Repunched Dates

[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]

yikes

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