Options
A fly on the wall at the early mint
oneor11
Posts: 208
A fellow forum member posted his pictures of a wonderful 1797 "1 over 1" half cent the other day. That got me thinking about repunched dates and the mindset of engravers in the early days. My understanding is that dates in the 19th century were punched directly into the die. I shared the following questions and thoughts in that thread, but thought it would be appropriate to create a new one. Let's go back in time and be some flies on the wall at the old Sugar Alley mint...
Why do you think they didn't take the time to properly fix repunch errors? It seems odd that they expend the time and effort to create beautiful Lady Liberty heads and meticulously carve and trace the numerous feathers of a majestic eagle then go and carelessly punch the date- either weakly, off center, in another font, over another, upside-down, sitting in the denticles, etc. Some of the stuff is so outlandish that it would seem it would be the work of someone totally different....like an engraver "intern" or something.
Today if I did stuff like that at my job I would probably be fired if I let that go to the public. What do you think the mindset was back then? Were coins and the quality of them deemed important? Or was it a side job that wasn't very esteemed? Did public people holding the coins with errors care that there was a mysterious "1" floating in mid-air?
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad they did that stuff. It gave us the really interesting pieces we see today!
-Jacob
Why do you think they didn't take the time to properly fix repunch errors? It seems odd that they expend the time and effort to create beautiful Lady Liberty heads and meticulously carve and trace the numerous feathers of a majestic eagle then go and carelessly punch the date- either weakly, off center, in another font, over another, upside-down, sitting in the denticles, etc. Some of the stuff is so outlandish that it would seem it would be the work of someone totally different....like an engraver "intern" or something.
Today if I did stuff like that at my job I would probably be fired if I let that go to the public. What do you think the mindset was back then? Were coins and the quality of them deemed important? Or was it a side job that wasn't very esteemed? Did public people holding the coins with errors care that there was a mysterious "1" floating in mid-air?
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad they did that stuff. It gave us the really interesting pieces we see today!
-Jacob
0
Comments
Lance.
<< <i>How would you properly fix a repunched date error? Start over with a new die? Expensive.
Lance. >>
Not sure. I need to find a good article on how the die engraving and minting process is done. But my understanding is that the date was punched before the die was hardened. So it seems that all that would be required is abrading/sanding away the date with some abrasives, polishing the spot, and re-punching. Not sure though. If it required a whole new die that would explain the desire to release 'faulty' coinage.
<< <i>Sorry for not addressing that question in my thread, Jacob. The truth is...I don't know! I was kind of expecting someone more knowledgeable than I to come along and answer it. That said, I'd really like to read about the conditions of the early mint. I'm sure there are some good book recommendation threads on the forum. >>
Doug, I just finished an INCREDIBLE book...The Secret History of the First U.S. Mint. It describes the first U.S. mint in so much detail...what buildings were built and when...how much each building costs to build...letters between Jefferson and Washington and Rittenhouse...what coins were minted in what building...who worked there...the equipment...diagrams..measurements. on and on. I think you'd get a kick out of it, especially with your early copper. You'll feel like you were in the room when it was minted.
-Jacob
<< <i>Not sure. I need to find a good article on how the die engraving and minting process is done. But my understanding is that the date was punched before the die was hardened. So it seems that all that would be required is abrading/sanding away the date with some abrasives, polishing the spot, and re-punching. Not sure though. If it required a whole new die that would explain the desire to release 'faulty' coinage.
>>
Seems to me, that would cause the date to be raised on the finished coin, since they would have "abrad/sand" into the coin to get the date to disappear.
Commissions
Check out my Facebook page
<< <i>It seems odd that they expend the time and effort to create beautiful Lady Liberty heads and meticulously carve and trace the numerous feathers of a majestic eagle then go and carelessly punch the date- either weakly, off center, in another font, over another, upside-down, sitting in the denticles >>
The head of Ms. Liberty and the eagle were hubbed on these early coins. In other words the engraver did not have to carve in the details on those devices. They were punched into the die with matrix.
As for the correcting the "1" that was punched into the die mistakenly, that would be very hard. They would have to fill in that spot with something that could bond to the "steel" (I use that term loosely with the early dies) and not leave a mark.
You also have to remember that the late 1790s was a very hard period for people at the mint. Members of Congress were called for the closure of the mint. They called for private contractors to supply the nation’s coinage. Morale at the mint was very low and it showed in the quality of the products it was producing.
Here is another example of corrected date. The date punch used for this 1826 half cent was first entered too far the right. The number was scratched out and then the digits were entered correctly.
And here is the famous "three errors reverse" 1801 large cent. The "U" in "UNITED" was punched in upside down and then right side up to produce “IINITED,” the fraction is “1/000” and the left stem is missing from the wreath.
<< <i>Today if I did stuff like that at my job I would probably be fired if I let that go to the public. What do you think the mindset was back then? Were coins and the quality of them deemed important? Or was it a side job that wasn't very esteemed? Did public people holding the coins with errors care that there was a mysterious "1" floating in mid-air? >>
As Bill Jones replied the working dies were hubbed with Miss Liberty and the eagle, these devices are fairly consistent for each hub used. The letters, dates and a few other elements were hand punched (or engraved, with dentils). To eliminate any repunching evidence would have required an entire new working die, which would require another day of work. The greatest concern in eighteenth century die making at the Mint was the cracking of dies, which sometimes happened before the die was used, during the hardening and tempering process. Working dies did not last very long in the 1790's, until they improved the heat treating processes and used better steel, that gave dies longer life in the 1800's. In the late 1830's the lettering became hubbed, eliminating most lettering errors.
There were public complaints about the US coin designs, but no complaints were made about repunching and overdating. The general public did not scrutinize the coinage with 10x loupes. Many errors cannot be seen with the naked eye. The early US Mint coinage was an improvement over the state and contract coins, and was no worse than the coinage of the Spanish colonial empire and other coins circulating in early America. The errors, die cracks, cuds etc that we now have to collect indicate the struggles the early Mint had.
The First US Mint could not recruit experienced coinage die engravers from Europe, despite Thomas Jefferson's efforts to do so. After the first employed engraver Joseph Wright died of yellow fever, Robert Scot was hired. Contrary to the incomplete and erroneous information usually written about him, Scot was a prolific early US engraver who had prevous success in a large number of projects. Scot had worked for Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and Rittenhouse long before coming to the Mint. I have been researching Scot for a number of years, and own more than one hundred of his pre-US Mint engravings, many being new discoveries of Scot's work.
The only assistants Scot had until the hiring of John Reich in 1807 were Frederick Reiche, who worked for 18 days in 1794, and John Smith Gardner, who was employed during 1794-1796 (not all months). Reiche was a copperplate and woodcut engraver whose work was not of very good quality (I own some of his engravings). John Smith Gardner had limited engraving experience before the Mint, and did not pursue an engraving career after the Mint.
Early engineering reminiscences, 1815-40 by George Escol Sellers (has a chapter on the minting of coins)
The Art and Craft of Coinmaking: a History of Minting Technology by Denis R. Cooper
<< <i>John Smith Gardner had limited engraving experience before the Mint, and did not pursue an engraving career after the Mint. >>
Actually I think that John Smith Gardner was a competent die maker. Smith was hired a low daily wage and negotiated something more in line with his talents. As for his talents, his Head of 1795 cents were not as attractive as the Head of 1794 coins, but they were certainly not ugly. Smith's dies also tended to last a lot longer than the dies Robert Scott, the chief mint engraver, made.
Scott was the ultimate master of mint politics, and he used his pernicious political abilities to hold competitors, like John Reich, back to maintain his own position. Even in his old age, when his artistic abilities were almost nil, he hung on to his job to determent of the mint and the quality of its products.
Here is a high grade example of a 1795 cent struck from dies by John Smith Gardner.
<< <i>Actually I think that John Smith Gardner was a competent die maker. Smith was hired a low daily wage and negotiated something more in line with his talents. As for his talents, his Head of 1795 cents were not as attractive as the Head of 1794 coins, but they were certainly not ugly. Smith's dies also tended to last a lot longer than the dies Robert Scott, the chief mint engraver, made.
Scott was the ultimate master of mint politics, and he used his pernicious political abilities to hold competitors, like John Reich, back to maintain his own position. Even in his old age, when his artistic abilities were almost nil, he hung on to his job to determent of the mint and the quality of its products. >>
It is not quite accurate to say that Scot somehow had a political hold on his position. Had he been incompetent in the eyes of his superiors he could have been forced to resign; this in fact happened to one of the key officers in the late 1830s when R.M. Patterson was director. Die life was not really a function of either Scot or Gardner as these were hardened by Adam Eckfeldt.
Don't forget that in addition to the human limitations of the mint workers and engravers, they also had considerable technological limitations and supply problems to surmount as well.
We've come a long way, baby.
<< <i>Actually I think that John Smith Gardner was a competent die maker. Smith was hired a low daily wage and negotiated something more in line with his talents. As for his talents, his Head of 1795 cents were not as attractive as the Head of 1794 coins, but they were certainly not ugly. Smith's dies also tended to last a lot longer than the dies Robert Scott, the chief mint engraver, made. >>
There are no Mint documents that verify exactly what John Smith Gardner's specific duties were as assistant engraver. His letter requesting a raise in pay cannot currently be located at the Mint archives, but it was mentioned by Robert Hilt and Don Taxay and there is no reason to doubt their description of the letter. Hilt wrote that Gardner stated he worked on the reverse dies, but this does indicate that it was finishing the working dies, or engraving the master dies and hubs. Some of the varieties commonly attributed to Gardner, such as the 1795 Small Head half dollars, is just spectulation without evidence from the Mint archives. Gardner had no published engravings before his work with the Mint, and probably worked as an apprentice or assistant until that time. After his employment with the Mint, Gardner was not working as an engraver, and requested a position at the Mint as a Melter and Refiner, which he did not receive.
Scot had hundreds of documented engravings prior to his Mint employment, Gardner has none. There is no evidence to place Gardner's engraving ability on the same level, or better, than Robert Scot.
<< <i>Scot had hundreds of documented engravings prior to his Mint employment, Gardner has none. There is no evidence to place Gardner's engraving ability on the same level, or better, than Robert Scot. >>
The Breen large cent book stated facts that do not agree with this. I know that Breen is mostly discredited for valid and invalid reasons so perhaps I'm giving Mr. Gardner too much credit. But when it comes to Mr. Scott, I'm on firmer gound. His last works in the the 'teens and early 1820s were truly ugly, and not nearly as nice as the designs John Reich executed before he left in 1817. '
If you are refering to the Draped Bust coins, I'll agree that Scott's work at that time was attractive. Later on it speaks for itself. Here are couple of examples.
Matron Head Large Cent
Large Size Capped Bust Quarter Eagle
<< <i> The Breen large cent book stated facts that do not agree with this. I know that Breen is mostly discredited for valid and invalid reasons so perhaps I'm giving Mr. Gardner too much credit. But when it comes to Mr. Scott, I'm on firmer gound. His last works in the the 'teens and early 1820s were truly ugly, and not nearly as nice as the designs John Reich executed before he left in 1817. '
If you are refering to the Draped Bust coins, I'll agree that Scott's work at that time was attractive. >>
Walter sometimes did not label his opinions as such. His view that Gardner executed certain hubs is
interesting but hardly conclusive. It is equally possible that Scot prepared the hubs Breen assigned to
Gardner and the latter was responsible for other engraving duties. Scot is known to have had at least
four assistant engravers and none but Gardner has been given more than perfunctory duties.
The Matron Head cent of 1816 is perhaps better assigned to John Reich. His eyesight is known to have
failed during 1816 and was the primary reason for his leaving Mint employment in early 1817. (Reich
did a reverse of one of the 1812 naval medals and the die work was so bad that it was described as a
“caricature.”)