Overlay study of an 1867 5c w/rays RPD

[IGWT]

Here's a picture of the date on an 1867 5c w/rays (S1-7000/FS-002.4/F-09). For both of you Shield 5c variety fans, this coin was also struck with a naked-eye doubled die. A two-fer! But for now, I'm focusing on just the repunched date. You'll see the remnants of the underlying 7 almost a full digit's width to the east, and the underlying 8 is also plainly evident behind the 6.

 

 

You probably know that the dates for the Shield 5c series (as well as for other series of this era) were punched into a die with a four-digit logotype. Here's an overlay that shows the full first punch placed over its remnants. Of course, the first punch was way off mark, so it was partially effaced from the die before the second punch was added.

 

 

And with the miracle of digital photography and Photoshop software, I can remove the second date to show what the coin would have looked like had the die sinker not corrected his mistake.

 

[TomB]

For both of you Shield 5c variety fans...

Please don't include yourself when you write a statement such as the above. Seriously, the position of the efaced 7 is astonishingly far off.

[Dwaine]

That is pretty neat. Thanks for sharing.

[WoodenJefferson]

So, my question is...

 

Was the 7 punched first, right to left (east to west) die sinking, or was the 1 punched first follwed by the other 3 digits, or left to right (west to east) die punching?

 

Outstanding details.

 

[IGWT]

So, my question is...

 

Was the 7 punched first, right to left (east to west) die sinking, or was the 1 punched first follwed by the other 3 digits, or left to right (west to east) die punching?

 

Neither.

 

[RUSS BEGA]

Here's a picture of the date on an 1867 5c w/rays (S1-7000/FS-002.4/F-09). For both of you Shield 5c variety fans, this coin was also struck with a naked-eye doubled die. A two-fer! But for now, I'm focusing on just the repunched date. You'll see the remnants of the underlying 7 almost a full digit's width to the east, and the underlying 8 is also plainly evident behind the 6.

 

 

You probably know that the dates for the Shield 5c series (as well as for other series of this era) were punched into a die with a four-digit logotype. Here's an overlay that shows the full first punch placed over its remnants. Of course, the first punch was way off mark, so it was partially effaced from the die before the second punch was added.

 

 

And with the miracle of digital photography and Photoshop software, I can remove the second date to show what the coin would have looked like had the die sinker not corrected his mistake.

 

 

 

very kewl! thanks for sharing!

[WoodenJefferson]

So, my question is...

 

Was the 7 punched first, right to left (east to west) die sinking, or was the 1 punched first follwed by the other 3 digits, or left to right (west to east) die punching?

 

Neither.

 

Neither...so was it a die set containg all four numerls punched at once then?

[MikeInFL]

Thanks for taking the time to write this. I'm anything but an error guy, so please excuse my ignorance...

 

I've always wondered about the nomenclature of "repunched" date....

 

Why are all repunched dates lumped in the same term? Are they all created equal? Clearly not, as overdates are a type of repunched date that warrant their own term. Yet the mistake of a date punch with a four digit logotype when first impressed in the 1860's is described with the same term as a bold repunched single date on a fatigued die in the 1820's. They seem to me to be two very different things....one a mistake at the time of die preparation, and the other made mid-life of the die to repair wear/erosion of the die.

 

So my naive quesiton is this: Would the type of is type of repunching be better termed as a blundered date? Or is it correctly described as a RPD? Or am I missing something?

 

Erroneously yours...Mike

 

 

[skippy]

And you can also see in the overlay that the piece of the 8 that shows between the 8 and the 6 is a portion of the inner curve - the mint managed to polish part of that extra 8 away but not all of it.

 

You can also see a tic mark from the original 1 sticking out the left middle of the 8.

 

Another thing that is somewhat puzzling is that some shield nickels did go into production with dates shifted wildly left or right, so why did the mint find it necessary to rework this die?

 

[skippy]

MikeInFL -

 

Unfortunately, the terms are not precise. "Blundered date" would more likely refer to a date punched in the wrong place than a more mundane repunched date. However, there is no clear dividing line, and you could argue that the shield nickel here is a blundered date. Another similar term is "misplaced date" or MPD, which refers to a date that appears in the wrong place on a coin. But how far away from the primary position must the punch be before it is misplaced?

 

I would say that both blundered dates and misplaced dates are forms of repunched dates, but obviously extreme forms. Overdates are also a subcategory of repunched dates in my opinion.

 

It would be very hard to indisputably categorize the difference between repunched dates, blundered dates, and misplaced dates. But I like to think of blundered dates and MPDs as date punches that occur on areas of the coin where you would not normally expect a date punch within the usual variation of date position for that coin type.

 

[IGWT]

Neither...so was it a die set containg all four numerls punched at once then?

 

(thumbs u

 

Another thing that is somewhat puzzling is that some shield nickels did go into production with dates shifted wildly left or right, so why did the mint find it necessary to rework this die?

 

To give us something to puzzle over.

[cpm9ball]

Thanks for sharing this with us, Lou, and please excuse Tom for his remark. He is still having a hard time learning his ciphers, and that number has been particularly difficult.

 

Chris

[rbrown4]

Very nice example and great detailed images. Thanks for showing.

 

Rey

[Conder101]

"Blundered date" is too imprecise a term. It could mean anything and tells you nothing about what is actually wrong with the date. Repunched date, overdate, and misplaced date are more descriptive. They all still need further descriptive text but they are a good starting place. I would like to consign the term "blundered date" to the trash heap.

[MikeInFL]

After further review, "misplaced date" seems to be a better term than "repunched date" for this particular error -- or at least to my way of thinking. Thanks to those who responded to my questions....Mike

[Keleum]

I love photoshop, it changed life more than the internet. No wedding has been the same since.

[WoodenJefferson]

"Blundered date" is too imprecise a term. It could mean anything and tells you nothing about what is actually wrong with the date. Repunched date, overdate, and misplaced date are more descriptive. They all still need further descriptive text but they are a good starting place. I would like to consign the term "blundered date" to the trash heap.

 

Please do not trash the the word "blundered" in its entirey though, it does have a place in Numismatics.

 

 

CAPPED BUST HALF DOLLARS appear with the edge device fifty cents or half dollar, shown on 1833 coin, but because of slippage during the edge lettering process, the lettering became blundered on an 1832 coin, the edge of which is shown.

[MikeKing]

Great post, Lou!

[TomB]

"Blundered date" is too imprecise a term. It could mean anything and tells you nothing about what is actually wrong with the date. Repunched date, overdate, and misplaced date are more descriptive. They all still need further descriptive text but they are a good starting place. I would like to consign the term "blundered date" to the trash heap.

 

Please do not trash the the word "blundered" in its entirey though, it does have a place in Numismatics.

 

 

CAPPED BUST HALF DOLLARS appear with the edge device fifty cents or half dollar, shown on 1833 coin, but because of slippage during the edge lettering process, the lettering became blundered on an 1832 coin, the edge of which is shown.

WJ, it's interesting that you should use the lettered edge of CBHs and to describe the imperfect lettering as a result of slippage since this is generally considered to be an incorrect theory. It was one of the earlier theories proposed for this effect, but the Castaing machine would have planchets fed into it individually and if the operator did not feed the planchets in the proper position then the result would be imperfect lettering. The Castaing machine did not slip.

[MikeKing]

could it jam?

[WoodenJefferson]

could it jam?

 

Lou, didn't intend to steal your thunder about the overlay study, just relating to what I read in regards to the milling machine used to impart lettered edges and "blundering"

 

TomB...this is also what I have read...the castaing machine may not have slipped, but the planchet must have in order to be impressed with dual letters.

 

Castaing machine

 

This machine consisted of two parallel bars mounted on a table. One bar moved while the other remained fixed. Each contained half the lettering or other devices that would be impressed into the edge of a planchet as it was rolled between the two bars.

 

The rolling was a hand crank operation, although the machine was originally designed to be powered by horses, Don Taxay wrote in The U.S. Mint and Coinage (1966). He quoted a 1795 report from the Mint that no more than 10,000 planchets a day could receive edge marking.

 

Planchets could also get stuck or slip in the Castaing machine. Lettered-edge half dollars are often encountered with garbled wording on the edge, where letters have partly or entirely overlapped. These are, in fact, common enough that, while collectors find them interesting and worth mentioning in a description, they may bring little or no premium.

 

And now back to RPD's thank you for your time.

 

[IGWT]

Lou, didn't intend to steal your thunder about the overlay study, just relating to what I read in regards to the milling machine used to impart lettered edges and "blundering"

 

It doesn't bother me in the least, Woody. But you've raised an interesting subject that might get more responses if it weren't buried in a thread on Shield 5c repunched dates.

[cpm9ball]

Lou, didn't intend to steal your thunder about the overlay study, just relating to what I read in regards to the milling machine used to impart lettered edges and "blundering"

 

It doesn't bother me in the least, Woody. But you've raised an interesting subject that might get more responses if it weren't buried in a thread on Shield 5c repunched dates.

 

Huh? What? Did I miss something?

 

Chris (thumbs u

[WinstonWare]

Cool post

[Conder101]

TomB...this is also what I have read...the Castaing machine may not have slipped, but the planchet must have in order to be impressed with dual letters.

No they don't have to slip for dual letters to appear.

 

Current theory is that most of the error edges occurred because the edge dies were either not fully cranked back to their proper starting position, cranked too far back, or the coin after being lettered failing to be removed and getting caught between the dies again as they are cranked back towards the starting place.

 

If the dies are not fully retracted the first couple letters of one of the edge dies will be missing. If they are retracted too far one edge die will begin lettering early and part of the impression will eventually be "overlapped" by part of the other edge die.

 

If the coin is not removed after it is lettered and the dies are cranked back, it is possible for the coin to get caught by the dies again and receive either a partial or complete doubled edge impression depending on how far back they crank it.

 

Complete doubled or tripled edges can be created by accidentally putting a planchet through more than one time, in some cases with the planchet being flipped over between trips. (In those cases the doubling of the letters is not closely spaced as it would be in the case of the planchet being accidentally caught.)

 

None of these errors require any slipping of the die or the coin.

 

Slippage is very unlikely because since he letters on the die are raised, they are sunk INTO the metal of the coin and the coin turns like gears with meshed teeth.

 

The coin and/or die on the new dollars on the other hand can slip, mainly because one of the "dies is smooth and the other has a wide smooth spot between the dot and E PLURIBUS. You will also note from reports that this is exactly the area that tends to show the variation in spacing. With the early Washington's sometimes the die did slip or the coin "got stuck" in other areas, and when it did the letters continued to move past the coin scooping out a gouge in the edge the same height as the letters. If the coin had slipped in the Castaining machine and been drug along by one die instead of rotating, I would have expected to see a similar scooping of the edge.

[Conder101]

Excuse the double post