The Official Coin Striking Defects & Imperfections Thread 1 1

[GoldFinger1969]

Thought it would be good to have a thread covering this where we can discuss the basics and debate their relations to grades.

I'm re-reading a bunch of books so stuff I glossed over then is now something I want to fully comprehend.  It's possible this stuff will be more fully explained in FMTM or another book but as it could be a while before I or someone gets there, this thread should provide a nice shortcut. While they might have details pertaining to specific coin types that I am reading now (i.e., DEs), the concepts should be applicable to any coin type.

On to the 1st die striking issue...

DIE SPACING:  In Bowers DE book, he says that "die spacing" and not worn dies can explain lightly-struck, lightly-defined Liberty Head DEs.  The coronet on Liberty's head is often lightly struck as this is the deepest part of the die (highest point of the coin).

First....what specifically are we talking about with "die spacing" -- the separation between the obverse and reverse dies ?

Second....planchet weight tolerances somehow figures into this, too.  Double Eagles weighed a bit more with a much lower tolerance deviation than MSDs, thus resulting somehow in "sharper" strikes especially if the planchet weighted a bit more and the spacing accommodated the larger size.  I'm not seeing the connection even after re-reading the passage.

Bowers notes that while a heavily-used die might have "flow marks" in the fields (high points of dies, low point of coins) the Coronet on Miss Liberty (low point of die, high point of coin) would still be sharp.  I get the inverse relationship, but is this saying that "high points" don't get worn like low points do ?

Finally, the Type 1 Liberty Head DEs from 1859-66 are lightly struck because the hub was changed in 1859.  Can someone explain why this happened ?

[Henri Charriere]

Of interest.  Two flies sitting on the wall.  One says to the other: "You know, that guy ought retitle his Topic to read, "The Official Double-Eagle Coin Striking Defects and Imperfections Thread.  The other fly nodded audibly in assent, "Ya think?"        

[RWB]

Die Spacing.

In post Civil War U.S. Mints, dies were mounted in the toggle presses by either the press room foreman or a person designated the "Die setter." Their job was to correctly insert dies and align working dies, including spacing. If not disturbed, or intentionally altered, the coins were supposed to come from the press with full details. One goal was to have coins from every mint that were indistinguishable from one another - important for public confidence, gold coin export, and circumvention of counterfeiters.

Coins with less than ideal detail could occur in four ways:

1. Accidental error in spacing;

2. Shift of alignment/spacing wedges above the upper die chuck;

3. Deliberate increase in spacing to reduce blow pressure and get longer life from dies; and

4. Excessively hard planchets.

#1 Does not explain the instances of insufficient detail for certain years or specific mints. It would imply gross incompetence in the Foreman of Die Setter. Not something expected from long-term employees.

#2 Is possible and could occur without being noticed by the press operator - who was minimally trained and concentrated on stacking planchets in feeding tubes, and removing bins of coins. This would also produce a wide variety of detail loss.

#3 Is likely wherever a mint had problems with poor die life and is mentioned in New Orleans Mint documents.

#4 Has been identified as a long-term problem at New Orleans. The annealing furnaces could not properly soften the volume of dollar planchets that Mint HQ demanded be processed. This is documented over decades and specifically investigated in 1900.

Overall, I feel that #2, 3, and 4 are likely causes although #3 and 4 are probably the endemic causes.

Edited February 15 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

In the past, these things went in one ear and out the other...I would read the passages and understand nothing.

Now, having read literally THOUSANDS of posts on forums like this, parts of it become clearer.  So re-reading Bowers DE book, Roger's SG DE book, and FMTM in the next few months should hopefully really expand my knowledge.

I notice that the experts here and on other forums understand the mechanics of striking coins very well -- and it helps them analyze potential purchases of coins, too. 

Hence, my reason for creating this thread. 

[RWB]

On 2/15/2024 at 10:47 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I notice that the experts here and on other forums understand the mechanics of striking coins very well

Honestly, very few knew much of this until publications over the past 20 years. (Mostly mine.) That is why you see only superficial descriptions in older books, and Bowers' sole reliance on "die spacing" in discussing reduced design details.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/16/2024 at 12:06 PM, RWB said:

Honestly, very few knew much of this until publications over the past 20 years. (Mostly mine.) That is why you see only superficial descriptions in older books, and Bowers' sole reliance on "die spacing" in discussing reduced design details.

Wow, didn't know that. 

Yes, I think FMTM is probably The Bible on coin operations.  Like I said, I'm looking forward to re-reading it from start to finish.

Ditto reading the SG DE book.  Some of the sections for each coin year/mintmark were of great interest, others less so.  The latter tended to be on the die varieties because the information went over my head. 

Edited February 17 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

"Die spacing" is how striking pressure was controlled. The subtle subconscious bias of Bowers and other older writers is an assumption that mint die setters and foremen were basically ignorant, stupid louts who didn't know what they were doing so they made fundamental mistakes very frequently. That is contrary to the truth of these operations and deprecating of the skills those people possessed.  Consider: mint mechanics built and repaired presses, blank cutters, upsetting machines and much of the equipment for many years. This gradually evolved to buying from Morgan & Orr and others ONLY when commercial businesses had learned how to do this.

These and similar misunderstandings and biases are one of the reasons for persistent attribution of older coins and striking errors. A lot of good information is available on modern (post 1960) errors because the experts on those have much better information on how modern equipment works.

[RWB]

On 2/17/2024 at 12:57 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes, I think FMTM is probably The Bible on coin operations.

Thanks for the compliment. But I hope it is only a genesis to learning a lot more about the meaningful details of 19th and early 20th century mechanical and business operations.

Researching the book was something of a revelation. I discovered contemporary engineering articles about inventions by mint employees, changes in operating procedures and other details not previously known or explained. MTM-2 research has been slower, but it none the less discovery orientated just on a wider view.

Edited February 18 by RWB

[Errorists]

Found 19 strike through progression struck Billy Goat Jeffersons yesterday coin roll hunting. Here are a few examples.