Info for Washington Quarter Fans

[RWB]

The following technical information might be useful to those sorting out the various motto varieties for 1932-34.

 

The milling on the edge of the Washington Quarter dollars blanks has been changed and this has resulted in greatly improved coins and much longer run on the dies, although the Superintendent of Coining advised me yesterday that they still had not obtained the same milling as was used in 1932. I am proceeding as rapidly as possible with a new obverse die for this piece.

 

(Letter dated April 2, 1934 to mint director Ross from engraver John R. Sinnock.)

 

[Bruceswar]

thats pretty cool!

[Conder101]

Interesting, so can any washington experts explain exactly what the difference in the milling was? Is he talking about a change in the upsetting mill, or the milled edge of the finished coin.

[RWB]

Earlier in the same letter, Sinnock talks about dies for the Cuban peso now making 300,000 pieces instead of 50,000. He says: This was accomplished by cutting the blanks 0.008 inch smaller, thereby changing entirely the character of the milling. He gives no further details about the Cuban coin, or Washington quarter.

[Conder101]

From that quote it is hard to tell if he is talking about the milled edge, the upset milling, or just using the term milling as a synonym for coining.

 

If they made the blanks smaller in diameter, they would have to be very slightly thicker in order to compenate for the weight. That might result in better filling of details at a lower pressure and therefor longer die life. But the increase in thicknes would be so slight I doubt that would be the reason

 

Smaller blanks would also result in the rims not being a s strongly upset. I don't know if that wold increase die life, but if it did I would expect weaker rims as a trade off, and the edge milling may not strike up as well either.

 

If he is just using the word to mean coining then it doesn't mean much.

[IGWT]

This was accomplished by cutting the blanks 0.008 inch smaller, thereby changing entirely the character of the milling.

 

Eight thousandths of an inch is roughly the thickness of two pieces of copy paper (and decreasing the diameter of the blank by 0.008 would required decreasing the radius by just 0.004). I don't understand how this small of an adjustment could "chang[e] entirely the character of the milling" and dramatically extend the life of a die. Interesting.

[RWB]

Correspondence earlier in the century refers to both changes in diameter of the cut blanks, changes to the height of the upset (or milled) rim, and to changes in the angle of the milling. Measurements are commonly in the thousands of an inch, yet follow up remarks mention substantial improvements in the finished coins. There are also comments about cutting to one diameter, then milling to a smaller diameter. About 2/3 of the MCMVII $20s are plagued by fin rims (incorrectly called "wire" rim). The MCMVII $20s made after Dec 16, 1907 were struck with the same dies but from planchets with a different milled diameter and angle than ones made previously. The results were coins with almost no "fin" along the rim.

 

I don't know why Sinnock did not know the milling diameter and angle used in 1932, but it evidently was not what they started using in 1934.

 

If I come across anything more, I'll post it here with a link.

 

[DWLange]

1934 and later Washingtons have much shallower reverse rims, resulting in coins that wear more rapidly on the reverse than the 1932 issues. This was probably a consequence of the milling change.

 

Roger, see if you can find out why the San Francisco Mint reinforced the obverse rim on its 1937 quarter dollar coinage. This is very distinctive, particularly on worn coins, where the reverse is often two grades lower than the obverse. I've written about this alteration to the dies a number of times, yet the hobby seems to have taken little interest.

 

The first few years of Washington Quarter coinage is like a primer in minting technology for anyone who studies it carefully.

[RWB]

David,

So the obv rim of 1937-S quarters is higher than on 1937 quarters from the other mints, or on quarters from other years?

 

Will see what I can find next time I can get a day off to go to NARA. I have access to the SF operating records from 1932 (spotty) through 1975 and maybe they contain some answers to your questions. (If anything turns up, I'll mail photocopies to you.)

 

The 1932 quarter was the first normal production coin Sinnock had to deal with. Maybe he had a steep learning curve.

[DWLange]

1937-S quarters have a uniquely broad obverse rim that is a bit higher than normal, as well. A somewhat similar effect is seen on 1935-S quarters and a few 1938-S pieces, but it is much more subtle. This implies that San Francisco was preparing either its dies or planchets a bit differently than the other mints.

 

The obverse rim on 1937-S quarters actually intrudes a bit into the letters in LIBERTY and the date, while this is not true of the other mints. I went to visually check this in Dave Bowers' new book on Washingtons and discovered that Whitman's art department used the same photo of a 1937-S quarter for both the D and S illustrations! The distinction I've described is more evident between the photos of the P and S quarters in that book.

[RWB]

How do they compare to the medal press struck proofs of 1936-39? The master hubs should have been the same for all obverse dies of any specific year, which would then imply some kind of die work at SF. Was SF still getting soft dies in the 1930's as they had prior to 1925?

[DWLange]

I have no documentation to reveal what was happening at the SF Mint, but the evidence of the coins suggests that some additional work was done to the dies after being shipped west.