Options
Early proof coin production experts... answer me this: (plus a little more proof large cent eye cand
renomedphys
Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭✭✭
So, I have this 1854 Proof Large Cent with seemingly contradictory features. I have partially described the coin as such:
Strike is incomplete at the right obverse in spite of a complete wire rim... (and) Fine lines up to left from the dentils under 54 and star 13 confirm the earliest die state, which John Grellman (2001, p. 353) says is "rare."
It would seem (to me) that these features are a contradiction, although it has been suggested to me that unevenness in the upsetting mill process could be the culprit.
So how exactly is it that this can occur?
Strike is incomplete at the right obverse in spite of a complete wire rim... (and) Fine lines up to left from the dentils under 54 and star 13 confirm the earliest die state, which John Grellman (2001, p. 353) says is "rare."
It would seem (to me) that these features are a contradiction, although it has been suggested to me that unevenness in the upsetting mill process could be the culprit.
So how exactly is it that this can occur?
0
Comments
Planchet was not uniform thickness?
Lance.
Matt, this is just an opinion, but I wouldn't call this a contradiction, it's just
the state of mint production at that time.
I assume this is the N-12 , which produced the proofs for that years issue.
If you look at the N-12 business strike in the Naftzger Collection Goldberg
Sale catalog, it has the exact same features as your coin & is an MS-66 BN.
The two PR-64RB examples in Coinfacts also have the same features.
This is the way the coin was made, hubbed, die prepared, date repunched,
die lines left, dentils crudely made & then struck for proofs and business strikes.
My guess is that the Mint had other things on their minds than making great
coinage to finish off the Large Cent issues.
R.I.P. Bear
So... and please correct me if I misunderstand... in theory the milled planchet could be too thick on one side, resulting in the rim being overpressed yielding a wire rim, and also making it harder for the die to fully impress features in the fields near the rim, such as denticles and star centers. Perhaps this is the source of the mis-alignment?
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
it does make good sense, and seems to be the best fit judging by the look of the coin.
BTW, notice how star 5 is also weak? This could possibly be similar to the Blakesley effect often seen on coins struck on clipped planchets. The reduced collar pressure at 4 o'clock could lead to a weakness in strike at 10 o'clock.
Then again, I'm just making this stuff up...
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Here's a selection from Coinfacts. All 1854 N-12.
PR-64RB
PR-64RB
PR-64RB
PR-63BN
MS-66BN
These were all struck by the same die pair.
They each have the same weak side right stars, the same die lines under the date,
and the same knife edge to an extent and the same repunched 1 in the date
that is visible depending on die state. The MS-66BN has less of a knife edge due
to advanced die wear.
R.I.P. Bear
<< <i>Likely made on the old medal press (a screw-type press). Uneveness was common. >>
What he said.
still be weak strike. The result would be a coin showing VEDS details where fully struck and flatter details
where weakly struck, this being struck on the older presses as mentioned.
type2,CCHunter.
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>Read this thread before commenting on the stars of my large cent. >>
You make an exccellent point. It does not seem to be mandatory on Proofs. Why, I do not know.
TD