Early 20th Century Coin Question

[coinman1794]

Who decided, in the early 1900s, that they did not like the brilliant finish on the coins of the late 19th and early 20th Century, and sought to make the coinage more satiny; and what sources are there to document this?

 

Thanks!

[DaveG]

Are you asking about the change to Proof coins?

 

If so, Roger Burdette ought to be along soon to answer your question - it's probably addressed in his 3-volume series, Renaissance of American Coinage.

[coinman1794]

Thanks Dave, but no, I'm talking strictly about business strikes. Either some or one of the designers of the period, and I can't remember who, didn't like the PL finish showing up on the circulated coinage, and wanted the coins to be more consistently satin-like. But who was it, and are there any good references?

[BillJones]

It seemed to be consensus among the leading artists of the period, led by St. Gaudens, that the brilliant finish was gaudy and detracted from the artists' designs. As the new designs were phased in, the brilliant finish was muted on the business strike coins or made dull on the Proof coins. I have sense that this trend started with the French, but that might be off base.

[DWLange]

Bill's reply is correct, but I don't believe it answers the original poster's question. If I'm reading that correctly, he wanted to know why ordinary circulation coins weren't PL after the 1890s.

 

I believe this was not done intentionally, but rather was a matter of benign neglect. The dies simply weren't polished to a brilliant finish, instead being left with their natural finish as manufactured. They thus displayed only random, raised lines on satiny surfaces. The convex fields of the new coin types introduced starting in 1907 did not lend themselves to the same kind of finish seen on the nearly flat fields of Morgan and Barber coins, so the mints never had much inclination to polish them in the same manner.

 

Brilliant fields could be achieved in part by clumsy buffing of the dies, but this typically applied only to the portions of the die that came into first contact with the polishing device or material. That's why we see some Mercury Dimes that have small, brilliant patches on either side of the Liberty bust or the fasces, but are not PL in other areas of the field. These brilliant patches occurred more or less by accident in the course of removing clash marks or erosion lines to extend a die's lifespan.

[johnny9434]

makes sense to me dwlange.

[RWB]

Once the Philadelphia Mint adopted the Janvier reducing lathe for all reductions from models, casts or galvanos to hubs in 1906, the engravers were no permitted to make their customary sharpening and retouching alterations. The results were more uniform coinage, but pieces with less sharpness and detail. The coins also had a faithful representation or the original design's field curvature (or radius), which had formerly been uniform, but was now irregular as prepared on each of the new 'renaissance' designs.

 

By 1920, most of the new designs had been converted to uniform radii, but use of better abrasive lapping and repair tools created fewer PL dies. (PL dies were a product of repair and maintenance, not original surfaces.) Compare a BU 1916 Mercury dime with a 1936 BU piece and you can see the changes.

 

In effect, technology changed and so did the appearance of coins.

[messydesk]

... That's why we see some Mercury Dimes that have small, brilliant patches on either side of the Liberty bust or the fasces, but are not PL in other areas of the field. These brilliant patches occurred more or less by accident in the course of removing clash marks or erosion lines to extend a die's lifespan.

Some such marks are due to feed fingers scraping the metal flow lines from the dies. This is prevalent on the upper reverse of 1921 Morgan dollars and lower obverse of Peace dollars starting in 1922.

[CaptHenway]

The Mint has hand-punching dates into dies up until 1908. The movement of metal caused by the displacement of the date threw up a crater around the date which needed to be basined away.

 

Once the Mint started using the dated hubs the designers and engravers could get a little fancier with the finishes. However, I suspect that they kept basining the Liberty nickels and Barber silver until those designs were replaced just because that was the way they had always processed those dies.

 

TD

[coinman1794]

Bill's reply is correct, but I don't believe it answers the original poster's question. If I'm reading that correctly, he wanted to know why ordinary circulation coins weren't PL after the 1890s.

 

I believe this was not done intentionally, but rather was a matter of benign neglect. The dies simply weren't polished to a brilliant finish, instead being left with their natural finish as manufactured. They thus displayed only random, raised lines on satiny surfaces. The convex fields of the new coin types introduced starting in 1907 did not lend themselves to the same kind of finish seen on the nearly flat fields of Morgan and Barber coins, so the mints never had much inclination to polish them in the same manner.

 

Brilliant fields could be achieved in part by clumsy buffing of the dies, but this typically applied only to the portions of the die that came into first contact with the polishing device or material. That's why we see some Mercury Dimes that have small, brilliant patches on either side of the Liberty bust or the fasces, but are not PL in other areas of the field. These brilliant patches occurred more or less by accident in the course of removing clash marks or erosion lines to extend a die's lifespan.

 

Good information David. Thank you.

 

I remember reading somewhere that someone in that period had voiced their displeasure with the reflective appearance of the coinage. I'm trying to figure out who that was, and where I read it.

[RWB]

The displeasure was not about circulating coinage.

 

Artists of the time did not want the mint to make mirror proofs of their coin designs, as was commonly done for the older designs. As previously noted, artists thought polished surfaces cheapened the appearance of their work. Saint-Gaudens and all of his assistants and former students held this same artistic opinion. An antiqued or sandblasted medal or coin was felt to be the ultimate in artistic expression and quality.

[coinman1794]

Thanks, Roger!