Challenge No. 1 (Not eBay, Not TPGs, Not Toning)

[IGWT]

The vast majority of DDOs in the Shield 5c series show doubling in the north part of the design, but not in the south. The spread of the doubing diminishes from north to south. Here's a picture -- although not a great one -- of an 1875 FS-011.3 (S1-1000) to illustrate what I'm trying to describe:

 

 

It seems to me that there are two possible explanations for the "fading" of the doubling from north to south: (1) the relief in the design on the hub was higher to the north than to the south, or (2) the faces of the hubs and the dies were not parallel during hubbing (the north part of the design was the first to make contact when the dies were pressed).

 

If the same kind of north-to-south "fading" occurs on DDOs in other series of this era, then I think that option (2) is plausible. That is, if the phenomenon appears across series, then the relative positions of hubs and dies in the hubbing press (a repeatable mechanical process) could likely be the cause.

 

So, please let me know if you're aware of this occurrence in other series or if you have some ideas on the cause.

[skippy]

The "fading" of the DDO north to south in the particular coin above is not that difficult to understand because it results from pivoted hub doubling. When a die is misaligned during hubbing, it doesn't have to be misaligned by a uniform amount across the entire face of the die. If you imaging that the misalignment occurred as a result of pivoting the die around a point somewhere near the date, then the spread of the DDO will be much larger in the northern part of the coin than the southern.

 

However, there are two questions about shield nickel doubled dies for which I have never obtained a satisfactory answer.

 

1. Why do misalignments due to pivoted dies ALWAYS occur so that the northern part of the coin is more affected? The most likely explanation is that the jig used for hubbing dies somehow afforded accurate alignment near the bottom of the die but more play near the top. I have not seen a description of such a jig.

 

2. Why do we see shield nickel doubled dies much more often with a north/south spread at the annulet than an east/west spread? Coins with a straight south spread are harder for me to understand. They are not pivoted, so it would seem that you should see doubling across the entire face of the die.

 

Here is a photo of an 1873 Monster DDO with a straight south offset. The extreme doubling stops dead halfway down the coin. What's more, the doubling persists in the center horizontal lines of the coin a little bit longer than it does in the laurel leaves. It's almost as if the top and bottom halves of the coin are hubbed separately.

 

[IGWT]

Hey, Skippy! I knew that you'd take the challenge; but you were supposed to answer it, not compound it!

 

If you imaging that the misalignment occurred as a result of pivoting the die around a point somewhere near the date, then the spread of the DDO will be much larger in the northern part of the coin than the southern.

Yes. But if it were strictly a case of Class V doubling with the pivot point near the date, then the spread would be mostly east-west with very little north-south spread. Even though the 11.3 has been classified as Class V (pivoted) doubling, I personally think that it's a combination of Class IV (offset) and Class V. I don't believe that one can find a pivot point on the coin that accounts for both the direction and degree of spread. Still, your point is well taken, and perhaps I should have posted a coin that is offset only (like the example you posted).

 

2. Why do we see shield nickel doubled dies much more often with a north/south spread at the annulet than an east/west spread? Coins with a straight south spread are harder for me to understand. They are not pivoted, so it would seem that you should see doubling across the entire face of the die.

 

Here is a photo of an 1873 Monster DDO with a straight south offset. The extreme doubling stops dead halfway down the coin. What's more, the doubling persists in the center horizontal lines of the coin a little bit longer than it does in the laurel leaves. It's almost as if the top and bottom halves of the coin are hubbed separately.

 

This question is the same as the one I posed (or, at least that's how I intended it). What do you think of the two theories that I proposed to expain it?

[skippy]

Hey, Skippy! I knew that you'd take the challenge; but you were supposed to answer it, not compound it!

 

I know I'm being a troublemaker!

 

Yes. But if it were strictly a case of Class V doubling with the pivot point near the date, then the spread would be mostly east-west with very little north-south spread. Even though the 11.3 has been classified as Class V (pivoted) doubling, I personally think that it's a combination of Class IV (offset) and Class V. I don't believe that one can find a pivot point on the coin that accounts for both the direction and degree of spread. Still, your point is well taken, and perhaps I should have posted a coin that is offset only (like the example you posted).

 

I agree with you that it's difficult to see pivoting as accounting for everything we see in your photo.

 

Here is a photo of an 1873 Monster DDO with a straight south offset. The extreme doubling stops dead halfway down the coin. What's more, the doubling persists in the center horizontal lines of the coin a little bit longer than it does in the laurel leaves. It's almost as if the top and bottom halves of the coin are hubbed separately.

 

This question is the same as the one I posed (or, at least that's how I intended it). What do you think of the two theories that I proposed to expain it?

 

I realize that that's the question you intended, and I posted the photo of the '73 to make your original question more obvious.

 

I don't think I buy either of the two explanations you posit. For the "relief is higher in the north" explanation, that requires that relief be a continuously decreasing amount as you move south on the coin. I really don't think that that's true - the ball above the date is in pretty big relief, and most of the leaves seem to be about the same relief. Furthermore, it doesn't account for the doubling to abruptly cutoff at about the midpoint of the coin - it should gradually fade away.

 

The idea that the faces of the die were not parallel to the hub flies in the face of the known fact that dies were prepared with a slightly convex face - therefore the first part of the die to contact the hub should have been the centerpoint. That logically suggests that we should see doubling at its strongest near the center of the coin.

 

Additionally, if the faces were not parallel then we would expect to see more extreme doubling as you progress toward the edge of the coin, that is, in IGWT. It is indeed curious that we see many shield nickels that show doubling at the annulet, but not in IGWT. Any model you come up with to explain that also has to explain FS-010.4, where the spread on IGWT is greater than at the annulet.

 

I really do hate to shoot down explanations without offering one of my own, but this question is one of the Big Shield Nickel Mysteries for me.

[IGWT]

The idea that the faces of the die were not parallel to the hub flies in the face of the known fact that dies were prepared with a slightly convex face - therefore the first part of the die to contact the hub should have been the centerpoint. That logically suggests that we should see doubling at its strongest near the center of the coin.

 

Depends on the angle at the point of contact between the hub and the die. The fact that the lines of the chief and paleways show strong doubling where they intersect (near the center of the die) is consistent with the convex face of the die.

 

Furthermore, it doesn't account for the doubling to abruptly cutoff at about the midpoint of the coin - it should gradually fade away.

 

It does gradually fade away.

 

Additionally, if the faces were not parallel then we would expect to see more extreme doubling as you progress toward the edge of the coin, that is, in IGWT.

 

Perhaps the motto was handpunched into the working dies. (I know that the consistency in the placement of IGWT cuts against this idea.) I've never seen doubling of the engraved leaf. What does this tell us?

[IGWT]

Bedtime on the East Coast. I expect a 250-word response with an irrefutable answer by morning.

 

C'mon guys! Apply the collective wisdom, experience, and knowledge of the forum to solve this riddle of the mid-19th century minting process.

[skippy]

Depends on the angle at the point of contact between the hub and the die. The fact that the lines of the chief and paleways show strong doubling where they intersect (near the center of the die) is consistent with the convex face of the die.

 

But then the doubling at the annulet (farther away from the center) should be less distinct than at the center. The center touches first. Even if you posit a die with a sharp convexity about which the die could pivot (they were only slightly convex), why would the angle of pivot always be toward the top of the coin?

 

Furthermore, it doesn't account for the doubling to abruptly cutoff at about the midpoint of the coin - it should gradually fade away.

 

It does gradually fade away.

 

I disagree on that. Look at the photos of the 1873 I posted. There is an abrupt line at about the midpoint (vertically) of the coin where the doubling just STOPS. No gradual fade away, no diminution of doubling.

 

Additionally, if the faces were not parallel then we would expect to see more extreme doubling as you progress toward the edge of the coin, that is, in IGWT.

 

I agree with that. I think that since we don't see more extreme doubling as we progress toward the edge of the coin (with the notable exception of FS-010.4), it argues that the "non-parallel faces" argument isn't the right one.

 

Perhaps the motto was handpunched into the working dies. (I know that the consistency in the placement of IGWT cuts against this idea.) I've never seen doubling of the engraved leaf. What does this tell us?

 

The motto may have been handpunched into a master die, but it wasn't handpunched into working dies. As you say, consistency of IGWT works against that. So does the fact that we occasionally do see motto doubling on DDOs. If the letters were handpunched, they would have been punched singly and seeing the same doubling across multiple letters tells us that didn't happen.

 

You never see doubling on the engraved leaf because it was cut directly into every working die by hand - never hubbed. That's why it varies on every coin.

[Hoot]

Class VIII tilted hub doubling:

 

ex. Wexler and Flynn:

 

"Tilted hub doubling occcurs when the top of the die is not parallel to that of the hub. This would cause one side of the hub to make contact before the other side. Depending on the degree of tilt, the impression made from the hub into the die will ge off center. Also, one side of the die will be impressed with a greater depth of the design (the side that made contact with the hub first)."

 

Hoot

[skippy]

Class VIII tilted hub doubling:

 

ex. Wexler and Flynn:

 

"Tilted hub doubling occcurs when the top of the die is not parallel to that of the hub. This would cause one side of the hub to make contact before the other side. Depending on the degree of tilt, the impression made from the hub into the die will ge off center. Also, one side of the die will be impressed with a greater depth of the design (the side that made contact with the hub first)."

 

Hoot

 

Hoot,

 

I don't think that Class VIII really explains what we see on shield nickels.

 

1. Tilted hub doubling should get more extreme as it reaches the edge of the coin. On many shield nickels, we do not see any doubling at all at the northern edge - the strongest point of doubling is at the annulet, about halfway up the northern half of the coin.

2. Tilted hub doubling doesn't explain why shield nickel doubling is ALWAYS on the northern part of the coin. Presumably a tilt can go in either direction.

3. I'm not aware of a shield nickel DDO that is classified as a Class VIII. They are mostly Class III, IV, or V.

4. I don't think that tilted hub doubling by itself is capable of producing the wide spread DDOs we see on shield nickels.

5. Even if we allow the possibility that the Class III, IV, or V shield nickel DDOs should also have had Class VIII designators, it doesn't explain why it ALWAYS happens that way.

 

Howard

[IGWT]

Thanks for the reference, Mark. Tilted hub doubling is exactly what I was trying to describe without realizing that it is recognized as Class VIII. I don't know why I overlooked that.

 

I don't think that Class VIII really explains what we see on shield nickels.

 

1. Tilted hub doubling should get more extreme as it reaches the edge of the coin. On many shield nickels, we do not see any doubling at all at the northern edge - the strongest point of doubling is at the annulet, about halfway up the northern half of the coin.

2. Tilted hub doubling doesn't explain why shield nickel doubling is ALWAYS on the northern part of the coin. Presumably a tilt can go in either direction.

3. I'm not aware of a shield nickel DDO that is classified as a Class VIII. They are mostly Class III, IV, or V.

4. I don't think that tilted hub doubling by itself is capable of producing the wide spread DDOs we see on shield nickels.

5. Even if we allow the possibility that the Class III, IV, or V shield nickel DDOs should also have had Class VIII designators, it doesn't explain why it ALWAYS happens that way.

 

All good points as usual, Howard. But I still like the tilted hub doubling theory. In response to your first point, consider that the convexivity of the die might save the edge of the coin from doubling. The following diagram -- with apologies to real draftsmen -- shows what I mean. The angle and degree of convexivity are exaggerated for clearer illustration.

A shallow first press will transfer the portion of the Shield design that usually exhibits the strongest doubling without transferring IGWT. The doubling would be to the south relative to subsequent hubbings with proper orientation.

 

In response to points 2 & 5, I can see how the press might have allowed movement of the hub only in one direction.

 

Point 3 doesn't persuade me; after all, the existing classifications don't account for the phenomenon that we're trying to explain. It's certainly possible that those who classified the DDOs overlooked the possibility of tilted hub doubling (or discounted it for the wrong reasons).

 

Point 4 is the most troublesome. I agree that the degree of the angle at the point of contact between hub and die would have to be quite large to account for the amount of spread. Perhaps the widely spread DDOs are cases of Class IV plus Class VIII, while the minor spreads are cases of only Class VIII.

 

It does gradually fade away.

 

I disagree on that. Look at the photos of the 1873 I posted. There is an abrupt line at about the midpoint (vertically) of the coin where the doubling just STOPS. No gradual fade away, no diminution of doubling.

 

I am looking at the 1873 S2-1003 that you posted. Look at the inside edges of the shield (on the left and right sides) to see the dimunition of doubling toward the south.

 

Still looking for a better explanation than the one proposed.

[skippy]

In response to your cute drawing (I don't mean that pejoratively, it is cute):

 

The radius of curvature of the die is not sufficient to prevent transferring the entire design of the coin from the hub to the die. If it were, no dies would ever get made. When you tilt the die relative to the hub as you have indicated, you decrease the pressure needed to impart the northern part of the design. Until normal hubbing pressure, one would then have to assume that the entire northern part of the coin would get hubbed, and that we should therefore always see doubling on IGWT.

 

The only way that I can make this tilted hub doubling scenario work for me is if all of the following are simultaneously true:

 

1. The hubbing jig only allows a tilt toward the north, never toward the south, east, or west.

2. When a hubbing is misaligned either north/south or east/west or some combination of the two (to create the large spreads), it is also always tilted (and and always tilted to the north per #1).

3. The operator of the hubbing press always notices the misalignment and stops the hubbing process before full pressure is reached and the northern part of the die is fully hubbed.

 

-----------------

 

Let me now propose an alternate solution that does not require so many coincidences.

 

Suppose that the jig that brings the hub and die together supports both of them well from beneath (perhaps in a rigid cradle). Suppose that the jig is further designed so that it can take a tremendous pressure along the axis exactly parallel to the hub/die when proper alignment is maintained, but that under a certain amount of off-center pressure it is designed to give, instead of breaking. That seems reasonable - you would not want your jig to break because the working pieces were misaligned.

 

When the hub/die are not mounted exactly right, the jig gives, a partial hubbing occurs, and the jig essentially aborts the hubbing (or perhaps makes some excruciatingly bad noise that the operator understands means "abort now!").

 

This is totally WAS (wild speculation). But it has the advantage of not requiring that every DDO be the result of simultaneous misalignments in two axes (lateral and tilt), and that tilt must always be north. While I could see that a vertical misalignment between hub and die might always result in a tilt toward the north, it's difficult to picture that a horizontal misalignment would not therefore result in an east/west tilt instead of a north/south tilt.

[IGWT]

In response to your cute drawing (I don't mean that pejoratively, it is cute)

Not a word I would have chosen, but I'll take it. I'm a bit concerned, though, that anyone who thinks "cute" when looking at that drawing is a bit odd (I don't mean that pejoratively). I'm sure this entire discussion qualifies as odd.

 

The radius of curvature of the die is not sufficient to prevent transferring the entire design of the coin from the hub to the die. If it were, no dies would ever get made. . . .

 

3. The operator of the hubbing press always notices the misalignment and stops the hubbing process before full pressure is reached and the northern part of the die is fully hubbed.

I was thinking that the first pressing was never adquate to fully hub the die; that's the reason behind all doubled (and tripled) dies. Isn't it possible that the pressure of the first pressing was sufficient only to impart that portion of the design that is doubled?

 

When the hub/die are not mounted exactly right, the jig gives, a partial hubbing occurs, and the jig essentially aborts the hubbing (or perhaps makes some excruciatingly bad noise that the operator understands means "abort now!").

 

You're a more creative thinker than I am!

 

I would really like others to contribute to this discussion. I'm sure that other ideas will help. I'm still left wondering if the characteristics of this doubling appear with any frequency in other series.

[skippy]

I'm a bit concerned, though, that anyone who thinks "cute" when looking at that drawing is a bit odd (I don't mean that pejoratively).

 

'Sokay. I resemble that remark.

 

I was thinking that the first pressing was never adquate to fully hub the die; that's the reason behind all doubled (and tripled) dies. Isn't it possible that the pressure of the first pressing was sufficient only to impart that portion of the design that is doubled?

 

A single pressing was not adequate to fully hub the design. But was it adequate to at least partially hub the entire design, or only the deepest parts of the die, or only the parts of the die that correspond to the greatest point in its curvature?

 

It seems to me that it is not only possible, but necessary for a doubled die to be partially hubbed. Otherwise we would see doubling across the entire design. The question is whether or not that is a normal occurrence for all dies, or it's only doubled dies that see this partial hubbing for some strange reason.

 

And why is it that only the first hubbing would be misaligned? I am reasonably confident in saying that the remaining hubbings were aligned properly, because otherwise part of the design should be missing on struck coins.

 

I would really like others to contribute to this discussion. I'm sure that other ideas will help. I'm still left wondering if the characteristics of this doubling appear with any frequency in other series.

 

Other participants would be nice. But while there are doubled dies in other series, none that I know of occur with the same insane frequency and wide spreads as shield nickels.

[Hoot]

I'm still convinced of class viii doubling. Just makes the most sense to me. Why is it always north? Because the hub and die were always placed in a particular orientation in the press. Why not ask John Wexler directly?

 

One must also bear in mind that the Mint was experimenting quite a bit with new die steel. Nickel was a considerable challenge to make coins with, so it's likely that experimentation made for lots of little errors. Just a thought.

 

Hoot