Roger Burdette's 1936-1942 Proofs Book 1 1

[RWB]

Nice comments both here and across the railroad tracks!

On 12/2/2022 at 10:04 PM, FlyingAl said:

I do not believe that 300 coins would show the wear we see on the obverse die. The die pair had to be the same over a period of time long enough to show visible die fatigue, and I believe upwards of 1190 coins would cause that.

Proof coin dies did not "age" in the same way as production dies. The higher pressure and differences in force application caused accelerated fatigue, and exaggerated surface changes. Proof dies were also readily influenced by the depth of polish given to planchets. Thus, even a small quantity of coin strikes, might have a pronounced effect on coin appearance.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:19 AM, RWB said:

Nice comments both here and across the railroad tracks!

Proof coin dies did not "age" in the same way as production dies. The higher pressure and differences in force application caused accelerated fatigue, and exaggerated surface changes. Proof dies were also readily influenced by the depth of polish given to planchets. Thus, even a small quantity of coin strikes, might have a pronounced effect on coin appearance.

(1)  A proof die and a circulation die are the same -- except for the finer detail on the proof die and the polish, right ?

(2)  They each used the same press, except in certain cases some coins could use a medal press, right ?

Interesting thread.....but FWIW, the RWB Saints Book Thread still has a 71 page lead !! 

Edited December 3, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[FlyingAl]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:19 AM, RWB said:

Nice comments both here and across the railroad tracks!

Proof coin dies did not "age" in the same way as production dies. The higher pressure and differences in force application caused accelerated fatigue, and exaggerated surface changes. Proof dies were also readily influenced by the depth of polish given to planchets. Thus, even a small quantity of coin strikes, might have a pronounced effect on coin appearance.

 

Thanks! I mentioned that comment because it was the simplest way to say what I needed to get across to the readers without confusion. Of course, 300 coins could cause die failure quite easily. However, since we had the same die pair paired up later and the reverse showed significantly less die wear, I could conclude that it had to have been used at some other point individually from the #45 reverse. If this hadn't happened, then the dies would have shown a very similar degree of wear, which does not appear to be the case. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by FlyingAl

[FlyingAl]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:22 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

(1)  A proof die and a circulation die are the same -- except for the finer detail on the proof die and the polish, right ?

(2)  They each used the same press, except in certain cases some coins could use a medal press, right ?

Interesting thread.....but FWIW, the RWB Saints Book Thread still has a 71 page lead !! 

1. Yes, the only difference is the polish. 

2. No, proofs always used a strike strike on a medal press. This has a completely different striking process and causes metal to flow differently, which causes exaggerated wear on dies. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by FlyingAl
spelling

[RWB]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:22 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

(1)  A proof die and a circulation die are the same -- except for the finer detail on the proof die and the polish, right ?

The only difference was polish. Initial detail (before polishing) was the same.

On 12/3/2022 at 11:22 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

(2)  They each used the same press, except in certain cases some coins could use a medal press, right ?

No. Proof coins could only be made on a high pressure medal press. The mechanical differences and force application were not the same. It is usually possible to identify a legitimate proof coin from a similar piece struck on a normal toggle press of that era.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:27 AM, RWB said:

No. Proof coins could only be made on a high pressure medal press. The mechanical differences and force application were not the same. It is usually possible to identify a legitimate proof coin from a similar piece struck on a normal toggle press of that era.

Metal press had a lot more striking tonnage than a toggle press I presume ?

What if you struck the coins multiple times with a toggle press -- would that improve the "look" of a coin and give it a proof look even if technically it was not a proof coin because it wasn't struck on a metal press ?

[RWB]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:32 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Metal press had a lot more striking tonnage than a toggle press I presume ?

What if you struck the coins multiple times with a toggle press -- would that improve the "look" of a coin and give it a proof look even if technically it was not a proof coin because it wasn't struck on a metal press ?

#1 Yes. That was part of it and the thing most "experts" concentrate on.

#2 No. Force is applied differently on different mechanical configurations of press. There is also the problem of maintaining alignment.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:53 AM, RWB said:

#2 No. Force is applied differently on different mechanical configurations of press. There is also the problem of maintaining alignment.

I always wondered about alignment....because that 185-ton press that struck the MCMVII UHRs had to hit the coin/pattern 7-9 times.  Your margin for error there is close to nil.

[RWB]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:01 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I always wondered about alignment....because that 185-ton press that struck the MCMVII UHRs had to hit the coin/pattern 7-9 times.  Your margin for error there is close to nil.

These patterns and the MCMVII circulations coins were all made on a medal press. The high relief allows for better fitting of coin to die for each strike; however, there was always a slight mismatch due to planchet movement and slight changes from the annealing cycle. The patterns were carefully made, but a few show slight doubling in various places. Some MCMVII coins show slight doubling -- but often is not evident without experience examining these coins. Vicken Yegparian with Stacks-Bowers identified several while preparing coins for auction.

Edited December 3, 2022 by RWB

[FlyingAl]

One question I've been thinking about recently:

1938 proof nickels are visibly different from the other nickel dates of the era in several ways, but none more pronounced than the wide obverse rims. This all but disappears to a thin rim in 1939, due to what I presume was caused by a changed master die.

Am I correct in my assumption, or is there something else that caused the wide rims?

[RWB]

That's a reasonable explanation. We know that considerable testing was done before the initial release in 1938, and that was only in the 2nd half of the year. Surviving engravers' notebooks detail many changes to all denominations -- things too tiny for us to see in most instances: shave a 1/10,000th here add some there, make some test dies, fail, start over.

Are there differences between the nickels Ross sent to a few officials and proof or circulation pieces? I think there are.

Edited December 6, 2022 by RWB

[olympicsos]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:19 AM, RWB said:

Nice comments both here and across the railroad tracks!

Proof coin dies did not "age" in the same way as production dies. The higher pressure and differences in force application caused accelerated fatigue, and exaggerated surface changes. Proof dies were also readily influenced by the depth of polish given to planchets. Thus, even a small quantity of coin strikes, might have a pronounced effect on coin appearance.

 

Which until the 1970s would cause even less details on coins than circulation strikes on some instances. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:19 AM, RWB said:

Nice comments both here and across the railroad tracks!

Proof coin dies did not "age" in the same way as production dies. The higher pressure and differences in force application caused accelerated fatigue, and exaggerated surface changes. Proof dies were also readily influenced by the depth of polish given to planchets. Thus, even a small quantity of coin strikes, might have a pronounced effect on coin appearance.

So the proof dies were used on presses with higher tonnage pressure, correct ?

How often would the proof dies have to be changed ?  I know from Saint/Morgan strikes that the regular coin dies could go for tens of thousands.....are we talking dozens, hundreds, or a few thousand tops with proofs ?

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/7/2022 at 7:35 AM, olympicsos said:

Which until the 1970s would cause even less details on coins than circulation strikes on some instances. 

Less detail but shiny mirror appearance, right ?

But today...with everything digital...with tolerance levels down to angstroms.....no compromise right ?

[FlyingAl]

On 12/7/2022 at 8:46 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

So the proof dies were used on presses with higher tonnage pressure, correct ?

How often would the proof dies have to be changed ?  I know from Saint/Morgan strikes that the regular coin dies could go for tens of thousands.....are we talking dozens, hundreds, or a few thousand tops with proofs ?

Proof dies could last anywhere from around 300 coins to over 7,000 1936-42. 

I'd say average was around 2,500 for those years, but that's off memory.

[RWB]

On 12/7/2022 at 10:46 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

So the proof dies were used on presses with higher tonnage pressure, correct ?

How often would the proof dies have to be changed ?  I know from Saint/Morgan strikes that the regular coin dies could go for tens of thousands.....are we talking dozens, hundreds, or a few thousand tops with proofs ?

Wide variability - not enough was known about the details of stress on steel alloy to make useful predictions at the high pressures used in making proofs. At lower coining pressures, 250,000 was common for dollars -- but available die life lists also show dies lasting 1,000 or fewer, too.

[GoldFinger1969]

BTW, for those of you who have the coin or the booklet:  the booklet that came with the 2009 UHR has a very good sequence of how the coin looks under different tonnage strikes.  The coin looks deformed when the pressure is too low and then everything is clear and raised and sharp when it meets the minimum threshold. 

[RWB]

This is also seen in better resolution in "progress sets" for medals.

[olympicsos]

On 12/7/2022 at 10:47 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Less detail but shiny mirror appearance, right ?

But today...with everything digital...with tolerance levels down to angstroms.....no compromise right ?

The renaissance artists had a point with matte proofs.

[GoldFinger1969]

The progression strike examples for the UHR were:  15 to 55 metric tons, 5 pics in increments of 10 tons.  The obverse looked really bad at 15 and 25 tons; at 35 it was much tougher to see.  For the reverse, you saw a really fat rim even at 45 tons and needed 55 to clear-it-up.

[RWB]

On 12/8/2022 at 4:11 PM, olympicsos said:

The renaissance artists had a point with matte proofs.

The artists objected to shiny, polished baubles. The approved other types of medallic finishes and treatments, including sandblasting and antiquing (as seen on some 1921 Peace dollars).

[olympicsos]

On 12/8/2022 at 7:09 PM, RWB said:

The artists objected to shiny, polished baubles. The approved other types of medallic finishes and treatments, including sandblasting and antiquing (as seen on some 1921 Peace dollars).

Yes and I see why given how the overzealous polishing led to the loss of detail. Sandblasting probably brings the design out more. 

[FlyingAl]

On 12/9/2022 at 4:25 AM, olympicsos said:

Yes and I see why given how the overzealous polishing led to the loss of detail. Sandblasting probably brings the design out more. 

While it does - the mint decided to ignore the designers and listen to the people who actually bought the coins - the collectors. This was essentially a business for the mint, and it wanted to make money from it. You don't make money by ignoring the needs and wants who buy your products. The collectors wanted mirrors, so mirrors it was!

[RWB]

Well......That wasn't the reason for bringing back proofs in 1936 but it was for making mirror proofs. The technical reason was that by 1936 all the renaissance designs had been altered to have uniform basins -- these could be polished easily.

[FlyingAl]

On 12/9/2022 at 7:26 AM, RWB said:

Well......That wasn't the reason for bringing back proofs in 1936 but it was for making mirror proofs. The technical reason was that by 1936 all the renaissance designs had been altered to have uniform basins -- these could be polished easily.

Of course. How much do you think collectors repeatedly asking the Mint when proofs would be available influenced the decision?

[RWB]

I deal with some of the 1936 complaints in the proof coin book - there were others too numerous to print. Collectors forced the change for the base metal coins and also pushed for better brilliant proof quality for silver. Sinnock and the engraving dept had to learn how do to things all over. The old proof coin makers were dead.

[FlyingAl]

Roger, were dies ever wiped/covered or perhaps packed with some substance containing strings like a cloth before use? 

I ask because I came across a 1942 proof quarter recently that appears to have been struck by new dies. The coin shows multiple strike throughs that appear to have come from threads, which would confirm the coin was among the first struck by the die pair if the above was true.

[FlyingAl]

Just making sure @RWB sees this. 

[RWB]

Cloth fragments are the most commonly seen "strike through" materials. They were used to wipe die surfaces at all stages of production as well as equipment, operators' hands, washing and drying after work and before lunch, etc.

One cannot assume anything about the order in which dies were used from strike though remnants. Most are one-and-done events because the material is destroyed by striking.

Edited December 24, 2022 by RWB

[FlyingAl]

On 12/24/2022 at 10:36 AM, RWB said:

Cloth fragments are the most commonly seen "strike through" materials. They were used to wipe die surfaces at all stages of production as well as equipment, operators' hands, washing and drying after work and before lunch, etc.

One cannot assume anything about the order in which dies were used from strike though remnants. Most are one-and-done events because the material is destroyed by striking.

Awesome, thanks for the info! I've seen more than a few of these cloth threads on proofs, so I wanted to check since I saw no mention of it in your book. Probably way to minor to mention anyways - better suited for FMTM!

Edited December 24, 2022 by FlyingAl