When did the Mint start low relief?

[DC Dawg]

These questions are about modern Mint practices:

 

Does anyone know when the Mint started striking moderns in low relief?

Was it the same year for all coins?

Was this tied to when the Mint went to the "one squeeze" method for making hubs?

 

I appreciate your help!

 

Scott

[BillJones]

I’d say the really low relief started with the business strike 1922 Peace dollars. The mint found after only a month’s worth of production that the high relief 1921 coins were largely coming off the presses with missing detail. The relief was lowered to the point where the legend (“United States of America”) on some coins showed weakness even on Mint State examples. Some adjustments were made and quality did improve although the coin was different from the way designer Anthony de Francisci had intended it to be.

 

As the “golden age coin designs” (Buffalo nickel, Mercury dime, Standing Liberty quarter and Walking Liberty half dollar) began to be retired they were replaced by low relief coins featuring portraits of historical figures. The portraits had very little detail, especially in the hair area and were much easier to strike on a mass produced basis.

 

Before modern collectors condemn the new designs, they should recall that many of the “golden age” designs had moderate to severe strike issues. One of the important aspects of a coin design is that it can be mass produced on a consistent, crisp manner. Coins like the Buffalo nickel and the Standing Liberty quarter failed that test. In the case of the quarter, it failed miserably.

[jtryka]

1991.

[DWLange]

The Mint began systematically lowering the relief of each circulating coin beginning with the cent in 1969, the nickel in 1971, the quarter in 1978, etc. It has only continued since then, though there's really nowhere left to go with the current issues. They're as flat as can be.

[Hoot]

This is an interesting question. I've read many accounts of what might have been deemed "low relief" in the time. Certainly Charles Barber's coinage was considered low relief, but one might also reasonably argue that the silver coinage of 1840 and beyond was low relief (and "modern" in the context of manufacture). One of the things that Robert Hughes did to Gobrecht's design was significantly lower the relief and add devices that improved features of striking.

 

Later, the coin designs of St. Gaudens, Pratt, Fraser, Weinman, and MacNeil designs, originally had the relief of significantly greater than their predecessors. However, Charles Barber and his successor, George Morgan, busied themselves in their remaining years (as Chief Engraver) at the task of lowering the relief of the U.S. Rennaissance period coinage as much as could be gotten away with. This was done in order to improve striking efficacy and efficiency.

 

By the time the type 3 Buffalo nickels rolled around (1916), their relief was lowered significantly, and I consider this the beginning of the end for minor coinage. The Jefferrson nickel of 1938 was made with about the same relief as the 1938 buffalo, but, as Dave Lange mentioned, began to go downhill (in terms of relief) with hub changes that strongly affected that series beginning 1971.

 

Every series has to be considered in the context of relative relief with the series before it, as well as for successive changes within it. I personally consider coinage from 1992-date as being of a completely new generation of "ultra-low relief," and basically the ugliest coinage ever made.

 

Hoot

[Conder101]

I'll push it back to 1794. The dies for the cents of 1793 were engraved deeply enough that the details very seldom struck up. The first 1794 cents used the same device punches (Head of 93) and had the same problems. Then they created new punches with lower relief (Head of 94). The last couple varieties for the year used yet another new set of punches where the relief was reduced even further (Head of 95). So the cents struck at the end of 1794 were considerably lower in relief than those struck at the beginning of the year.

[cladking]

The Mint began systematically lowering the relief of each circulating coin beginning with the cent in 1969, the nickel in 1971, the quarter in 1978, etc. It has only continued since then, though there's really nowhere left to go with the current issues. They're as flat as can be.

 

I wouldn't argue too much with this except to point out that this has been a continuing process that is driven by high speed presses that don't have the time to wait for metal to flow into deep recesses of the die.

 

The reverse design of the Washington was subtlely lowered way back in 1965. There have been small changes to the quarter's obverse, reverse, or both almost evey year since 1970 and almost all of these resulted in a little lower relief. The biggest change may have been the reverse of the '74 issue.

 

It should be pointed out that it is usually much more the changes in the hair detail which insults traditionalists moreso than the actual change in relief. Even switching the concavity of the quarter in '96 annoys most collectors more than the actual loss of relief. If you don't believe it then just show similar specimens of the date of the change and the one before.

 

Some of these changes are likely to grow on people over time. The new design becomes representative of the age and inspires nostalgia rather than a sense of loss.

 

Though it is hard to imagine ever liking spaghetti hair.

[DC Dawg]

This has turned into an interesting conversation. When I asked the question, I wanted to find out when the Mint changed the relief for modern coinage where they starting striking the "spaghetti hair."

 

It started when I was thinking about putting together type sets. The thought was look at a series like the Lincoln Cent and put together nice MS coins to represent every different coin in the series. Some parts of such a type set is easy, like a 1909 VDB, a 1909-1958 wheat back, 1943 steel cent, 1959-1982 copper Memorial cents, and 1982-present zinc Memorial cents. That's easy... but I want to make it interesting. In 1944-1945 the cent was made using bronze from spent shell casings.

 

Then I was thinking... what else would make it interesting. Well, the Mint started to lower the relief of business strikes sometime in the 1990s. I was thinking that the lower relief would be an interesting type to add to the mix. But were there other difference? I am not talking about errors, double-dies, or the like. Just differences in something the Mint did in manufacturing.

 

So youse guys have me thinking. Other than the Lincoln cent series, and other than the types that are obvious, what would make up interesting type sets? For example, in the Jefferson nickel series, there are nickel composition, silver composition, one each of the Westward Journey series, the post Westward Journey series, the lowered relief of the late 1990s and forward. But what about the mint mark reverse and obverse as types?

 

Anyone want to propose a representative series beyond the "norm?"

 

Scott

[michael]

The Mint began systematically lowering the relief of each circulating coin beginning with the cent in 1969, the nickel in 1971, the quarter in 1978, etc. It has only continued since then, though there's really nowhere left to go with the current issues. They're as flat as can be.

 

[Hoot]

For example, in the Jefferson nickel series, there are nickel composition, silver composition, one each of the Westward Journey series, the post Westward Journey series, the lowered relief of the late 1990s and forward. But what about the mint mark reverse and obverse as types?

 

Anyone want to propose a representative series beyond the "norm?"

 

Scott

 

Felix Schlag design Jefferson nickel subtype series:

 

Reverse of 1938

Reverse of 1940 (1939-64)

Wartime composition (1942-45)

1965 business strike and SMS (both unique, if you ask me. The early 1965 SMS pieces resemble the 1964 SMS patterns, while the late SMS pieces resemble the SMS pieces of 1966 and later.)

1966-67 business strikes and SMS

1968-70

1971-76

1977-79

1982, reverse of 79

1982, reverse of 82 through 86

1987-89

1990-91

1992-2003 (spaghetti hair).

 

Two additional SMS coins: 1994 and 1997.

 

Proofs subtypes:

Reverse of 1938

1939 rev38 and rev40 (rare)

1940 rev38 (rare) and rev40

1942-P (wartime composition)

1950-64

1968-70

1971-76

1977-82

1983-86

1987-89

1990-91

1992-2003

 

Although the Schlag obverse appeared in 2004, the type was changed due to the entirely new reverse. The so-called Westward Journey series is composed of four unique types. The 2006 nickels are not (although claimed to be) a return to the early Schlag design. The engraving of Mercanti is good and true to the drawings of Schlag's reverse of 1940, but the abominable ultra-low relief causes distortions in the working dies that translate poorly to the design on the nickel. I believe that Schlag would have been embarrassed.

 

Hoot

[WoodenJefferson]

Hoot, thanks for the breakdown on the Jefffersons,

 

For your consideration.

 

The Jefferson Proof subtypes can be disected even further with the mint marks:

 

1979 filled S (type I)

1979 Clear S (type II, Rounded)

1981 Clear S of '79 (type I, rounded)

1981 Clear S (type II, flat)

 

Business strike:

 

Since there were original composition copper/nickel struck in 1942 at P&D , the 1942-1945 Jefferson Wartime 35% silver composition, which started in October of 1942 can be readily indentified with the large P, D & S mint marks over the dome of Monticello on the reverse.

 

Note: This was the first time the P was introduced as a mint mark for the Mother Mint of Philadelphia on the Jefferson nickel.

 

1946 resumed the regular copper/nickel composition and the mint marks of just D&S went back to the right of the Monticello building.

[Conder101]

It has only continued since then, though there's really nowhere left to go with the current issues. They're as flat as can be.

Don't you believe it. While many foreign coins are better designed than ours, there are also some that are so flat they make ours look like high relief. With some, the designs appear to be little more than areas of different etched texture. Flat fields, and the devices mearly created by "frost".

 

Then there is always the possibility of going to just flat lettering and any "designs" being done as flat featureless shapes. As an example see this years Wyoming quarter.

[Hoot]

Hoot, thanks for the breakdown on the Jefffersons,

 

For your consideration.

 

The Jefferson Proof subtypes can be disected even further with the mint marks:

 

1979 filled S (type I)

1979 Clear S (type II, Rounded)

1981 Clear S of '79 (type I, rounded)

1981 Clear S (type II, flat)

 

Yes, I have those in my Jeff preoof set as well, but they are so minor that many people choose to ignore them. Also, the type 1 and type 2 pieces of each year are readily available, unlike the T2's of each year of the SBA.

 

As for the wartime composition, I think I mentioned those. There are endless varieties in that subset and three of the major errors of the series.

 

I recently put together two albums of Jeff nickels from the generic Dansco "Nickel" albums that has all the proofs, SMS coins, and major types (even the T1&2 1979 and 81 proofs!), ignoring the errors and specific combinations of 1982. It takes two of their generic albums, which I broke down into 1938-70 and 1971-2003. (I'll likely put the 2004-2005 pieces in the latter album as well.) I don't know why a major album company can't do this, but it's fun to do on one's own.

 

Hoot

[astrostu]

Heh ... I read this thread before going to sleep last night, and I actually had a dream that they re-designed the Jefferson nickel. It was twice as thick, and the obverse design (Jefferson's bust) was 2x higher than the rim. It was quite 3-D and high-relief.

 

... Of course, this was before the part of my dream where I found my dead cat (alive) at someone else's house. ...