one given by Numisma just above your post. And I will add again:
"Those planchets are flying through there thanks to Eckfeldt's 1793 invention to automatically feed planchets onto the reverse die. No more finger jobs. The guy observing the actually striking process just has to make sure everything is operating smoothly. No time to stop for a kiss."
So the Kiss is out in my book unless someone whats to redeem by detailed description why it was feasible. Detailed emphasized.
Also Nysoto, your observations on silver smithing go a long way in helping FEVER'S explanation of the second strike over a previous off center strike.
Thank you. BB
However there is still one other scenario alive, although it will take some experimentation on this end to see if it is workable. It has to do with the 1803 being on it's edge or near edge and being pinned in the collar with another planchet. This could occur when the collar closed for the strike on the next planchet if the 1803 had not properly ejected from the collar on the previous strike. It is then possible that during ejection of the second struck planchet the 1803 came into contact with the edge of the die as Slumlord previously indicated when he said it looked like the 1803 came into contact with the edge of the die and not the face of the die.
Have we run into Mental Fatigue or the Gordian Knot?
In the meantime, answer the age old question, which came last, the chicken or the egg?
egg or chicken?
<< <i> ....Slumlord requested this mockup of the reverse illustration a few days ago. Sorry I took so long.
The discussion is still open for varying view points or clarification.
BB
I find it problematic with the kissing theory since the marks on the rim have no semblance of denticles which would likely transfer when the metals made contact (even light compression would leave dentil marks, NO ?)
<< <i>Mental fatigue. I strongly disagreed with the notion that the O/C strike came first, but the valley above R which is a space between dentils, couldn't exist as an artifact from a second strike. When my mental fatigue subsides, I'll add some more. In the meantime, answer the age old question, which came last, the chicken or the egg? egg or chicken? >>
Understandable Slumlord.
I am actually too tired to make up an 1803 working collar for a photo illustration.
And thank you TwoSides2aCoin. It takes a brave heart to join this thread. There are mouse traps everywhere and a few bear traps for the big varmits.
By the way, the egg came first. Every farmer knows that.
BB
This is a case of theft. I captured this photo from johnathanb on another thread. Johnathanb's write up. Fits this thread just fine.
" and for the benefit for those who have never seen a real die crack before, one final close-up showing what a cracked die looks like before it strikes a coin. You can see it along the shaft of the die, then turn the corner into the striking face where it extends across the field a little above the date and then a bit into South America (it's also very visible in the head-on view above, once you realize what you're looking at):
I have a notion that the technology of the day...is nothing more than
the common practice of "Blacksmithing"!
Since abrasive technology was either the stone or sand and shark skin (mainly for wood).
Reheating the die to soften the metal for surfacing may have caused all the problems.
You said "...This would be very similar to "flaking" or "spalling" of the die surface metal. "
Repeated reheating and cooling does that too.
Creating a change in the way the metal particles line up.
The die surface hardened, although a soft center may be back away from the surface.
The now re-heat treated surface becoming more brittle than the rest of the die.
Making it prone to pressure cracking.
Possibly later, instead of water treated, oil treated became the acceptable practice.
Making the die surface more resistant to wear (erosion).
Dentil tracks on CBHs