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

[Kevin J Flynn]

There is another piece of physical evidence that is important to consider.

 

We know there are two small die scratches from the top end of the serif.

We know there is a triangular shaped wedge that goes from the left base of the 1 towards the middle of the 6.

 

There is also raised metal that covers roughly 80% of the area between the serif and left base of the 1. It is higher nearer the left side of the vertical bar of the 1, and angles down slightly. The edges are not shaped in any specific manner.

 

Why this is important, is that is makes it more probable that this particular date punch was engraved or carved out of a blank softened steel bar than struck into incused digits.

 

If struck into incused digits, then the metal from the annealed date punch is being pushed into the incused digits of the hardened bar, with maximum resistance obtained when the digits are filled, and there is no where else for the metal to go. With the metal flat on the top of the hardened bar, the metal on the base of the digits forming the base of the date punch will be flat. As the digits are punched into the softened metal bar first, there should not be holes or other problems in the area around the incused digits. If there was a problem on the single digit punch, then it should show up when used again, which it does not.

 

If we take the other scenario, whereas the engraver is cutting away the area around the digits on the date punch, the engraver cuts away metal to form the raised digits, if they do not clean the area around the digit and remove the metal to form a smooth base, this is what we would see.

 

These pieces of raised metal make it more probable that the digits on the date punch were carved out a annealed block of steel.

 

I am not say the theory of using a block with incused digits is not possible, I am say the evidence presented above, and the fact we do not see the single digits used in sequential years pointing to the higher probability that they were carved.

 

Kevin

 

[CaptHenway]

There is a thread ATS about a gorgeous 1864 proof trime that happens to show a closeup of the date, where there appears to be a difference in style between the 18 and the 64. Perhaps you all might wish to take a look at it.

 

Is there any site that would have similar closeups of the dates on either trimes or half dimes of the 1860s?

 

TD

[RWB]

What's the thread title? I saw the 1858, but not the 1864 proof.

[CaptHenway]

I'll go TTT it.

[thetracer]

A further avenue of research:

Like the post about the Canadian Mint

Most of the engravers were European or studied in Europe

Like other jobs, there are general ways of doing things at different times

I bet that the old engravers here were doing exactly what they were doing over there and in Canada

I doubt that they were inventing new technology

So doing more research about what may be recorded about other Western world mints would tell us what our guys were doing

No, not exactly, but, in general