WHEN DID THE MINT BEGIN USING SINGLE SQUEEZE?

[wavysteps]

41


While I'll be doing an in depth article on this subject in an upcoming ERRORSCOPE, I thought that I would provide a little food for thought. The above statement is directly taken from the Report of the Director of the MINT; FY86.

The first word to notice is the word further for this indicates that the MINT had already been experimenting with the single squeeze process BEFORE FY86, which would put it into FY85 or actually October of 1984. There is proof that certain coins made with dies that were produced with the single squeeze hubbing system were business strikes in the late 1980's.

The report also states that master dies and working hubs had been made using this process and that working dies were being pilot tested.

Another important point made is this, "It will avoid the possibility of hub-doubling errors.......". Notice that it does not say that it will NOT make doubled dies.

For clarification, the year 1997, that has been used for the start up of the single squeeze, is the first year that all the dies and hubs for the cent, the nickel and the dime, from both MINTS, were made using that method. It was not until 1999 that all denominations were made from dies that were produced by the single squeeze hubbing system.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

I think you may be reading too much into this paragraph, BJ.

"Further" could imply what you say it implies. On the other hand it could simply mean "additionally" or "also".

The paragraph certainly indicates that master hubs and working dies were made beginning in FY 86. It does not preclude the possibility of earlier experiments but neither does it strongly imply the opposite.

"Hub-doubling" is the same as "doubled die". The Mint probably does not use or even recognize the latter term. Technicians there have their own vocabulary -- "come together" instead of "die clash"; "piece-out" instead of "die break" or "cud".

Physical evidence in the form of wavy steps/trails that pre-date 1986 would be intriguing evidence of even earlier use. Finding wavy steps/trails that long pre-date 1986 would weaken the argument that it's purely a phenomenon associated with the single-squeeze process. Things to look for...



The first word to notice is the word further for this indicates that the MINT had already been experimenting with the single squeeze process BEFORE FY86, which would put it into FY85 or actually October of 1984. There is proof that certain coins made with dies that were produced with the single squeeze hubbing system were business strikes in the late 1980's.

The report also states that master dies and working hubs had been made using this process and that working dies were being pilot tested.

Another important point made is this, "It will avoid the possibility of hub-doubling errors.......". Notice that it does not say that it will NOT make doubled dies.

For clarification, the year 1997, that has been used for the start up of the single squeeze, is the first year that all the dies and hubs for the cent, the nickel and the dime, from both MINTS, were made using that method. It was not until 1999 that all denominations were made from dies that were produced by the single squeeze hubbing system.

BJ Neff

[wavysteps]

Mike - You are right, further can mean also and additional, however, knowing how fastidious the government is on word usage, I believe that it does mean that the system was in use before FY86. In support of this conjecture, I use the last sentence in the report which referes to the making of the master dies and working hubs in the past tense, while refering to the production dies in the present tense. This would refelect that the word further, in this case, infered a period of time rather than a usage of additional

The reason that I had mentioned the statement concerning doubled dies (their hub-doubling) was that it had been written that the MINT said it would "eliminate" doubled dies. "Avoid the possibilities" does not equate to "eliminate". The MINT, although, may have stated in later communications that the single squeeze did "eliminate" the doiubled die, but I did not find such a reference.

This is all great food for thought and in a way, I am pleased that the MINT is so silent on their operations. It gives us the chance to use our mental capabilities just that much more in trying to figure out what is happening. If we were given the answers on a silver platter, a piece of what error and variety collecting is all about would be lost

BJ Neff

[diamond]

I think you give the government too much credit for being precise and accurate in the use of the English language. Think of how many ambiguous laws are passed. This document wouldn't have had much practical impact, so I would think these words were dashed off without too much thought. I simply urge caution and an open mind when interpreting this passage.

[wavysteps]

I know Mike and I try to always wiegh all the factors involved. I like your statement about the "laws", how true that is.

BJ

[atrox001]

I am somewhat confused as to the start of the use of the single squeeze process. My concern is with the half dollars…are you saying that the mint experimentally used the method from 1984 thru 1986, but didn’t start up till 1997…what happened between 1986 and 1997? Could this 95S proof half dollar be an example of hub doubling from the single squeeze process?

Thank You,
Larry Nienaber

[wavysteps]

We know that the MINT experimented with the single squeeze process in 1986 and continued to do so until they announced in 1996, with the opening of the Denver die shop, that both the Denver and the Philadelphia die shops would be using the single squeeze process for the cent, nickel and dime dies (master through production). At that time (1997), they were still having problems with producing dies for larger denominations by this method. However, by the end of 1997, they began producing quarters using the single squeeze hubbing and by the year 1999, all denominational dies were being made by this new method.

Off hand, I would say that your half dollar was produced by a multiple hubbed die.

Please do not be confused with the 1984 to 1986 dates. The MINT might have been experimenting with the single squeeze process during those dates, however, that is just speculation on my part.


BJ Neff