RWB

Dollar varieties had been identified by collectors for many years. There are occasional articles in hobby publications. Seven and eight tail feather coins were identified in 1878. Van Allen and Mallis, took things further (following examples such as Crosby, Sheldon, etc.) and compiled both background and detailed listings of individual varieties. Some varieties have become popular and bring significant premiums. But most are barely distinguishable and not very interesting to any but hard-core aficionados. As authors of initial research or variety book often do, they used their initials "VAM" to differentiate their varieties from those identified by others. "VAM" varieties caught on among Morgan and Peace dollar collectors because the coins were cheap, widely distributed, and readily available over a long span of time. The "system" itself, is something of a cobbled mess with pieces added and removed almost ad hoc.

The vision: Open standards. Empirical definitions. Sound and repeatable standards. Technologically enabled determinations of variable terms such as "proof-like." Routine elemental analysis and physical measurement of most pre-1838 coins and all pattern pieces. Separation of measurable and subjective factors. Return of owner's materials on request. Here's you target; for who would bear the whips and scorns of time,

This should help identify a cause of split coins. Instead of a bubble, the inclusion could be copper oxide from melting/annealing or a grain of metal that go on an ingot or strip. It's unsusal that the defective quarter was returned -- possibly he requested this. Samuel P Duffield, M.D. PhD Dearbornville, Mich September 27, 1880 Sir: I have received your letter of the 24th instant, transmitting a quarter dollar supposed to be counterfeit. The coin is genuine. The want of sonority is caused by a flaw or split in the piece which I have furthered opened. A flaw of this character is occasioned by a minute air bubble formed in the ingot in casting, and subsequently spread out in the rolling process. The piece is herewith returned. Very respectfully, R. E. Preston, Acting Director

Extract of Philadelphia Mint machinery inventory September 24, 1885. "One circular saw and screen for making saw dust for Coiner’s uses." Extract of letter May 21, 1892 to the Philadelphia Mint. "...expenditures for the quarter ended December 31, 1891, of eleven dollars and ninety cents ($11.90), for sawdust furnished the Carson Mint, you are informed that this amount should not appear in this statement. As the amount was to reimburse you for the basswood and labor in converting the same into sawdust, you are informed that it should have been deposited in the Treasury as proceeds of material sold."

That is the fundamental question. With no standard, no consistency, and pervasive slippage, collectors receive only a temporary and unstable opinion for their money.

Excellent link. Also discusses degradation of "AU" into real EF and hints at the price inflation that causes.

PS: Sawdust was also used as packing around dies for shipment; however, this was contaminated by the oils and wax used to protect dies before use. Packing material was discarded.

Zebo got it! Zadok got part of the use, and Mr.Bill347 offered some good details. Sawdust was used in drying planchets following annealing and quenching in weak acid, or after final whitening of silver planchets, then washed with clean water. The type of wood was important because it could not leave any residue on the planchets. Basswood fit this need, but was not native to the west. (See Zebo's post, above) The Philadelphia Mint owned a special circular saw used solely to cut basswood boards into sawdust. This was shipped to the other mints in barrels. Sawdust could be reused many times merely by drying it. (Dust from local saw mills was contaminated with resins and could not be used.)

Had to have that bargain --- rare fool step Franklin half dollar....and it's 90% silver too ! Really! I looked it up. Sent them a check right away.....

Charles Barber changed the Eagle and Double Eagle basins in mid-1908 and then made additional adjustments until about 1915. On the varieties of DE, I've never found evidence of complete resurfacing although there is extensive clash removal on some. Some of these die repairs are rather sloppy in my opinion. Objection by Augusta S-G and the artist's brothers and others stopped any attempt to move to a uniform basin suitable for mirror proofs. The Pratt coins were uniformly disliked at the Mint Bureau and no one seems to have bothered them very much. New cents and nickels, and then new silver of 1916 all began with uneven basins and were gradually converted to uniform curvature. The nickel was changed in 1913 and 1914 and 1916, the cent in 1911, 1912, 1914 and later. Changes to new subsidiary silver were more gradual with the dime changed in 1917, 1918 and later, quarter in 1917 (twice), 1924-5, half in 1917, 1933, 1934, 1935 and later. Technical reasons were primary. A uniform basin was much easier to maintain and distributed stress more uniformly throughout the die face. The results were more consistent impressions and longer die life.

Basined dies have a uniform radius of curvature which allows use of a single "basining disc" to be use to smooth the field AND uniformly maintain relative relief detail. The dies on SG and Pratt gold were also curved, but it was not a uniform radius. Thus, smoother was necessary at specific places so that the relief would not be ruined. Abrasives were used to remove or lessen clash mark damage, superficial cracks and light spalling. If a die had a uniform radius of curvature (convex) this could be done with a single tool used by someone with limited experience.If the die had an irregular basin, it required the work of an expert to do it correctly. (This was the reason for changing from 8 TF to 7TF on 1878 Morgan dollars.)

Who can explain the use of sawdust at U.S. Mints? Why would the Philadelphia Mint ship 30 barrels of the stuff all the way across country? Colonel D. H. Rucker, Deputy Quarter Master General U.S. Army Philadelphia, Pa August 16, 1880 Sir: I have requested the Superintendent of the U.S. Mint at Philadelphia to cause to be delivered to you thirty (30) barrels of sawdust for shipment to the U.S. Mint at San Francisco, Cal. I will thank you to receive and forward the same as provided in General Order No. 66, dated July 24, 1876. Very respectfully, Robert E. Preston, Acting Director [RG104 E-235 Vol 23]

Looks very good from here....let me tilt my monitor so I can get an oblique view of the high points.

LIberty head gold was struck from basined dies - a uniform radius of curvature. This permitted easy abrasive removal of clashes and other surface defects with consistent results. Saint-Guadens and Pratt designs did not have basined fields and could not be uniformly polished during repair. Same for Peace dollars. Further, the 20th century approach under Engraver Morgan was local die repair rather than simple field grinding on an emery wheel. (The unusually PL fields seen on quarters, halves and dollars, and E, DE from the latter half of the 19th century are also a byproduct of the use of powdered limestone for die repair - it cut less aggressively than emery.)

Opinions are merely that. Consistency makes opinions useful.

Spink Vol 1, and Stéphan Sombart's Monnaies Royales Françaises de Louis XI à Henri IV, 1461-1610, are well worth the minuscule price.

It's like in those nature documentaries about rutting elk.

Gold has been, at least historically, too expensive, plus a large proportion were melted during export - that produced large gaps. By the time we get to later WL and Franklin halves, most varieties are too tiny to hold interest (except for doubled dies). Standing Liberty quarters are numerous only in worn condition which makes identification of even the few known varieties difficult. I thought the DE book might attract more people to gold varieties, and I think that has happened to a limited degree. The same might be true for S-G Eagles, but HE and QE have yet to get enough interest to justify the work.

This can be avoided by requiring all TPGs to give coins they examine either a tubal ligation or a vasectomy. No more population increases.

The two New Orleans silver dollars were specimens pulled from delivery #188. This was called the "Special Assay" and was required for the initial deliveries of each denomination for each week. Coins were not supposed to be released from a mint until Special Assay results were approved by the Assayer at Mint HQ in Washington, D.C. Here's a sample of a report. In October 1881 a large quantity of Carson Mint dollars were found to be out of tolerance. Those not already paid out were sequestered. However, because some had already been released, the affected deliveries could not be condemned. (Condemnation would have caused removal of the affected coins from the Annual Assay Commission coins.) When 1880 coins were tested in Feb 1881 by the Annual Assay Commission, more out of tolerance 1880-CC dollars were found and the problem reported direct to the President. After months of explanations and fussing, the sequestered coins were melted and replaced with dollars dated 1882. Neither the 1880 nor 1882 mintage figures were corrected. There's an article about this on the VAMWorld site --someplace.

If the director's comments about deliveries is taken literally, is it possible that 1891-) VAM 1A and 3A are the same thing? (I realize that VAMs are not consistently die pairs or different varieties.)

There are enough surviving Morgan and Peace dollars to make them affordable and provide a wide base of die varieties. Gold coins and most 19th century pieces have high attrition rates so there are not enough of clear, interesting varieties to satisfy the interests of potential collectors. Large coppers and half cents were once in the same availability category as silver dollars, which made their collection by die variety feasible in the 19th century.

I put them under my pillow at night in hopes of them hatching.

Almost 3 years ago I posted the following letter which demonstrated that one of the most popular Morgan dollar die varieties was first identified in 1891 during the US Mint's normal "special assay" tests. Recently, I located a second letter about this coin which provides more detail. This is from Mint Director Leech to the Superintendent of New Orleans Mint. In it, the Director does not mince words about his displeasure, calling it "a gross piece of negligence" among other things. Following is a transcription from the fair copy found at RG104 E-235 Vol 62: September 26, 1891 Sir: Enclosed herewith I return two silver dollars, sent to this bureau for special assay test, from delivery No. 188. Your attention is directed to the fact that upon the reverse of these coins, near the loop in the wreath, the letter “E” is plainly visible, and on one of them part of the letter “B” and the letter “R.” It is evident that the dies have been permitted to come in contact in the press without an intervening blank, as the letter “E” has been transferred to the die from the “E” in the word “Liberty” on the fillet on the head of the obverse side. You will also notice that the coins are fractured, which will be explained by the contract of the die faces. This defect runs through the deliveries in the latter part of August up to and including the deliveries of September 5th. Evidently all the coins struck with this pair of dies contain the letter “E.” It is hardly necessary for me to say to you that this is a gross piece of negligence. It is of the first importance that the coinage of the United States should be free from defects of all kinds. This will call for criticism and will be commented upon unfavorably. In this connection I would say that there have been repeated complaints to the Bureau and to the Treasurer’s office in regard to the edges of the dimes being struck at your Mint. I have exhibited these coins to the Secretary to let him see the character of the work now being turned out from the coining department of your Mint. I will thank you to make a thorough examination in regard to this matter and report to this bureau in writing how it was that the imperfection upon the dollars was not discovered, and who is to blame. These two pieces will be returned to this bureau with your report. I will also thank you to report to me whether the Coiner of the Mint gives that personal attention to the supervision of the business of his department which is required by Section 1, Article 29 of the regulations.

This is just another name for a lie.