A theory on how the U.S. Mint made date gang punches in the 19th Century

[CaptHenway]

Gang punch manufacturing technique theory

By Tom DeLorey

 

A casual study of random vs. fixed date digit positions and/or repunched dates on U.S. coins in the 1830s and 1840s shows that the practice of using four-digit gang punches to date U.S. coinage dies was introduced by Christian Gobrecht, who was Second Engraver from 1835 to 1840 and Chief Engraver from 1840 to 1844. A good example of a date repunched in a die by a gang punch can be seen under the 1843 Double Date Half Dime (V-6a) illustrated on P. 53 of the late Al Blythe’s excellent “The Complete Guide to Liberty Seated Half Dimes.” Another excellent example is the 1844-O Doubled Date Half Dollar illustrated in the Redbook and in other references.

 

How Gobrecht, and James B. Longacre after him, made their gang punches in several sizes each year for the various denomination dies is not recorded in Mint literature. It is unfortunate but true that many day-to-day tasks at the Mint were so mundane to the people doing them that they were not considered worthy of recording for posterity.

 

Making a single letter or number punch is a skilled bit of engraving that can be accomplished one of two ways. The engraver can take an annealed (heated to soften it and allowed to cool slowly) steel rod and, using small punches and files, cut away the metal at the tip of the rod that is not a part of the character he wants. Think of a raised letter on a tombstone that is created by removing the unwanted stone in and around the character. After smoothing and finishing the surface, the engraved punch can then be hardened by heating it again and quenching it suddenly in a bath of water or oil.

 

The second way is to take a block of heat-softened steel and carve out metal in the shape of the desired character, working in mirror image. The same process was used in the early days of the Mint to create large designs such as a Liberty head or an eagle before reusable design hubs were created, so carving out a small letter or number was not a great challenge to a skilled engraver. When finished, the block could be hardened and the end of a softened rod hammered into the carved recess, raising up a positive image of the character. The raised image could then be touched up and smoothed out before the rod was hardened.

 

Robert W. Julian has unearthed Mint documents which show that from 1819 until 1839 the Philadelphia Mint purchased individual letter and number punches from an engraver in Philadelphia, Henry Starr, for the price of 50 cents per punch. Records after 1839, which might show whether the Mint continued to purchase individual date punches, or possibly gang punches, from this same engraver were not found.

 

The process for making a gang punch was likewise not recorded for posterity. I will speculate that there were three ways to make a gang punch. The first would be to cut away the rectangular end of a softened rod as though you were making four digits at once and hope that you do not screw up the fourth one, wasting all your effort up to that point; hand carving four digits side by side into a block of softened steel and hoping that you do not screw up the fourth digit, wasting all of your effort up to that point; or making four (less if you have a repeating digit as in 1861 or 1888) individual punches and using them to punch, one at a time, the full date into a block of softened steel.

 

As with the single digit the block would be hardened and an appropriately-shaped rod impacted against it to raise up the four digits, which would then be trimmed and smoothed and the rod hardened. A competent engraver, expecting that he is going to need gang punches in x-number of sizes for the next year’s coinage, could punch different size dates in different places on the same block of steel and save himself some time hardening one block of steel rather than several. I could imagine him doing one year’s dates on one side of a block and the next year’s dates on the other side of the block, and then recycling the block back to his steel-maker along with other obsolete die or punch steel. I can’t imagine him grinding the block of steel down to re-use an old date, thereby creating an overdate.

 

Whichever technique was used, the Mint certainly had the capacity to sink or raise up negative or positive images in steel. They did it all the time with their much larger dies and hubs, which required much more force than a small number or letter punch.

 

I believe that Gobrecht used a similar technique to make ring punches with legends such as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to assist his making of master dies, to avoid spoiling a work in progress by mis-positioning or otherwise blundering a single character and having to start all over. A date gang punch is just a similar labor-saving device.

 

A good question that has not been answered is why individual number punches often change from year to year, so that say the digits 1-8-5 of a run from 1856 to 1859 are typically not the same in each year, while a repeating digit in one year, such as 1855, is generally the same except for some light tooling as could be explained in the procedure above. I don’t know. Perhaps the process of indenting the block of steel with individual punches damaged the individual punches to the point that they could not be used the following year, but this is just a guess.

 

As to the so-called 1861/0 Half Dimes with the same curved line up from the base of the second 1 on four different working dies, this could have been caused by a small ding adjacent to the 1 in the block of steel used to raise up the gang punch. The ding in the block of steel would have left a small raised area on the gang punch that should have been trimmed away but wasn’t, causing the gang punch to leave repeating depressions in the working dies, which in turn left the repeating curved lines on the struck coins.

 

[PerryHall]

Thanks for a great analysis.

[CaptHenway]

You are most welcome!

[messydesk]

I like the "engraved block o' dates" theory. It works well with an exploration of 1881 dollars, although granted this is much later than the time frame you're mentioning. For this date, we see some coins with a notch on the 2nd 8 (chipped punch), some not (unchipped punch). Some have a defect on the surface of the last one, some don't. Some have chips at the top left inside of the top loop of the 8s (chip in the block o' dates?), some don't. Deterioration of a date punch isn't such a big deal if it's easy to make another one.

 

Another thing that's noticeable on Morgan dollar dates is that sometimes the spacing between digits changes from year to year, and sometimes it doesn't. close examination of 1896 through 1898 shows a big change in digit spread between 1896 and 97, but not 98. The 1 is also a bit larger starting with 1897. Do you also think that a date punch with final digit ground off, punched into a softened block o' dates was often used as a shortcut for making the next year's punch? From 1886 to 89 (especially 86 and 89), you can also see the final digit isn't lined up perfectly with the others. For 1888, the final 8 can look like it's upside-down. Although this is an illusion due most likely to the way the date was sunk into the die, it looks this way often enough to indicate that it was not added to the block o' dates in a manner consistent with the others.

 

 

[Kevin J Flynn]

Tom,

 

I would agree with your statement that this is a theory, and that there is no Mint documentation on how these punches were manufactured. Of course even if we had evidence on how they were specifically created during one period, does not mean this is how they were created during all periods.

 

I would agree that during the 1840s, we can show 4 digit date punches were used for most years, the same relative position of the digits on coins from different dies proves this.

 

I have seen Mint records which show that Christian Gobrecht also provided the Mint punches before he was hired in 1835 as an assistant Engraver in 1836, and which after Chief Engraver William Kneass had a stroke on August 27, 1835, Gobrecht performed the duties of the Chief Engraver during the period through 1840 when Kneass died.

 

I agree that your first theory is what was primarily used as this is the most logical, simple, and a method used in creating other tools.

For example, if you look at the ring punched used on the early Indian cents (before 1886, Type II), the same extra metal is seen on the sides on the letters for many sequential years.

This, I believe was caused by the cutting down so to speak, the edges or outline of the letters, leaving extra metal at the base of the letters, incused on the die and raised on the coins.

 

On your block theory, what evidence do you have that it was used during this period. I agree that if single digits could be reused, it would create a savings, but for many denominations during this period, the digits in sequential years are not the same, which does not support the implementation of your theory.

 

What evidence do you have supporting this block theory, whereas a block was created for each denomination each year, and used to create an incused image of the digits, whereafter an annealed blank punch was punched in?

Even when two dates are used in the same year, such as the 1865 Plain and Fancy 5 date punches used on the two cent pieces, this goes against this theory

 

As we do not have specific detailed records, we have to use the coins as our primary evidence, and the dates used on sequential years does not support this second theory.

 

Also, on the dies and hubs, these images were transferred with thousands of tons of pressure in the hubbing press, with the metal being squeezed into the recesses of the opposite image, this is different than striking a blank softened punch into a hardened block of steel. Please support this assertion.

 

I agree with your conclusion that the 1861/0 is simply the result of damage to the date punch, whereas extra raised metal was left on the punch.

 

On your second theory, below is what I see as the primary problem

 

Lets break this second theory down

 

The blank date punch is for sake of argument and common sense, has the front/face that is rectangular, and the size slightly bigger than the intended date.

 

The steel bar has digits incused, that for the the sake of argument, 1/20 of an inch deep, or the depth of the deepest point of the digits.

 

The intention is to have these digits on the date punch, raised above the base 1/20 of an inch.

 

To accomplish this, you need to move the metal on the blank date punch above the incused digits and remove the metal on the blank date punch outside the intended digits

 

So, where does this metal outside the area of the digits go, obviously the point of least resistance, which should be outside the area under the the face of the date punch.

 

Do you believe that you can strike a blank date punch over incused digits, to the point where the metal from the date punch goes both inside the incused digits, and the metal outside of this area to outside the date punch?

 

Kevin

 

 

 

[CaptHenway]

@Messydesk...there have been various suggestions over the years that some dies were dated near the end of a calendar year with a three-digit gang punch, with the last digit left off in case the die needed to be carried over to the next year. I have looked for coins with a wandering fourth digit to prove this theory, but have never seen one that proves the theory. That does not mean that it did not happen. The 1846 6/horizontal 6 is an excellent candidate.

 

It would also have made sense to use such a three-digit gang punch to start the next year's dating, but again I have not seen evidence of it. It is something to keep looking for. I woule expect that if it did happen, it would show up on a Morgan dollar simply because of the large numbers of dies used.

 

TD

[RWB]

Some place - if I can find them - I have letters mentioning the purchase of letter and numeral punches from Anthony Paquet and others. So the outsourcing continued beyond the information Julian discovered.

[RWB]

Maybe this will help a little.....

 

Making Date and Letter Punches

Roger W. Burdette, Copyright 2014.

 

(The following research was prepared for publication in the book From Mine to Mint, but was omitted. It was probably skipped when I assembled draft sections. The sources are the Royal Mint, multiple engineering books on tool and die making, and several books on production of printing and embossing type and punches. Additional information comes from examination of nineteenth century engraving and coin die making tools and descriptions in several US Mint letters. The bracketed sentence was added today.)

 

The letter, digit or other design element punch was a short bar of annealed steel, the end of which was shaped to form the desired character. Punches were usually made in proportional widths in the same was as ordinary printing type. Initially, the end of the small steel bar was flat and rectangular in shape. The profile and surface of the letter was made by slowly filing off extra metal. For any letter that contained an interior closed space, such as B, O, a, g, and so forth, the punch cutter would first make a counter-punch in the shape of the interior area. This counter-punch was driven into the flat face of the new punch bar, and then the outer profile of the digit or letter would be formed by filing away the unwanted metal. This was slow, painstaking work with many interruptions to check the size, character and thickness of its strokes. These were checked with specially made gauges. The difficulties were magnified when the punch maker had to produce a complete set of letter punches in the same size and style.

 

Most punches appear to have been made with uniform lengths for each letter size/font and with wide upper ends to help direct the hammer blow. Punch bars had flat sides that could fit together. This allowed several to be combined into a “gang” and locked in place with a tight clamp. Individual and groupings of characters could be duplicated in much the same way was a coining die. The hand-made original was hardened and driven into a piece of flat, soft die steel to produce an incuse character. The steel was hardened, and then a soft steel bar was forced into the incuse character die. This had to be done carefully to avoid bending the steel bar. Once the full digit or letter was impressed, the bar was cleaned, touched up and annealed for use. [This could also be used to make a one-piece gang punch for dates or other design elements. It is the most likely way that William Key replicated his Gothic “IGWT” motto used on the Morgan dollar.] An alternate method used in the Paris Mint was to press only a small rectangle of soft steel into the character die. This was finished, cleaned and hardened, then soldered to a steel rod. The hard steel face was sufficient to take the demands of use, but was easier to replace than a a single-piece bar punch.

 

Until adoption of the Janvier reducing machine by the Philadelphia Mint, working punches were considered so precious that they were kept in use as long as possible. Thus, it was common for digits in the date to be added with individual figure punches to each working die, with the result that dies could still vary, if only minutely, from their fellows. Another cause of variation from die to die was the continued use of punches with letters broken by wear or damage. Imperfect master dies or working dies produced from these punches had to be repaired by repunching defective letters with single letter punches, leaving traces of double letters on the dies. Sometimes the wrong punch was used to strengthen a letter or digit.

[cpm9ball]

Tom, is there a difference between a "gang" punch and a "logotype" punch? The logotype punch is referenced in the VAM book, so I'm wondering if there is a difference.

 

TIA!

 

Chris

[RWB]

OK ---- My notes for the book indicate that the artist who was making illustrations did not deliver, and I pulled the section because it was difficult to understand without drawings.

[Coindude]

Long read but quite informative and interesting.

[messydesk]

Thanks for posting, Roger.

[CaptHenway]

Thanks, Roger! Let me go over that some more.

[RWB]

You're welcome!

 

I'm really irked that it is not in the book! It has also set me looking for other things that got cut or omitted, and what to do with them.

[CaptHenway]

Tom, is there a difference between a "gang" punch and a "logotype" punch? The logotype punch is referenced in the VAM book, so I'm wondering if there is a difference.

 

TIA!

 

Chris

 

Where is the word used in VAM?

[CaptHenway]

Maybe this will help a little.....

 

Making Date and Letter Punches

Roger W. Burdette, Copyright 2014.

 

(The following research was prepared for publication in the book From Mine to Mint, but was omitted. It was probably skipped when I assembled draft sections. The sources are the Royal Mint, multiple engineering books on tool and die making, and several books on production of printing and embossing type and punches. Additional information comes from examination of nineteenth century engraving and coin die making tools and descriptions in several US Mint letters. The bracketed sentence was added today.)

 

The letter, digit or other design element punch was a short bar of annealed steel, the end of which was shaped to form the desired character. Punches were usually made in proportional widths in the same was as ordinary printing type. Initially, the end of the small steel bar was flat and rectangular in shape. The profile and surface of the letter was made by slowly filing off extra metal. For any letter that contained an interior closed space, such as B, O, a, g, and so forth, the punch cutter would first make a counter-punch in the shape of the interior area. This counter-punch was driven into the flat face of the new punch bar, and then the outer profile of the digit or letter would be formed by filing away the unwanted metal. This was slow, painstaking work with many interruptions to check the size, character and thickness of its strokes. These were checked with specially made gauges. The difficulties were magnified when the punch maker had to produce a complete set of letter punches in the same size and style.

 

Most punches appear to have been made with uniform lengths for each letter size/font and with wide upper ends to help direct the hammer blow. Punch bars had flat sides that could fit together. This allowed several to be combined into a “gang” and locked in place with a tight clamp. Individual and groupings of characters could be duplicated in much the same way was a coining die. The hand-made original was hardened and driven into a piece of flat, soft die steel to produce an incuse character. The steel was hardened, and then a soft steel bar was forced into the incuse character die. This had to be done carefully to avoid bending the steel bar. Once the full digit or letter was impressed, the bar was cleaned, touched up and annealed for use. [This could also be used to make a one-piece gang punch for dates or other design elements. It is the most likely way that William Key replicated his Gothic “IGWT” motto used on the Morgan dollar.] An alternate method used in the Paris Mint was to press only a small rectangle of soft steel into the character die. This was finished, cleaned and hardened, then soldered to a steel rod. The hard steel face was sufficient to take the demands of use, but was easier to replace than a a single-piece bar punch.

 

Until adoption of the Janvier reducing machine by the Philadelphia Mint, working punches were considered so precious that they were kept in use as long as possible. Thus, it was common for digits in the date to be added with individual figure punches to each working die, with the result that dies could still vary, if only minutely, from their fellows. Another cause of variation from die to die was the continued use of punches with letters broken by wear or damage. Imperfect master dies or working dies produced from these punches had to be repaired by repunching defective letters with single letter punches, leaving traces of double letters on the dies. Sometimes the wrong punch was used to strengthen a letter or digit.

 

That sounds as though it backs up my gang punch theory quite well, thank you, though it suggests that all four individual punches may have been impressed into the block of steel at the same time in some sort of holder. I can live with that. And it seems to settle the question as to whether or not a four-digit raised punch could be raised up from the end of a rod of steel.

 

And it settles the question of how the individual punches were produced, with the ends of rods cut away to leave a raised character rather than carving out the character in a block of steel and impressing the end of a rod into it. Again I can live with that!

 

Save the material for the Second Edition!

 

TD

[messydesk]

Tom, is there a difference between a "gang" punch and a "logotype" punch? The logotype punch is referenced in the VAM book, so I'm wondering if there is a difference.

 

TIA!

 

Chris

 

Where is the word used in VAM?

p. 114, 3rd edition, in the section "Date Positions and Dashes". Leroy uses it a few times.

[RWB]

Clamping two or more little punches together and trying to get an even impression seems problematical. Creating a character die (matrix) would permit making a stronger, more stable, single-bar punch. (Try clamping together several common nail sets. Can you get them all to punch to the same depth in a block of wood?)

[CaptHenway]

Tom, is there a difference between a "gang" punch and a "logotype" punch? The logotype punch is referenced in the VAM book, so I'm wondering if there is a difference.

 

TIA!

 

Chris

 

Where is the word used in VAM?

p. 114, 3rd edition, in the section "Date Positions and Dashes". Leroy uses it a few times.

 

OK thanks. Looking at the usage, I believe that his logotype is the same as what I call a gang punch.

[CaptHenway]

Clamping two or more little punches together and trying to get an even impression seems problematical. Creating a character die (matrix) would permit making a stronger, more stable, single-bar punch. (Try clamping together several common nail sets. Can you get them all to punch to the same depth in a block of wood?)

 

Oh, to have a time machine to go back and chat with Mr. Gobrecht!

 

And pick up a few of his dollars while there!

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

You're welcome!

 

I'm really irked that it is not in the book! It has also set me looking for other things that got cut or omitted, and what to do with them.

 

I'm guessing you've collected enough odds and ends like this to make a pretty good start on a new JNR.

[Kevin J Flynn]

[quote=CaptHenwayThat sounds as though it backs up my gang punch theory quite well, thank you, though it suggests that all four individual punches may have been impressed into the block of steel at the same time in some sort of holder. I can live with that. And it seems to settle the question as to whether or not a four-digit raised punch could be raised up from the end of a rod of steel.

And it settles the question of how the individual punches were produced, with the ends of rods cut away to leave a raised character rather than carving out the character in a block of steel and impressing the end of a rod into it. Again I can live with that!

TD

 

Tom,

 

Roger's txt states that force was used to push the metal into the incused digits, you stated that the blank punch was struck into the incused digits, which is what I disagreed with. I can live forced into the incused space and extra metal to the outside of the punch, not the striking of the punch which you have stated.

 

I do not think you understand that I am not disagreeing whether it could be done, but the method you are claiming it was done in.

 

I would disagree that this settles the question as to whether the U.S. Mint used this or any other method on a consistent basis. We do not know how the U.S. Mint created punches in the 19th century, especially this this was outsourced for most of the first half of the 19th century. I agree that it was pausable and possible, but not that it settles the question whether it was used. Someone who knew this method from the Royal Mint may have used it, someone who was trained another way could have done it the way they learned.

 

Kevin

 

[WoodenJefferson]

Very interesting discussion. Thank you guys for the input.

[cpm9ball]

Tom, is there a difference between a "gang" punch and a "logotype" punch? The logotype punch is referenced in the VAM book, so I'm wondering if there is a difference.

 

TIA!

 

Chris

 

Where is the word used in VAM?

p. 114, 3rd edition, in the section "Date Positions and Dashes". Leroy uses it a few times.

 

OK thanks. Looking at the usage, I believe that his logotype is the same as what I call a gang punch.

 

I kind of figured that, but wanted to be sure.

 

In today's society, some might consider a "gang punch" an MS13 initiation beating.

 

Chris

[CaptHenway]

[quote=CaptHenwayThat sounds as though it backs up my gang punch theory quite well, thank you, though it suggests that all four individual punches may have been impressed into the block of steel at the same time in some sort of holder. I can live with that. And it seems to settle the question as to whether or not a four-digit raised punch could be raised up from the end of a rod of steel.

And it settles the question of how the individual punches were produced, with the ends of rods cut away to leave a raised character rather than carving out the character in a block of steel and impressing the end of a rod into it. Again I can live with that!

TD

 

Tom,

 

Roger's txt states that force was used to push the metal into the incused digits, you stated that the blank punch was struck into the incused digits, which is what I disagreed with. I can live forced into the incused space and extra metal to the outside of the punch, not the striking of the punch which you have stated.

 

I do not think you understand that I am not disagreeing whether it could be done, but the method you are claiming it was done in.

 

I would disagree that this settles the question as to whether the U.S. Mint used this or any other method on a consistent basis. We do not know how the U.S. Mint created punches in the 19th century, especially this this was outsourced for most of the first half of the 19th century. I agree that it was pausable and possible, but not that it settles the question whether it was used. Someone who knew this method from the Royal Mint may have used it, someone who was trained another way could have done it the way they learned.

 

Kevin

 

The correct quote from my original posting:

 

"As with the single digit the block would be hardened and an appropriately-shaped rod impacted against it to raise up the four digits, which would then be trimmed and smoothed and the rod hardened."

 

TD

[Conder101]

The blank date punch is for sake of argument and common sense, has the front/face that is rectangular, and the size slightly bigger than the intended date.

For production of hubs and dies the blank is prepared with a cone face. Why couldn't the face of the date punch blank also be cut down to a smaller size than the intended digit so that it fit into the digit. That would greatly lessen the amount of material that would be forced back by the field area around the incuse figure in the block.

[CaptHenway]

The blank date punch is for sake of argument and common sense, has the front/face that is rectangular, and the size slightly bigger than the intended date.

For production of hubs and dies the blank is prepared with a cone face. Why couldn't the face of the date punch blank also be cut down to a smaller size than the intended digit so that it fit into the digit. That would greatly lessen the amount of material that would be forced back by the field area around the incuse figure in the block.

 

That is quite possible.

[RWB]

I found these related paragraphs in my FMTM notes. It was likely intended to connect to the material about repunched stars and digits. Reading through it, suggests it was omitted for the same reason as the punch description – absence of suitable illustrations. This excerpt is clearly incomplete, also.

 

The act of punching letters, numerals, stars or other design elements into a working die or master die was more involved than many imagine. The amount of force necessary to make an impression of the required depth into die steel depended on the size of the character, the camber of the character edges and the amount of force applied to the punch. The whole activity might be considered analogous to the game of golf. In normal driving circumstances a golfer tries to apply the same swing each time. The clubs have different weights and will drive the ball to a greater or lesser distance depending on the force applied to the club head. By this means, the golfer uses the same swing and selects different clubs to drive the ball a predetermined distance.

 

In much the same way, the die sinker would try to use the same arm stroke each time. He selected the weight of hammer based on the size and camber of the character, and his estimate of the depth to which the character had to be driven. The number of blows required to make a complete original or repair (die touch-up) character also had to be considered. Obviously, most U.S. Mint die sinkers were extremely good at this since we see only occasional examples of letters and numbers being of different heights on finished coins.

 

--- ties to alignment tools and punches, errors, etc....revise/add illus

[Kevin J Flynn]

The blank date punch is for sake of argument and common sense, has the front/face that is rectangular, and the size slightly bigger than the intended date.

For production of hubs and dies the blank is prepared with a cone face. Why couldn't the face of the date punch blank also be cut down to a smaller size than the intended digit so that it fit into the digit. That would greatly lessen the amount of material that would be forced back by the field area around the incuse figure in the block.

That is quite possible.

 

Isn't that funny, I said the same on the PCGS board, and no response....

 

I specifically stated:

"If we are talking hypothetical, I could see your second theory as being theoretically doable if

either a press was devised which was used to press the metal from the blank rod into the block of steel at a controlled speed and pressure,

or if on the blank date punch, you somehow first created lumps that were in the same location as the digits, then punched in, in the same way the cone was on top of the working die."

 

[Kevin J Flynn]

[quote=CaptHenwayThat sounds as though it backs up my gang punch theory quite well, thank you, though it suggests that all four individual punches may have been impressed into the block of steel at the same time in some sort of holder. I can live with that. And it seems to settle the question as to whether or not a four-digit raised punch could be raised up from the end of a rod of steel.

And it settles the question of how the individual punches were produced, with the ends of rods cut away to leave a raised character rather than carving out the character in a block of steel and impressing the end of a rod into it. Again I can live with that!

TD

 

Tom,

Roger's txt states that force was used to push the metal into the incused digits, you stated that the blank punch was struck into the incused digits, which is what I disagreed with. I can live forced into the incused space and extra metal to the outside of the punch, not the striking of the punch which you have stated.

I do not think you understand that I am not disagreeing whether it could be done, but the method you are claiming it was done in.

 

I would disagree that this settles the question as to whether the U.S. Mint used this or any other method on a consistent basis. We do not know how the U.S. Mint created punches in the 19th century, especially this this was outsourced for most of the first half of the 19th century. I agree that it was pausable and possible, but not that it settles the question whether it was used. Someone who knew this method from the Royal Mint may have used it, someone who was trained another way could have done it the way they learned.

Kevin

 

The correct quote from my original posting:

"As with the single digit the block would be hardened and an appropriately-shaped rod impacted against it to raise up the four digits, which would then be trimmed and smoothed and the rod hardened."

TD

 

==============================================================

 

Tom

 

Actually, here is an exact quote from your original post, which to I disagree with

"the block could be hardened and the end of a softened rod hammered into the carved recess, raising up a positive image of the character"

 

Hammering the end of the blank date punch into the hardened steel will not work.

Using pressure, permitting the metal from the softened blank punch to be squeezed into the recesses of the digits I believe would work.

 

Kevin