Letter about fin on MCMVII double eagles 0

[RWB]

[Errorists]

On 3/3/2024 at 9:12 PM, RWB said:

Lol. 117 years later they are still letting finned proofs escape.

Edited March 4 by Errorists

[Sandon]

   Apparently, the Director was unsuccessful in preventing release of the "finned" coins, as I understand that the pieces with "wire rims" constitute the majority of the 1907 high relief double eagles in existence today. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/3/2024 at 11:40 PM, Sandon said:

   Apparently, the Director was unsuccessful in preventing release of the "finned" coins, as I understand that the pieces with "wire rims" constitute the majority of the 1907 high relief double eagles in existence today. 

Yeah, was he saying re-strike them (and destroy these) or just do without them ?  If he had gotten his way, we'd have lost 2/3rds of the MCMVII HR's.

The difference with the Flat Rim is so miniscule to non-professionals that I'm surprised he used the phrase "humiliated."

[GoldFinger1969]

If the Treasurer (Secretary of the Treasury ?) had a bag of these "defective" coins do we know if he had them destroyed or, after further reflection, decided the coins could be given out without too much "humiliation" ? 

Edited March 4 by GoldFinger1969

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/4/2024 at 3:32 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If the Treasurer (Secretary of the Treasury ?) had a bag of these "defective" coins do we know if he had them destroyed or, after further reflection, decided the coins could be given out without too much "humiliation."

The only case I can think of where conduct of employees was publicly addressed was when the results of an internal police investigation concluded corruption was rife at an NYPD 30th precinct station house.  The then Commissioner, Bratton, took it upon himself to drop in on a roll call personally early one morning, unannounced, and literally ripped the badges off the officers involved. The commissioner humiliated the men who hadn't yet been charged and the case was enshrined in police lore, as the "Dirty Thirty." No formal letters. His actions spoke louder than words at the height of a drug epidemic.

Posted at the discretion of Moderation.

[RWB]

$1,600 in defective (finned) DE were melted and recoined a few days after this letter. Dir Leach then worked directly with the Philadelphia Mint Coiner and Engraver to adjust planchet upsetting. This resulted in almost complete elimination of the problem. Engraver Barber was worried that the coins looked so good that the President might order them made with MCMVIII date the next year.

A fin contained sufficient metal to render the coins underweight with only minimal handling or circulation. It is also ugly.

On 3/3/2024 at 11:12 PM, Errorists said:

they are still letting finned proofs escape

All MCMVII circulation coins were made in the same way with the same dies and collars. Since all were intended for circulation, they are  thus all normal circulation coins -- no "proofs" were ever made. The pattern pieces with higher relief could be considered "proofs" because they received more blows from the medal press and have surfaces that are enriched in gold...almost 100%.

The full story is in Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 and a condensed version in the Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle book.

Edited March 4 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/4/2024 at 10:19 AM, RWB said:

The full story is in Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 and a condensed version in the Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle book.

Yup, I am going back to re-read it today.  

Did you just find the letter or have you known about it for some time ?

Edited March 4 by GoldFinger1969

[Errorists]

On 3/4/2024 at 9:19 AM, RWB said:

$1,600 in defective (finned) DE were melted and recoined a few days after this letter. Dir Leach then worked directly with the Philadelphia Mint Coiner and Engraver to adjust planchet upsetting. This resulted in almost complete elimination of the problem. Engraver Barber was worried that the coins loooked so good that the President might order them made with MCMVIII date the next year.

A fin contained sufficient metal to render the coins underweight with only minimal handling or circulation. It is also ugly.

All MCMVII circulation coins were made in the same way with the same dies and collars. Since all were intended for circulation, they are  thus all normal circulation coins -- no "proofs" were ever made. The pattern pieces with higher relief could be considered "proofs" because they received more blows from the medal press and have surfaces that are enriched in gold...almost 100%.

The full story is in Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 and a condensed version in the Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle book.

I like the proof ones best.

[RWB]

On 3/4/2024 at 11:54 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yup, I am going back to re-read it today.  

Did you just find the letter or have you known about it for some time ?

I found this and other letters almost 20 years ago. That's where the book's info came from. It's only now that we've been able to digitize the complete volumes.

[RWB]

On 3/4/2024 at 12:13 PM, Errorists said:

I like the proof ones best.

There are no proofs, except for the patterns.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/4/2024 at 12:43 PM, RWB said:

There are no proofs, except for the patterns.

I think he was joking given the debate concerning "proof" MCMVII HR's. 

Edited March 5 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

On 3/4/2024 at 3:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think he was joking given the debat concerning "proof" MCMVII HR's.

There's no debate. The facts are clear and the TPG who originally made the error has merely compounded that as a way of not paying it's guarantee to people who bought as "proof" when there were none. The first dies and collar used for the initial 500 pieces remained in use during the full duration of circulation coinage. One new pair and collar were added in November so production could be increased. Also, coins w/o a fin were made from the same dies/collars - it was merely a mechanical change in planchet upsetting.

[Errorists]

On 3/4/2024 at 11:43 AM, RWB said:

There are no proofs, except for the patterns.

Just other ones that are.

[RWB]

On 3/4/2024 at 4:19 PM, Errorists said:

Just other ones that are.

No. There are no proofs except as I stated. That is what the evidence says and any other conclusion is a lie. (Unless ALL are called "proofs.")

[Henri Charriere]

This is about the most consequential gauntlet ever thrown down on this Forum.  I challenge anyone to refute its basic premise. This is the tone of unequivocal authority!

Great thread, Error guy!  You bring out the very best in everyone.  

(Posted at the discretion of Moderation.)

[Errorists]

On 3/4/2024 at 6:12 PM, RWB said:

No. There are no proofs except as I stated. That is what the evidence says and any other conclusion is a lie. (Unless ALL are called "proofs.")

Other proof coins not that specific coin.

[Errorists]

On 3/4/2024 at 6:27 PM, Henri Charriere said:

This is about the most consequential gauntlet ever thrown down on this Forum.  I challenge anyone to refute its basic premise. This is the tone of unequivocal authority!

Great thread, Error guy!  You bring out the very best in everyone.  

(Posted at the discretion of Moderation.)

Was my post in error?

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:43 PM, Errorists said:

Was my post in error?

Absolutely not!  We are all here to share knowledge from what we have learned or experienced.  I personally enjoy seeing your posts.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/4/2024 at 4:06 PM, RWB said:

There's no debate. The facts are clear and the TPG who originally made the error has merely compounded that as a way of not paying it's guarantee to people who bought as "proof" when there were none. The first dies and collar used for the initial 500 pieces remained in use during the full duration of circulation coinage. One new pair and collar were added in November so production could be increased. Also, coins w/o a fin were made from the same dies/collars - it was merely a mechanical change in planchet upsetting.

I agree...but you DID give equal time to the other side in your book, Roger...that's what I meant by debate.

BTW, I commend you for including that section even though it was clear from the earlie pages in the book that you thought there weren't any MCMVII HR "proofs."

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:12 PM, RWB said:

No. There are no proofs except as I stated. That is what the evidence says and any other conclusion is a lie. (Unless ALL are called "proofs.")

The regular MCMVII HR's were NOT annealed like the UHR's, right Roger ?

That and the special dies/polishing distinguished the UHR patterns as proofs.

I'm surprised that no MCMVII HR's haven't gotten a "PL" designation.  Happy it didn't happen, don't get me wrong...just surprised.

Edited March 5 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

On 3/5/2024 at 3:24 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The regular MCMVII HR's were NOT annealed like the UHR's, right Roger ?

That and the special dies/polishing distinguished the UHR patterns as proofs.

I'm surprised that no MCMVII HR's haven't gotten a "PL" designation.  Happy it didn't happen, don't get me wrong...just surprised.

The only technical differences between the MCMVII UHR patterns and the regular issue MCMVII HR are:

Different relief to face dies.

EHR had 7 blows with annealing in between.

HR had 3 blows with annealing in between.

For both, annealing ended with a quick dip in dilute nitric acid to remove any "fire scale" (copper oxide) cause by heating.

For both, this acid dip removed some of the surface copper. MCMVII HR did not lose enough copper to change their color much. MCMVII EHR patterns, however, were dipped 6 times - enough to remove nearly all surface copper. This produced a noticeably pure gold yellow, rather than the more orange color of 0.900 alloy. Physical tests were performed by the Smithsonian on their EHR pattern pieces.

Curvature of either of these dies was too severe to allow any polishing except localized die repair, so surface texture changes relate more to planchet surfaces, and gradual adaptation of the dies to the mean planchet texture during use -- a completely normal physical process.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/5/2024 at 9:26 PM, RWB said:

EHR had 7 blows with annealing in between. HR had 3 blows with annealing in between. For both, annealing ended with a quick dip in dilute nitric acid to remove any "fire scale" (copper oxide) cause by heating. For both, this acid dip removed some of the surface copper. MCMVII HR did not lose enough copper to change their color much. MCMVII EHR patterns, however, were dipped 6 times - enough to remove nearly all surface copper. This produced a noticeably pure gold yellow, rather than the more orange color of 0.900 alloy. Physical tests were performed by the Smithsonian on their EHR pattern pieces. 

When did annealing cease being used in the U.S. and/or other countries -- any idea ?  I presume it is NOT being used today.

I guess the technological improvements make the surface gloss attractive without the nitric bath so that might be one reason it's not used today (plus it's costly and time-consuming).

[RWB]

Hmmmm...something's gotten confused.

Usual procedure was to anneal planchets before striking. Every mint uses something similar today, or buys planchets pre-softened.

MCMVII DE were annealed between blows to bring out the detail as quickly as possible.

US Mints once had a "Whitening room" for silver and a "Cleaning room" for copper and nickel. The final step was a quick dip in weak sulfuric or nitric acid to brighten the surface just before striking. For silver coins, this resulted in a surface on newly struck coins that was higher in silver than in the bulk alloy. This made the coins look "white" rather than the slightly yellow color of 0.900 silver coin alloy.

Clad coin surface alloy is ugly regardless of what is done to it.