Additional information about partial collar errors 0

[RWB]

This letter will help collectors better understand how partial collar error coins were created. I was not convinced that planchets might over-expand during improper annealing, but the Coiner (Bosbyshell) says that is the most likely cause. Since Snowden had been Coiner several years earlier it's unlikely Bosbyshell was stating anything new.

April 21, 1884

Hon. A. Loudoun Snowden,
Superintendent

Sir:
In response to the letter of the Rev. J.A. Boyce of Stony Fork, Tioga County, Pa, addressed to you, enclosing a half dollar of 1877 struck in the Mint at San Francisco, handed to me for examination and report, I have the honor to state that in my opinion the piece is a genuine coin. It is one-1/10the grains light of standard weight, and resists the acid test.

    There are two reasons to account for the appearance of the periphery – the most probable one is that the planchet became enlarged by overheating in the annealing, and was forced into the collar by the upper die – the lower dies striking it a moment later than usual.

    The other reason to account for the trouble is the lower die may possibly have stuck in the collar after rising to enable a piece to become disengaged, and the upper die descending before the lower die loosened, forced only a portion of the planchet into the collar.

[RG104 Entry 1 Box 131 via NNP]

Edited August 10, 2020 by RWB

[Conder101]

I would have difficulty buying the "overheated in annealing" theory.  There shouldn't be that much expansion until the metal reached at least the "plastic" stage and that temperature should be well above what would be needed for simple annealing.  The second explanation is more likely and is the typical explanation used today.  So I'd say the stuck die is the more probable explanation

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/6/2020 at 11:18 AM, Conder101 said:

I would have difficulty buying the "overheated in annealing" theory.  There shouldn't be that much expansion until the metal reached at least the "plastic" stage and that temperature should be well above what would be needed for simple annealing.  The second explanation is more likely and is the typical explanation used today.  So I'd say the stuck die is the more probable explanation

Maybe so but look at the date on the missive: a different time and a totally different era.  Are you prepared to vouch for conditions at that mint circa the date in question? (I can just see see a researcher giving himself a light smack on the forehead whilst exclaiming, "That was the handiwork of Shapiro and his bozo sidekick, Rabinowitz! Two of the most incompetent employees to ever [dis]grace the Mint!) Well, Conder 101, you get my drift.

[DWLange]

The first explanation offered is laughable. O.B. should have known better.

[RWB]

Yet - the Coiner was in a position of daily contact with annealing and striking. Thus, in the best position to know what caused certain errors.

[kbbpll]

Improper annealing was also blamed for poor die life and "defective appearance of the coin" in New Orleans in early 1900. https://archive.org/details/rg104entry229box109/page/n95/mode/2up

[RWB]

The 1900 examination showed insufficient softening of blanks due to the equipment not being able to handle the required volume. In turn, volume depended on orders from HQ to produce a certain number of silver dollars each month.