Mintmark punches

[jcuve]

How were the punches used for mintmarks created? I'm sure somewhere in numismatic literature there lies an answer but I unfortunately neither have the resources or knowledge to answer this question.

On the net, there are endless streams of information about numerous variations associated with the imperfect application of mintmarks, yet nothing about how the punch itself was manufactured. I have thought about it and concluded there were at least a few possibilities (if not more): the letters were sculpted in relief; the letters were sculpted at a larger scale and subsequently reduced by a reduction lathe; the letters were engraved (incuse) into steel and then (using something like the hubbing process) another piece of steel was pressed into and later trimmed down; and finally they were made like a piece of jewelry: carved out of a soft material (like wax), cast, polished and annealed.

I might be way off on my guesses and missing something obvious, but from the generated list, my sense is that a reduction lathe would have been too complex and costly. (As an artist myself) carving the letters in relief would seem possible, however due to the small size probably unlikely. Engraving the letters incuse, either in metal or another material, makes the most sense as I imagine that the mint had engravers on hand anyway.

I also don't know is how long these punches lasted and once it went kaput if they were able to replicate that punch (from a source cast or whatever) or if that was it, that style punch was forever gone.

I have a reason for asking but I’ll leave that for another time…

[wavysteps]

Jason - I have a feeling that the MINT letters were first incused and then hubbed into a punch, but that is a guess. Like you, I do think that the reduction lathe would be to costly and time consuming to be practical. And doing the letters in relief is much harder than incusing the letters in a blank and then hubbing it into a punch.

As far as the life of that particular punch, it would not be by year, but by how many working dies the punch was used on. Early in the Lincoln cent series, not many working dies were punched, so the punch did last awhile. However, as more and more working dies were needed to produce more and more cents, the punches wore out faster.

BJ Neff

[jcuve]

I asked because I felt if there was empirical evidence (or at least a good argument) that if the letters for mintmarks were initially engraved that fact could lend an argument toward those same engraver(s) being the one(s) adding the last two digits to the master dies.

I feel like common sense says that (at least at some point) after the proposed period (1907-09) when punches for dates were apparently abandoned and the digits were then likely engraved into the master die. I am a novice in terms of studying numismatics. Yes I have read and (I hope) comprehended basic literature. I find myself reading intelligent writings, which may very well be on the mark, but nevertheless, I ask questions that don’t appear to have answers. If the digits were engraved, did it start immediately or was it introduced (years or decades) later? After all this time why hasn't anyone ever been able to locate a artisan that worked at the mint (or a family member of that person) who worked on or recalls others working on master dies or the mintmark punches?

Anyway, this is just something that popped in my mind as everyone debated 1956D DDO-001 over at the LCR forums and may be totally unrelated…

[wavysteps]

I know about the debate over in LCR concerning the 1956-D Lincoln cent; I am in it (trails). And yes, it does have to do wth that particular anomaly.

If the digits were engraved into the master die, then that particular die mishap is not a DDO as some think it is.

As I mentioned before, one only has to look at the 1966 Lincoln cent and see the difference in the two 6 digits. If it were a punch, those digits would be exactly the same, however, they are not. If you were to look at the 1922, 1933, 1944, 1955, 1977 and 1988 you will find that the two last digits all have differences between the two them. After that, the master dies were made from a new galvano for each year, so the last two digits were not engraved into the master die.

As for information from the MINT, the are stingy with it. Although whether a digit in the date was engraved or punched in would not seem to be a breach of security. However, with the influx of counterfeit coins from China, that information may well be.

BJ Neff

[jcuve]

BJ – I know it is you – I just was trying to keep my post(s) open as I was hoping others would join in. In fact, the whole reason I came over here and posted this technical question on the CONECA forums was because I was hoping that I might get some responses from some other experts over here that I otherwise might not have gotten at LCR.

Truth be known BJ, the first time (and the reason I even took interest in this issue) was after reading your article about the three ‘49S DDOs in the Errorscope July/August 2008 issue. I have since tracked down all three of these DDOs and my interest in this debate: date punching vs. engraving has been on my mind…

[wavysteps]

It was our hope that more experts would visit these pages, however, except for an occasionalvisit from James Wiles, Mike Diamond and myself do the majority of the answering in this forum.

BJ

[JamesWiles]

I don't know that there is a definitive answer to your question. I would think there is more than one way to get there from here. Many years ago, when I was discussing with Del Romines the doubling on the new 1974-S mintmark style, his explanation to me was that they would cut a "matrix" (which I assumed meant they engraved a design) and then would squeeze a punch (which I understand is the mint's terminology for hubbing). Thus the doubled mintmark punch was the result of a doubled hubbing. Ken Potter might have information closer to the source, but this is the best I can answer.

As to the engraving of the master dies, I am completely onboard with this developing theory. I talked with David Lange last year at the ANA summer seminar and he was of the opinion that it was fact, not theory. My study of the Lincoln cent obverse designs would lend a lot of creedence to that supposition. There are just too many changes from year to year (including lettering) to think that the date was punched. It makes much more sense that they would engrave the date along with any other changes necessary in the master die.

I have removed the 56-D DDO-001 from the CONECA files and most of the MDO listings as well, as a result of this "discovery." Though I suppose one could make an argument that "engraving doubling" is a form of hub doubling, I think that would stretch the definition rather thin, besides the fact that such doubling is a lot more common than we had thought. There are 41 known obverse designs for the Lincoln cent. Many of them have some type of "engraving doubling." If you put together a date/mint set then you have an "engraving doubling" set as well.

[wavysteps]

James - I am happy that you did remove the 1956-D Lincoln cent DDO-001. When I get a break from traildiews.com, I will do a series of overlays on the last two digits of the date that are the same (22, 33, 44, etc) to show the difference where there should not be if they were put into the master die by punch. I will do the Lincoln cent first, since that is the longest continuous unchange obverse design.


BJ

[jcuve]

BJ:
I see you mentioned working on overlays and I didn't want to be a nuisance or anything (I think there are already a few around here) but when you mentioned looking at the Lincolns (22, 33, etc) yesterday I went and shot a few and tried to make something in Photoshop. I think I needed to spend more time shooting the coins. I did what I could with selections to copy and move the digit over the other. I made an animated gif of the '44 (I need to slow it down)...

[physics-fan3.14]

I'm afraid I'm coming in late to this discussion. Could someone fill me in as to what the LCR forums are, and what this debate is? Thanks.

[jcuve]

I'm afraid I'm coming in late to this discussion. Could someone fill me in as to what the LCR forums are, and what this debate is? Thanks.

LCR: Lincoln Cent Forums

Debate: Were the digits on Lincoln master dies punched in (like they were in the nineteenth century) or engraved into the die itself.

[wavysteps]

The LCR is the Lincoln Cent Resource forum and the main debate is whether the numerals or digits were punched into the master die or were engraved into that die. This is the link for that site.

http://www.lincolncentresource.com/

BJ Neff