Dies used on multiple denominations
kranky
Posts: 8,709 ✭✭✭
In the latest issue of The Numismatist is a short article about the US coins where the mint used the same reverse die on multiple denominations.
There are seven dies known to have been used on both dimes and $2.5 gold between 1797 and 1807. If you count die marriages, there are 23 different coins represented by the seven dies. Amazingly, a collector (Ed Price) has put together a set of every example. During that 12-year span, there were eight other dies used only on dimes, and four other dies used only on the $2.5. It is believed that the mint used dies on two denominations for economy's sake - the two coins were only 1mm different in size.
An interesting note is that the $10 and the half dollar were equally close in size, shared the same reverse design, but there are no cases where a reverse die was shared between those two denominations.
Was there a large difference in mintages to explain why there was no sharing of reverses on the $10 and the half dollar? Or do you think there was some other reason?
There are seven dies known to have been used on both dimes and $2.5 gold between 1797 and 1807. If you count die marriages, there are 23 different coins represented by the seven dies. Amazingly, a collector (Ed Price) has put together a set of every example. During that 12-year span, there were eight other dies used only on dimes, and four other dies used only on the $2.5. It is believed that the mint used dies on two denominations for economy's sake - the two coins were only 1mm different in size.
An interesting note is that the $10 and the half dollar were equally close in size, shared the same reverse design, but there are no cases where a reverse die was shared between those two denominations.
Was there a large difference in mintages to explain why there was no sharing of reverses on the $10 and the half dollar? Or do you think there was some other reason?
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
0
Comments
<< <i>Very interesting. And putting together a set of every die pair is not only and amazing challenge, but one that could only be accomplished by the well healed. Congrats to Ed Price on his research and accomplishment. >>
I concur. This must have taken a lot of dedication and good luck in order to find and purchase each Die Marriage/pairing.
I have an 1804 quarter eagle with the 14 star reverse. The reverse was also used on 1804 dime with 14 stars on the reverse. Every collector who has tried to buy early gold type coins knows that the quarter eagles are really tough. But the dime is even rarer especially in grades higher than VF.
Recent I completed an 1795 year set which contains 7 coins from the half cent to the $10 gold piece. The missing denominations are the dime, quarter and quarter eagle. Those coins would be introduced in 1796. the grades in the set range from EF-40 to AU-58, and all of the coins are in PCGS holders. That year set took me almost eight years to complete and many dollars.
This "cross over" set would cost even more than my 1795 year set.
<< <i>An interesting note is that the $10 and the half dollar were equally close in size, shared the same reverse design, but there are no cases where a reverse die was shared between those two denominations >>
<< <i>TextWas there a large difference in mintages to explain why there was no sharing of reverses on the $10 and the half dollar? Or do you think there was some other reason? >>
The half dollars and $10's HE reverses shared two master dies fabricated in 1799, and shared two of the four working hubs made from these master dies, but no working dies were shared.
I gave three speculative reasons that could possibly answer why working dies were not shared in a 6-07 JRJ article:
1. Set-up differences between lettered edge silver planchets struck with an open collar, and gold planchets that had edge reeding applied with a segmented close collar during the strike.
2. With higher mintages, dies were simply too worn or shattered to be used for the other denomination.
3. Using a broader context of Robert Hilt's "group strength" theory, sets of dies were specifically intended for production schedules with each denomination.
The first reason is the most likely IMO, as dimes and $2.50 both had reeded edges that would require no reverse set-up change, only the obverse die change. The .50 and $10's would require more set-up changes, so dies were used until they basically fell apart.
There is one example of $10 reverse working die that was intended for half dollars (or briefly used with no known survivors), the 1804 BD-2 (King of Siam struck circa 1834/35). Die characteristics tie it to the last working hub used, and broken serifs and other markers tie it to a die fabricated in 1806 - when eagles were no longer struck.
Price's collection is one of the greatest accomplishments in collecting. He discovered one new die marriage (1803 JR-5), and had at least two unique die marriages to complete the collection. Money alone could not accomplish this.
TD
Not knowing all that much about those early series, I probably cannot fully appreciate the magnitude of Price's accomplishment, but from the comments above it sounds monumental - and it almost would fit in a "box of 20"!
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.