Mint Proof Manufacturing Methods 1936-1942

[coinman_23885]

Proof cameo coinage from the late 1800s to early 1900s is relatively much more common than for coins issued between 1936-1942? What is different in the manufacturing methods between the two periods? For instance, why are Barber Head cameo dimes more common than Mercury Dime cameos? Why are the Liberty Head Nickel cameos more common than for the Bison Nickel?

[DWLange]

The U. S. Mint simply made no effort to produce proof coins with frosted relief, since this would have required additional steps. The fact that collectors complained about the early sets of 1936 being insufficiently brilliant only reinforced the trend. The Mint's polishing of proof dies was very crude and heavy-handed, resulting in a loss of shallow details, such as the lapel of Lincoln's coat and the tail if the fasces thong on the Mercury Dime.

[BillJones]

Yes the satin finish on the early 1936 cents and nickels prompted complaints from a number of collectors. Many of those collectors probably recalled the Matte Proof coins, which many collectors did not like. That resulted in some heavy handed die polishing which resulted in a lot of brilliance, but sometimes a lack of design detail.

 

The same thing happened in 1950 and to a lesser extent, 1951. As a result the 1952 Proof sets are often like the coins from the 1936 - 42 era. The 1952 Proofs had lots of shine, but sometimes lacked detail.

[RWB]

You'll find a lot of information on this in my Coin World article on reintroduction of proof coins in 1936.

 

1. Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels had an uneven radius, and could not be efficiently polished to make mirror proofs.

2. When proofs were reintroduced in 1936, everyone at the mint who knew how to make them was dead. Engraver Sinnock had to guess what was done in the past, and learn by trial and error. (By 1936 all of the coins had been revised to have uniform radii so they could be polished.)

3. In 1950 a similar problem occurred. The person who made the proofs in the early 1940s had retired and no one else knew how to manufacture proof coins.

 

The mint in the post-war period was much less receptive to coin collectors than before. Production was much greater and facilities strained by war-time demands. Asst Director Leland Howard thought collectors were more of a nuisance than anything else. (Howard was an accountant: just slightly human.)

 

The mint has consistently been a poor custodian of its own history.

[coinman_23885]

Thank you all for your help; it is very much appreciated. And RWB, I will definitely search for your Coin World article.

[DWLange]

The same overpolishing recurred yet again with the resumption of proof coinage in 1968. That year's proof quarters in particular are lacking in detail, and the SMS coins of 1967 show far higher production quality.

[RWB]

As Mr. Lange's comment reinforces: the mint is a poor custodian of its own operations and practices. Compare this to the Royal Mint where meaningful operating records, assays and procedures extend for half a millennium.