Third Barber dime reverse hub type - hiding in plain sight 0

[kbbpll]

I published this article back in March 2019 in the Barber Coin Collectors' Society quarterly journal. At the time, I thought it was kind of a big deal, that there was actually a third Barber dime reverse design type. All the literature says there were two reverse types, "old" and "new", "thin ribbon" and "thick ribbon", and that the second was introduced in 1901. Yet, there was actually a new reverse design introduced in 1900, and the 1901 "thick ribbon" was really an addition to the 1900 type, not an addition to the original 1892-1899 type.

Along the way, I discovered a couple of new transition varieties. The new 1900 reverse was apparently put into service in Philadelphia ahead of the new century, and so there are 1899-P dimes with the 1900 reverse. And San Francisco minted some 1900-S dimes with the old 1899 reverse.

Funny to me, I got absolutely zero feedback from that article. I mean, how many times is a new design type discovered in US coins from 120 years ago? So, I figured maybe it was common secret knowledge, previously published elsewhere where I can't see it, or maybe nobody cares. But I was encouraged to post it somewhere, and so here it is. It would be a shame for it to disappear into the numismatic black hole. If anything, it would be nice for the guide books and the TPG "facts" sites to get the story straight.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DGaN6teGJiZ6jK81G9KJsPPHxTUo9dTY

If the link doesn't work, let me know.

[Crawtomatic]

Very cool.  Thank you for researching and writing that up.  Dimes are not a series I'm particularly fond of but die varieties are of great interest to me.  Especially those of the reverse.  Do you happen to have these coins in registry sets or anywhere else with high definition pictures that we could also see the differences?

[Just Bob]

It looks like you put lots of time and effort into your search. Job well done.

I hope that this is seen by someone who can give it the recognition it deserves.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Just Bob

[kbbpll]

3 hours ago, CRAWTOMATIC said:

Very cool.  Thank you for researching and writing that up.  Dimes are not a series I'm particularly fond of but die varieties are of great interest to me.  Especially those of the reverse.  Do you happen to have these coins in registry sets or anywhere else with high definition pictures that we could also see the differences?

Sorry, I do not have registry sets, and most of the examples I've picked up are raw. Finding a slabbed 1900-S Reverse 1 "Reverse of 1899" I've found to be quite difficult. Here is one from Heritage (2009):

https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-dimes/dimes/1900-s-10c-ms66-pcgs/a/1125-484.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

My 1900-S "Reverse of 1899" is below, and also the comparison image used in the article. Of course, you can go to the price guide here or at that other site, save off 1899, 1900, and 1901 images, and create your own side-by-sides. Once you recognize the markers, particularly the left leaf vein, it's pretty easy to see the difference between Reverse 1 and Reverse 2. Then pull up almost any 1901 from the price guides, and Reverse 3 just has the extra fold added under the right ribbon ("thick ribbon").

I too have become fascinated with reverse die varieties of this issue. The 1899-1905 dime story is quite interesting once you dig into it, and deserves better documentation pretty much everywhere. 1899-P has the early release of Reverse 2, 1900-S has the Reverse 1 throwback, 1901 has a mix of types 2 and 3 in all three mints (even proofs!), and S mint continued to mix them through 1905. 1902-S they "got with the program", almost all type 3 but still a few type 2. Then, inexplicably, 1903-S is mostly all back to type 2 and type 3 is difficult to find. 1904-S is back to mostly type 3, but type 2 is less difficult to find, and then 1905-S is again nearly all type 3 and type 2 scarce. An excellent article by John T. Reynolds in the Fall 2017 BCCS journal lays all this out. Between his and my article, there are a large number of Barber dime reverse design type anomalies to collect.

It always makes me chuckle when you consider that there are over a thousand different well-documented VAMs for Morgan dollars, yet this area of the Barber dimes is virtually unknown. But that's coin collecting.

[Zebo]

Thank you for sharing.

[kbbpll]

Might as well add these for reference. Normal 1899-P Reverse 1, 1899-P Reverse 2 "Reverse of 1900", both slabbed MS63, and my "discovery coin" of the 1899-P Reverse 2. Not the best images, but the markers are fairly clear.

[RWB]

These are less likely to be in certified holders unless the owners recognize the differences. Your article will likely go a long way toward helping others locate these interesting varieties.

[kbbpll]

It seems like a chicken and egg problem to me. Attribution drives collector interest, but collector interest drives attribution. If an owner recognizes the difference, why would they be more likely to put it in a certified holder if the holder doesn't recognize the difference? This is the problem for me at this point. Let's say I wanted these two coins attributed, not so much as "discovery" coins, but as transition anomaly coins in general. Who officially attributes a new hub type? Cherrypickers and CONECA seem oriented towards RPMs, RPDs, and the like. First, I'd have to get "somebody" to recognize and designate a third reverse design to begin with, and only then get them to recognize the 1899-P Reverse 2 and 1900-S Reverse 1 as distinct anomalies.

Meanwhile, it has already been known for 40 years that two reverse dime designs, thin and thick ribbon, exist for 1901, and S-mint 1902-1905, but not a single TPG service has ever designated even the known reverses as such. It seems like an uphill battle. Even the known anomalies are quite scarce. I recently purchased a 1905-S Reverse 2 "thin ribbon" slabbed NGC AU53 after a long search. Is it a cherrypick if no one else knows? If a coin falls in a forest, does it make a sound?

One of my favorite chuckles after all this research is here. On the 1901-S coin explorer page, it says "All 1901-S dimes were coined with reverse dies taken from the old hub on which the lower right ribbon is slender.", but the coin image is the thick ribbon.

 

[kbbpll]

One more post that might be useful. Here is the ribbon area of the three reverse types. The far right is the "thick ribbon" for Reverse 3 introduced in 1901, I think probably part way through the year. The extra fold is what collectors currently recognize. It is the only difference I have been able to see between Reverse 2 and Reverse 3. Why Barber went to the trouble of adding it after only a year or so minting Reverse 2 is a mystery.

[kbbpll]

I received a price list from Miller's Mint the other day. I was interested to see a Barber dime listed as "1901-O Rev of 1901". In nearly a year since I became interested in these Barber dime type anomalies, having closely watched listings for 1899-1905 across many websites and price lists, this is the first time I've seen a Barber dime marketed with a reference to a reverse type. Perhaps these varieties are slowly gaining some recognition?

[Just Bob]

Is it possible that reverses two and three are from the same master hub, and that the differences between them are the result of over polishing of a master die (type two)? Could there then have been several working hubs made from this polished master die, which were put into service before-and then alongside- working hubs made from the master die with the thick ribbon (type three)?

Edited October 21, 2019 by Just Bob

[kbbpll]

Good theory, Just Bob. I have been bouncing similar ideas around in my head all year. It seems like the absence of the thick ribbon on Type 2 is probably way too much polishing in just that one area though. I'm just thinking out loud. Wouldn't polishing the surface down to the point where just that one feature disappears result in loss of detail in other areas of the ribbon and elsewhere?

I have been thinking along the same lines, but in the opposite direction. I have wondered if Type 3 is really not a new master hub, but a re-engraving of master dies from hub Type 2, that was then used for Type 3 working hubs / working dies for the rest of the 1901-1916 series. San Francisco just had lots of Type 2 dies left over and kept juggling them in and out of production through 1905. John Reynolds had some similar ideas about the S-mint situation in his 2017 BCCS article.

Throwing a wrench into the works, I have noted that a large number of Type 2 coins have an odd "nub" where the thick ribbon ends up being. Examples below, 1901-P (left) and 1899-P (right). I believe I have seen this from all three mints 1899-1901 but I'd have to go back through my notes and stats. But not all of them. Most of the Type 2 coins are clean in this area. So, as to your theory, this could be evidence of excessive polishing removing the extra fold, but I'm not sure about all the "clean" coins. Alternatively, my ideas so far have been that 1) Barber disliked this imperfection in one of the master dies, so he just engraved an extra fold to cover it up on all of the master dies or 2) the extra fold was intended for Type 2 all along, and somehow it got screwed up resulting in the "nub", then fixed for Type 3.

This nub, and the fact that the extra fold on a lot of these is kind of a blobby appendage, sometimes makes it difficult for me to determine whether a coin is Type 2 or 3 when looking at images.

I also kind of suspect that Barber wanted the extra fold all along. The 1891 pattern coin has it, but then the final 1892 design doesn't. Perhaps there was some disagreement about aesthetics in this tiny area? Personally, I think the added thick ribbon fold kind of throws off the balance of the design in that area. But if you really analyze it, the change to the left leaf vein from 1900 on is a bit odd too - that vein no longer lines up with the stem that the leaf is supposed to be attached to.

Another small tidbit of evidence is that there was a dent in the corn husk on many Type 1 coins 1892-1899, even proofs, that can easily be mistaken for PMD. I suspect that this defect may have bothered Barber. It was fixed in Type 2.

All this stuff is fun for me to speculate about, but in the end we'll probably never know the real story.

[Big Nub numismatics]

Do you have any rough numbers between the rarities of each type for 1899-1905?

[kbbpll]

58 minutes ago, Big Nub numismatics said:

Do you have any rough numbers between the rarities of each type for 1899-1905?

I do. Attached is a screenshot from my spreadsheet. PM me your email and I'd be glad to send you the actual spreadsheet. Still a work in progress. Most of the numbers are my own census of HA auction archives, and for sale listings on ebay. They are a snapshot in time, mostly done between roughly January and June 2019. Off the top of my head, I'd say each percentage for year/mint is based on examining images of at least 100 coins. It was a time consuming effort and I doubt I will repeat it - I looked at over a thousand coins.

Are you a BCCS member? ($15/year, well worth it). A couple of the numbers might be from John Reynolds' excellent Fall 2017 article. He covered the 1901-1905 varieties. His estimates were pretty close to mine. Of course his article pre-dated my discovery of the third reverse and the 1899-P and 1900-S anomalies. I found 1903-S Reverse 3 to be the toughest.

The image does not show 1901 Proof - 40% Reverse 2 and 60% Reverse 3. Since I first posted this thread, I've decided that Reverse 3 (thick ribbon) was implemented around April 1901. The anomaly percentages for P, O, S, and proofs all line up with the monthly coinage records for 1901 Jan-Mar production.

The image does not show the 1901-O Obverse 1 variety, a separate BCCS article I also posted on here somewhere. 1901-O Obverse 1 is about 2%, and I'm fairly certain it was the output from a single die. All the examples I have seen have the same 1/1 RPD. This one is also tough to find.

Funny that you revived this thread. I've been piecing together a "presentation" slideshow on all this. I might post a rough draft here soon. I recently finished getting an example of all of the "less common" varieties (excluding the 1901 Proof Reverse 2). I'm looking for a way to show them off and also promote a better understanding of these varieties. A registry set would be cool, but nobody recognizes them (hint @DWLange ). There are 11 "less common" transition varieties, and if you want one of each type, 1899-1905, it's 21 coins.

Thanks for your interest.

Edited July 18, 2020 by kbbpll

[RWB]

Any thoughts on why the changes were confined to reverse hubs/master dies?

[Big Nub numismatics]

 There were two obverse varieties produced during the production of the Barber quarter. The varieties are based on the inner ear of liberty, one where cartilage is seen, and one where cartilage isn't seen. They appear with the three other reverses in that issue in many combinations. I'm not aware of an obverse variety on the dime, or the half dollar, but it may be similar to the quarter if it exists. 

[kbbpll]

7 minutes ago, RWB said:

Any thoughts on why the changes were confined to reverse hubs/master dies?

The dime obverse changed in 1901. Subtle differences similar to the quarter. As mentioned above, I discovered that 1901-O has one die's worth of Obverse 1 (1892-1900) as a transition variety. No others have been found (so far) for P or O mints.

[Big Nub numismatics]

Since both the reverses and obverses for the barber denominations had more or less small changes in nature around the turn of the century, was the decision made to change the design Barber's or the mint's?

[kbbpll]

37 minutes ago, Big Nub numismatics said:

Since both the reverses and obverses for the barber denominations had more or less small changes in nature around the turn of the century, was the decision made to change the design Barber's or the mint's?

I have not found any documentation at all on this at NNP. I would have to guess it was Barber's initiative, possibly related to complaints from SF and NO about die life, possibly for the obverse an effort to lower relief so Liberty didn't wear so quickly (Bowers I think has a comment on this in his red book). Dimes, quarters, and halves all had subtle changes in 1900 and 1901. I'd have to look it up - I recall quarters and halves have transition varieties during a single year, but dimes span 1899-1905.

I recently learned that Seated Dimes also have reverse transition varieties for 1876-1878. The differences are as subtle as the Barbers. Heritage calls out Type One or Type Two on over 600 listings for the Seated Dimes. I don't think I've ever seen a Barber dime marketed with a type.

[RWB]

It appears that the engravers made many subtle changes to production coins to improve striking or durability, or to correct some fault. We have a few notes from the 1930s, but almost nothing before or after.

[Big Nub numismatics]

In 1901 the Philadelphia mint completely changed from steam powered to being powered by electricity. This meant cheaper and more efficient production of coins. From the records kbbpll has given me, the number of dies didn't change. If the mint planned on minting many more coins than previous years, dies would have had to be revised to ensure they lasted longer. Mintages show only a major increase in New Orleans from 1900-1901, and a significant decrease in San Francisco at this time.

[kbbpll]

I haven't had time to piece all this together, but there were complaints from SF and NO about die life around this time (January 1900). Curiously, these early January 1900 complaints would have been after they started using Reverse 2 dime dies, so that wasn't the inspiration behind the design change, but perhaps was a response to earlier complaints, or just something Barber noted earlier in Philadelphia, without correspondence on it. Coiner A.W. Downing was dispatched to New Orleans, and possibly SF, in January 1900 to address these complaints. I have not so far seen anything specifically mentioning design changes to dimes, quarters, or halves, yet they all happened in 1900 and 1901. The records I found, some linked below, are interesting to read, but no smoking gun. It's interesting to note that SF and NO seemed to have had a penchant for doing their own thing. SF milled dime dies with a thinner neck, and NO asked Barber if he could give them dollar dies with the obverse on the bottom of the press and reverse on the top, for "experimenting".

San Francisco complaining about dime die life 01/04/1900

https://archive.org/details/rg104entry229box107/page/n221/mode/2up

Barber responding to SF about die life 01/06/1900

https://archive.org/details/rg104entry229box107/page/n429

Downing sent to New Orleans 01/24/1900

https://archive.org/details/rg104entry235vol318no/page/n31

Downing reporting on what he determined in New Orleans - annealing of the planchets 02/07/1900

https://archive.org/details/rg104entry229box109/page/n95

Downing reporting to New Orleans roughly the same thing 02/21/1900

https://archive.org/details/rg104entry229box112/page/n11/mode/2up

There's also a record of a letter received in New Orleans, but I can't find the letter - "Enclosing letter from C.E.Barber Engraver about dies", no indication which dies 10/21/1899

https://archive.org/details/NaraRg104Entry28/page/n39

 

[Big Nub numismatics]

Interesting. Not only were the dies not living to what they expected, but they weren't consistent either. If the reverse dies didn't wear as much, then why are there more varieties for the reverse? The dimes had plenty of dies working, and they destroyed quite a few of them. Are the numbered dies created in pair? E.g. obverse die 1 is supposed to be minted along with reverse die 1?

[kbbpll]

If you mean why were there three dime reverse types but only two obverse, I suspect the third reverse, with the thick ribbon added, was purely an aesthetic change and had nothing to do with die wear or production.

I've only found relevant die destruction records for 1899 and 1900 so far. These records are inconsistent. Sometimes they recorded specific die numbers, other times not, etc. I'd have to wade back thru the records and look again. They shipped them in pairs of 5 dies, sometimes all denominations, sometimes just dimes or dollars. Philly might ship die pairs numbered 1-5 to New Orleans, and 6-10 to SF. In one case they ship 5 pairs to SF, numbered 20-24 for the obverse and 23-27 for the reverse. In 1899, New Orleans destroyed 24 obverse and reverse dies, not a multiple of 5. Philly always had odd numbers. Etc. Each mint and year has a separate letter documenting die destruction, and they're scattered around NNP. Each die shipment is also a separate letter. It's tough to glean anything from it.

I don't think they paid any attention to which pair of dies was matched up either in shipping or production. We know that a certain number of reverse dies "reserved for future use" were still good at the end of a year, but we'll never know how many obverse dies were still good, because they were dated, and thus destroyed anyway.

According to the destruction records for 1899 and 1900, Philly averaged 173,282 from an obverse and 210,547 from a reverse in 1899. S and O less than half that. Similar true for 1900. S and O clearly had problems with die life.

Edited July 19, 2020 by kbbpll

[RWB]

RE: Electricity. Conversion to electric motors from leather drive belts made no difference in coining capacity or speed of a press. Those things were governed by press mechanical arrangements, not by the power source.

RE: Die numbers and pairing. By 1900 dies had long been sent out in numbered pairs: 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, etc. They began use that way and were increasingly kept in the same pairings during use. But if a die failed early, another could be substituted. The die use lists clearly show this.

Edited July 19, 2020 by RWB

[kbbpll]

26 minutes ago, RWB said:

The die use lists clearly show this.

I'm curious what these "die use lists" are and where to find them. Is it different than the die shipment and destruction letters?

Not meaning to disagree with you, but I don't see that strict of a rhyme or reason with the die pairs. For example:

New Orleans destruction records, 1899, all denominations. Synched for a few sets, then wildly off. For example, the dime dies skip from 20 to 80 for the obverse, but the reverse goes from 20 to 74, and the next three sets don't have any die numbers in common. https://archive.org/details/rg104entry229box106/page/n525/mode/2up

This 1900 letter shows five pairs of dime dies shipped to SF. Obverse dies 66-70, reverse dies 63-67. Only 66 and 67 could have been paired with each other. https://archive.org/details/rg104entry229box114/page/n153/mode/2up

I may have misinterpreted what you said. Certainly it seems like they tried to do it that way, but reality got in the way. I can't fathom why it would have mattered anyway.

[RWB]

Here's a sample for 1896. Most dies were shipped in numbered pairs; note also the exceptions. The more detailed die use lists (very few seem to remain) are similar, including exceptions and change outs for defective dies.

Edited July 19, 2020 by RWB

[RWB]

PS: Questions and "disagreement" are part of understanding - and apply to all.

[kbbpll]

We might be drawing different conclusions from different records, and my conclusion is based on a small sample - 6 die destruction records from 1899 and 1900, and die shipment letters. My conclusion - sloppy.

-- 1899 Philly - 113 obverse dime and 93 reverse destroyed, but no retained numbers. Where did 20 reverse go? Almost none of the denominations are multiples of 5.
-- 1899 New Orleans - Philly says dime Nos 22, 23, 24 retained, but New Orleans returned 122, 123, 124.
-- 1899 SF - Philly says 23 dies reserved, but which denominations? SF returned 25 obverse but 20 reverse - where did 5 reverse dies go? Adding back the 23 reserved, and assuming they're not dimes, adds up to multiples of 5.
-- 1900 Philly - almost no multiples of 5. 92 dime obverse, 64 reverse. Were 28 retained? Philly never says whether any of theirs are retained.
-- 1900 New Orleans - list says "all reverse". Where did the obverse dies go? If I add back the retained dies, all multiples of 5 except half dollars - 24 dies. One disappeared?
-- 1900 SF - Philly says 85 obverse, 26 reverse Double Eagle dies, 9 reverse retained - so 85 obverse but only 35 reverse? They do add up to multiples of 5.

I can understand that they tried to ship them in matched numbered pairs, but I still can't come up with a reason why it would have mattered. It's not like a specific obverse die had to be paired with a specific reverse die. If they were trying to track something related to die life or production, I don't see any evidence that it mattered to Philadelphia when they got the dies and lists back at year end.

The basic goal for me with this was to try to determine where the transition anomaly dies came from. The 1899-S Reverse 1 anomalies, probably the missing 5 dies above. The 1902-1905 Reverse 2 anomalies in SF is tougher to answer. I estimate that SF minted 1.5 million Reverse 2 coins post-1901, but I can only come up with 6 1900 SF reverse dies "retained for future use". I have also not seen any evidence of retained dies being shipped back out.

90% of the people on here are probably going "blah blah blah, how much is it worth?" :)

 

[Big Nub numismatics]

Money is definitely the driving force behind identifying varieties, not curiosity and interest. That's probably why the Cherypicker's guide failed to put these in. 

As for die pairings; The Mint starts with an equal amount of both, and they try to stick with the pairings, but as the mint records indicate, the reverse dies wore much less quickly than the obverse. All of the obverse dies are destroyed at the end of 1899 at the branch mints, and the reverse dies are sent back to Philadelphia. Since the reverse dies wear less quickly, there are many more left (december mint records 1899 indicate about 10 more reverses than obverses).