Repunched Dates

[coin detective]

The clubs Variety Mater Listings do not show repunched dates or letters. Is there somewhere that we can find these? I have a 41S and 44 Washington quarter(s) that I believe have RPD's. I do have cherrypickers guide, but it doesnt show them. Thanks.

[wavysteps]

Many people will tell you that the re-punched date ceased with the Indian Head Penny. This is correct, however, there is a possibility of a re-punched digit.

We must remember that it was the practice of the MINT to use the previous year's master hub for the next year. This was done by abrading the last two digits of the date from the master hub, making a master die, punching in the those new year last two digits and then making a new master hub for that year. Like the re-punched mint mark, there was a possibility that when the last two digits were placed into the master die, there may have been a slip causing some doubling of that particular digit. This would show on all working dies since it happened on the master die.

Then there is the case of the 1946 Lincoln cent with its weak last two digits. I did an article in ERRORSCOPE detailing the possibilities that some of the working dies were strengthened by re-punching those last two weak digits.

In all the above cases, this would be considered a re-punched digit, which is different in nature than a re-punched date. Also, the re-punched digit is an arguable circumstance for many believe that the doubling of these digits is due to hub doubling.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

There's a 1956 (or 1956-D) cent with an alleged repunched "5", and a 1957 (or 1957-D) cent with an alleged repunched "7". Some folks think that these were blundered master dies that were then re-used as working dies. Having dealt personally with one of these, I am doubtful it's a repunched digit at all.

[JamesWiles]

BJ is correct in his analysis. I list these "repunched digits" as class VII master die doubled obverses. Mike, which of the two you mentioned have you studied. I have not seen the 1957, but pictures don't convince me it is anything more than a light die gouge. I am considering removing the 1956 from the files as a die gouge and not a blundered master die.

[diamond]

I'm pretty sure it was the one from 1956, but I'd have to dig it out to make sure.

[coin detective]

Thank you gentlemen for your always informative and educational discussions.
We are all at different stages on our road to enlightenment. Thanks for your dedication, patience and expertise.

[wavysteps]

James - I must agree with you on the case of the 1956-D with rotated secondary 5 digit. While this anomaly does have the appearances of the top part of the 5 digit, I question why there is none of the bottom of that secondary digit showing.

I am sure that you remember this die that appears to be a wayward mint mark, that was a bit to small to be such

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f292/Wavystep2003/IMG_0273.jpg

If you will, compare it to the 1956-D die in question and notice the similarity in shape and tilt to the anomaly on the 1954-D die.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f292/Wavystep2003/IMG_0274.jpg

It is probably just an odd coincident, however, it does make one stop and think if there is some sort of correlation between the two marks.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

Interesting comparison. Thanks, BJ.

[foundinrolls]

According to David lange and others, the digits were not punched but engraved the days of actually repunching digits ended in 1917 as the older series of coins was phased out.

The digits were hand engraved in the style of the remaining digits. If they were engraved, there can not be repuncched digits.

[wavysteps]

I am not to sure what you are implying. Are you saying that once the last two digits were abraded from the previous year's master hub and a new master die made, that the digits were engraved into that master die?

BJ Neff

[foundinrolls]

Thats precisely what is meant by David. A master hub is ground down to remove the digit or digits needing replacement. A die is then made from that hub creating a master die with the digits missing.

The digits were then hand engraved into that die in the style dictated by the previous years design. That die then became the master die for that years production.

That master die was used to produce all working hubs which in turn were used to create all working dies. Digits were not repunched with digits after 1917 as the older series of coins were phased out. All new designs such as the Buffalo nickel, Winged Liberty Dime, Standing Liberty Quarter, Walking Half and Lincoln cent had the date as part of the initial plaster model from which the original galvano was created. The master hub produced by the galvano was the one changed each year unless a need for a major change came into play such as the new version of the Standing Liberty Quarter.

So, no repunching of digits, only hand engraving, No repunching means no repunched digits (No repunched dates). There may be a slip of the hand when engraving takes place causing some unusual characteristics here and there but they are not repunched digits simply due to the nature of adding dates (by engraving) to the master hub at the time.

I was in a discussion on this in another forum and David and I have corresponded back and forth and as of 2008, this is the accepted method of dates being added to all U.S. coins of the period.

Some minor differences came about in the 1980s as digits were changed on new plaster models and not on the galvanos. Still, each master hub had four digit dates that transferred to master dies.

I am sorry that can't respond more quickly to each post as questions come up, we are bound by the forum rules and each post needs to be approved. That tends to slow down the discourse a bit.

This is one of the major reasons why some things like the 1958 over 1957 Lincoln cent was debunked.

Over dates such as the 1918 over 1917 D Buffalo nickel or the 1918 over 1917 S Standing Lib. Quarter or coins like the 1942 over 1941 (P+D) are considered doubled dies as two different dated hubs were used to create the dies. There was no repunching of digits or dates and when looking at those coins, it is plain to see that different hubs were involved. Indeed many researchers have come to this conclusion based upon the study of how dates were added to dies starting in 1907, actually. Again by 1917, punching dates into dies was a thing of the past.

Thanks,
Bill

[foundinrolls]

Just a quick note, The US Mint in Philly was still known to repunch digits into dies for coins we made for the Philippines but not our regular issue coinage as described in the previous post.

Thanks,
Bill

[wavysteps]

May I ask exactly where this information originated from? I have heard that the early U.S. coins were all hand engraved, including dates, however, modern coins (post 1900) used punches for both lettering and digits.

In his book "Mint Errors" Alan Herbert refers to the days of hand engraving being replaced by the punch letter and digit. Having accomplished a study on the Lincoln cent series, I would find it very hard to fathom how year after year a precise digit could be replicated by hand engraving, especially in a steel die, even if it is soft steel.

While I do imagine that micro engraving can be accomplished, the MINT was and is still interested in the fastest, most economical way of producing a die, where it be a master or a working die. To have an engraver match the exact replication of a previously used digit or letter, making it the exact depth and width would take countless hours when compared to a punched in digit or letter. I am sure that David Lange and others are knowledgeable concerning aspects of die making, however, on this point I will disagree. I can not see the MINT reversing their strategy and going back to a method so time consuming.

BJ Neff

[foundinrolls]

Hi BJ,

From a series of articles in the NUMISMATIST, the magazine for the American Numismatic Association, December 2007 edition, pg 23, "Dancing With Dates, Part 1" where David Lange states the following.

I quote:

"With the introduction of the Saint-Gaudens gold eagles ($10) and double eagles ($20) in 1907, the date was included in the artists sculpted model. It was transferred mechanically through the various stages of die preparation so that all working dies carried dates of identical size, style and position. When preparing the next year's dies, the engraver would grind the obsolete numerals off the hub, sink a new die from the altered hub and then hand-engrave the new numerals into it, mimicking the size and style created by the sculptor. This became the master die for that year, and all working hubs and dies were generated from it."

David Continues:

"This technique was applied only to new designs as they were introduced, so existing series such as the Liberty Head nickel and Barber silver coins did not have sculpted dates." "By 1917, the technique of punching dates became a thing of the past for regular issue, U.S. coins, though it survived for years afterward on some of the Mint's other coinage, such as that produced for the Philippines."



This is some of what I've (Bill O') found that backs this theory up.

This is a link to a picture St.Gauden's, Plaster that was his idea for a U.S. cent. Notice the full date. That was the practice at the time for coins that would be newly designed. Keep in mind that it was for new designs, so there are repunched dates on Indian Head cents, for example up until around 1908.


http://www.sgnhs.org/Augustus%20SGa.../OneCent.htm


In articles printed in The Numismatist, January, February and March as continuations of the series with respect to other denominations, Lange describes the methods of engraving the digits as needed into the master die.

In an email to me David states pertaining to Lincoln cents:

"The plaster, galvano and master obverse hub included all four numerals, as sculpted by Brenner. The final two numerals would have been ground off the hub for 1910's coinage, a new master die sunken from it, and the numerals 10 added by hand engraving into the master die. These numerals were hand engraved each year afterward until a new master hub was created in 1916 having sharper features. The same process for altering dates occurred each year until 1920, when the second 1 was also ground away. There's nothing to indicate that the first two numerals 19 were ever altered until adoption of an entirely new obverse hub in 1969.

Since 1969 there have been frequent changes, with the Mint evidently creating entirely new master hubs each year since the late 1980s. On these later coins the dates are probably sculpted at the negative plaster stage, though computer graphics technology and laser cutting has made it possible to do almost everything without the artist getting his hands wet."


and....he adds in a subsequent email:

"You may add to your discussion that the punching of dates into individual working dies appears to have been last performed in 1908, and then with three- or four-digit punches. Complete dates were punched into the master dies for each year thereafter for existing coin types, while all new coin types commencing with the 1907 gold issues had sculpted dates that were altered only as needed each year through hand engraving into the master die."


Further evidence of the practice, I understand can be found in Breen's Encyclopedia ( I am not a big fan but it seems he had this right) where he makes note of the 1918 over 1917 S Standing Liberty quarter. In that listing he describes how two hubs with full dates were used to create a master die. Breen States: "One working die received a blow from a 1917 hub, routinely went to the annealing furnaces to be prepared for subsequent blows, but through error or intention, returned to the wrong press and received its other blow from a 1918 hub."

That would not have happened if they were only repunching digits.

Variety specialists know that It is the same with the 1914 over 1913 examples of the buffalo nickels. They are known for S and P issues. I am not sure if a Denver Mint example has been discovered yet. Anyway, two different full date hubs were used as the root of the problem.

This is my own observation after looking at nearly 5,000,000 Lincoln cents and millions of coins of other denominations in my time. If digits were indeed punched into dies, There would have to many examples of digits out of place or turned, or noticeably overlapped such as it is with Repunched Mintmarks. There are none. It doesn't exist.

I think the premise of the Mint trying to be cost effective and efficient is mythical. The fact is that many designs and patterns were created, plasters made, galvanos made , master hubs made, and master dies made That were all scrapped. Some were scrapped in short order. The 1917 replacement of the Standing Liberty Quarter comes to mind. The Mint, a government entity at the time was far from efficient or cost effective.

Another example of something that is pretty common knowledge amongst variety specialists:

The Mint purchased a new Janvier Reducing Lathe in 1907, but didn't actually use it successfully until late in 1920. The new machine was capable of reducing in size a model design of approximately 12 to 16 inches in size (what is called a Galvano) to the exact size of a die needed to strike the actual coin.

The Mint first tried the direct reduction in 1907 on Augustus St. Gaudens' new $20 Double Eagle design. Due to unknown technical problems, they were unable To do it. It seemed the Mint could not get the Janvier to operate properly and correctly and satisfactorily cut on a direct reduction from a larger-size Galvano. They scrapped the direct reduction process and fell back to a compromise position.

As a consequence, Brenner's Lincoln Cent, Frasier's Buffalo Nickel, Weinman's Winged Liberty Head Dime, and Macneil's Standing Liberty Quarter (to name a few) were all reduced outside the Mint to a more manageable 9 inch size by the Medallic Art Company located in New York, NY


None of that is very cost efficient.

The Mint did hire expert engravers. They were expert at re-engraving dies. A gentelman named Edgar Steever, for example was a master engraver working at the Mint until he was in his late seventies. Noone could suggest that he could not artistically render digits by engraving them.

Finally, it is interesting to note that there are no repunched dates in the Indian head cent series for 1909 while there are hundreds of them for years prior. There are also no confirmed repunched dates in any series of U.S. coins after 1909. All are examples of Class III Doubled Dies (Design Hub Doubling) where dies were created using different hubs with different dates.

I can't imagine David Lange going to press with information that he has not thoroughly researched. I do not have his sources, so you may want to ask him what he has used to determine how the process was done. My money's on him though as being correct.

Thanks,
Bill

[foundinrolls]

Hi BJ,

Just another quick note. When Alan Herbert refers to hand engraving moving on to punching digits in by hand, he's talking the late 1700s coming into the 1800s. I think it was 1835 or so when they started using digit punches and multiple digit punches for dates on a regular basis.

Thanks,
Bill

[wavysteps]

Hi BJ,

Just another quick note. When Alan Herbert refers to hand engraving moving on to punching digits in by hand, he's talking the late 1700s coming into the 1800s. I think it was 1835 or so when they started using digit punches and multiple digit punches for dates on a regular basis.

Thanks,
Bill

Bill

Here is what Alan Herbert has to say on this matter. "Early dies were cut by hand, using engraving tools. Later the concept of putting a design or a letter or number on a punch and then hammering the design into the die was devolped, but even with a set of punches it still took workman several days to make a die". He never once mentions the MINT going back to the engraving of numerals in the master die.

BJ

[wavysteps]

Just re read your post and while you do make some valid points, there does seem to be room for discussion. One particular instance is the three 1949 working dies from San Francisco that have a blunt top 4 digit over a sharp point digit. This would indicate that two master dies were in place for that year. Is it conceivable that a master engraver would forget the type of font that was used? Or is it a case of two different master engravers making two different master dies using two different 4 digits? If either were the case, how is it that the two four digits fit perfectly over each other? Can the hand be that steady for such duplication so small?

As for your analogy concerning a mint mark to the last two digits; while it may be said that if both were punched in, the chances of errors would heavily favor the mint mark since that element was punched thousands of times into working dies where the last two digits had to be punched only once into a master die.

As to out of place digits, I am most familiar with the Lincoln cent, so I can relate to two dies that may have had rotated or mis-placed digits. The first is the 1956 Lincoln cent, pictured in this post. While it maybe a series of die gouges that gave it the appearance of a rotated 5 digit, we can not be sure either way. There is also the example of the 1963-D Lincoln cent with a secondary 3 digit offset to the south. While this is classed as a type VIII (tilted hub), it could very well be a defective master die that was used as a working die.

You also mentioned laser cutting. I have heard that this year's silver eagle was made from a laser cut master die, the first made this way.

BJ

[wavysteps]

Bill - Another example of an engraver trying to replicate a design element can be found in th Liberty Walking half dollar. For some reason, the designers initials were missing on some of the working dies. An attempt to engrave these back into the working die was made and although the resemblance is similar, it is nowhere exact.

Reference CPG, Fourth ed. Vol. II, pg 259

BJ

[diamond]

As far as I'm aware, only the 1944-D half dollar shows re-engraved designer's initials on one of the reverse dies. I suspect this was an unofficial and perhaps even whimsical attempt at restoring letters removed by excessive die polishing. Rather than engraved in the commonly understood sense, it seems the letters were reconstituted by numerous taps of a narrow, chisel-like implement.

[diamond]

As to out of place digits, I am most familiar with the Lincoln cent, so I can relate to two dies that may have had rotated or mis-placed digits. The first is the 1956 Lincoln cent, pictured in this post. While it maybe a series of die gouges that gave it the appearance of a rotated 5 digit, we can not be sure either way. There is also the example of the 1963-D Lincoln cent with a secondary 3 digit offset to the south. While this is classed as a type VIII (tilted hub), it could very well be a defective master die that was used as a working die.

BJ

There's also a 1957 cent with an alleged repunched "7" peeking out above the normal "7".

[foundinrolls]

Bill

Here is what Alan Herbert has to say on this matter. "Early dies were cut by hand, using engraving tools. Later the concept of putting a design or a letter or number on a punch and then hammering the design into the die was devolped, but even with a set of punches it still took workman several days to make a die". He never once mentions the MINT going back to the engraving of numerals in the master die.

BJ

Hi,

I have the book here too, the paragraph after the one you reference indicates the date ranges he was talking about in reference to the first statement he made. Just for the sake of argument and as a devil's advocate, maybe when he first wrote the book, he didn't know. Maybe he still doesn't know. Maybe he does and the newer editions just have not been edited accordingly.

Anyway, The early coins lets say (and I am not sure of the exact dates on early coppers) late 1793 or so had dies that were hand engraved. A little later, punches were developed for the details of the coins, things like individual letters, leaves, berries, whatever. So again, not sure of exact dates, but let's say 1798 - 1800, punches were involved in making the dies.

Later still, somewhere prior to the 1850s, (my recollection) master dies were prepared and dates were the only thing left to be hand punched. Often the 18 was on one punch and the final digits were punched in one at a time. A look at early coppers shows a remarkable similarity to the digits 18 for many years with the final two digits varying in shape and style.

Later still, gang punches were used where for example 186 could be on the punch and the next years die was made by punching in the needed numeral.

Eventually, gang punches with four digits were used as on Indian cents for example. As we get into the 20th century, David's information appears to be correct based upon his research and the numismatic evidence.

I don't think that Alan, had the inclination to go into all the detail in the book. The way the section is laid out in his error book just glosses over some of the details. Realize too that the book is into it's seventh or eight incarnation and that as it is in many forms of numismatic literature, newer information is sometimes not added. Also, since many authors tend to have a stance on a particular aspect of the hobby, their is a reluctance to change their stance when new information is discovered.

A case in point is the many acknowledged errors in the Cherrypicker's guide, particularly as it pertains to 1972 Doubled Dies and their pricing. Also, Bill and J.T.s almost famous theory "of a well placed die chip" is still floating around the hobby where it pertains to the 1997 Doubled ear cent, which is indeed a doubled die.

It is safe to say that many older theories will be slow to change as newer information comes out.

For example, not many people are aware that the 2006 Buffalo gold coins Started as a picture on a computer which was then digitally connected to an engraving machine to make the hubs. It will probably be 20 years before that becomes common knowledge.

Times as well as the information known about the Minting process is changing. It means that we have to be willing to examine our own thoughts on older methods of production.

Thanks,
Bill

[foundinrolls]

The nature of waiting for these posts to be approved slows down the discussion and interupts my thought processes:-)

It is also quite possible that the supposed, anomalies as mentioned such as on the 1957, 1956 and 1963-D cents could have started as an out of place hand engraving into that needed to be repaired. The 1963 D is classified as a doubled die and noone really thinks that it is a result of a date digit being repunched.
Thanks,
Bill

[foundinrolls]

I can't say anything yet about the 1949 halves as I am not familar with them, but in answer to your scenario, Yes, and digits would have been hand engraved and not punched.

The way I see it, if the BEP can hire engravers to do that kind of meticulous work it is not beyond the capabilities of Mint engravers to do excellent work.

[foundinrolls]

While I can't be factual yet, as i still need to look into the 1949 S halves you mentioned. I can think of a similar example on Lincoln cents done in 1944 there were hubbing and die issues that resulted in die doubling involving some funny looking 4s.

They are indeed doubled dies. I'll get some pictures later as I have a few other things to do today. In any case. They are doubled dies , technically and have nothing to do with individually repunched digits as the digits were known to be engraved. In the meantime, if you want to look, pull out a few 1944 P cents and look at the fours. I'll get some shots posted in this thread later today (I hope)

Thanks,
Bill

[diamond]

The nature of waiting for these posts to be approved slows down the discussion and interupts my thought processes:-)

Bill

Sorry 'bout that. I haven't figured out how to turn off this security barrier.

[wavysteps]

Bill - it was the 1949 - S Lincoln cents that had the two different 4 digits.

As to the forties and the 4 digit, every year had a different type 4 digit on the Lincoln cent for a total of 11 different styled 4s.

As to the re-engraving of the designers initials on the Liberty walking halves, the CPG (Bill and J.T.) state that other dates and mints are know within the series. The reason that I brought this to light is that I am sure the master engraver is quite capable of doing micro engraving, however, to replicate an exact design that small is virtually impossible, especially or a large number of years. The only way to replicate a design of that nature is through an object that can consistently match all the elements of the design in transfer, including depth in the die which a punch can do.

One other interesting question arises. Why would the MINT punch in a mint mark and engrave a digit? Would it be due to the numbers involved?

As to the 1944 Lincoln cent. That doubling on the fours was due to a master hub doubling to the master die. The different looks of that doubling was due to the wear on the working hubs as it transfered the design to the working dies. And of course, as the working die aged, the appearance of the doubling on the fours also changed.

I do have a very reliable source of information and I have passed this question on to that person. Hopefully, they will have an answer for us on what happened. I would not be at all surprised to learn that both methods were used (engraving and punching) to transfer the digits into the master die.

BJ

[foundinrolls]

Hi,

Going from bottom to top in responses. The Mint didnt prepare the dies for the individual mints. They sent out dies that were dated and each beanch mint had to add the mintmark.

I was close on the digit thing:-) Of the top of my head, i thought it was 1944.

Also, you allude to the depth of a punch being perhaps more suiable witha punch. If that was the case, there wouldnt have been the need to repunch so much. I contend that repunching digits would be less accurate than hand engraving, which when done by an expert is actully extremely accurate.

My dad used to have to do engraving to repair copper lithography plates at a music publishing house. By Mint standards, he would be considered an amateur and he could engrave musical notes and lettering in the style of the original publication extremely accurately.

If punching digits were accurate, there wouldn't be so many repunched dates on the older series of coins. It seems to me that it would not have been a problem that suddenly became almost non-existent after 1917 as David lange suggests.

I would also be very interested in who the expert is that you are in contact with. No disrespect intended at all, so please don't take it in that light. But there are some that still do not subscribe to the current thoughts on the subject as expert as they might be. If they could read this entire thread rather than just offer an opinion, it might be helpful.

Thanks,
ill

[foundinrolls]

i am probably switching servers over the weekend. I amy not be able to respond for a few days after this point.

Thanks,
Bill

[cnladue]

i am now so confused!

[wavysteps]

cnladue - I know, this stuff can be confusing.

This all has to do with the MINT replacing the last two digits from year to year on the master dies. What Bill and I are discussing is the possibility that the numbers were engraved instead of punched into the new master die.

After taking a longer look at this, I am inclined to go along with Bill's thoughts on this practice, that the numerals were engraved into the master die. When I return home. I will do some overlays of various dates and this may give us more information.

BJ Neff

[cnladue]

cause i have so many 68, 69,70 s that are so different from high huge to low and micro size.

[wavysteps]

No, we are very sure that the mint marks were punched into the working dies (it would have been to time consuming to engrave mint marks into thousands of working dies per year) until 1989. As to punching in the mint mark after that (in the year 1990 to the present), we assumed that it was punched into the master die.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

cause i have so many 68, 69,70 s that are so different from high huge to low and micro size.

I don't know if there was more than one mintmark style used for the San Francisco mintmark in these years. If there was, that might account for some of the variation you're seeing. But even if there was only one style, the appearance of mintmarks will vary. Die deterioration can make a mintmark appear larger and less well-defined. Die abrasion ("polishing") can make a mintmark appear thinner and smaller. The depth of the punch can also theoretically vary. A shallow punch will produce a smaller, thinner mintmark. If the punch entered the die face at a slight angle, that will also affect the appearance.

[cnladue]

i have dozens of mm from late 60s that are so uniquely placed and slanted or crooked , it seems to me a punching device would limit much of that..

[diamond]

There is no "punching device". It's just a hand-held punch that's given a tap by a hammer wielded by the mint technician.