From Mine to Mint 2 2

[Hoghead515]

Its a good thing they didn't have the drug problem like we do these days. If it were the epidemic like today they would have really took some losses. I think they had people hooked on morphine and laudanum pretty bad in those days but wasn't nothing like problem today. We can't have nothing here around the house. Gotta tie down everything we got. Especially if its aluminum or copper. Imagine if the mint had that problem back in those days. It breaks my heart to even try. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Hoghead515

[GoldFinger1969]

12 hours ago, Hoghead515 said:

Yep. I agree with you. Its sad to say there has always been and will always be thieves. I just read about that bag of double eagles a few minutes ago. It mentioned it in this book. I guess the reason they noticed it was because of the dust wasn't it ?  They could tell someone had been there due to the pattern of the dust trail being worn off. 

I don't even remember the 1928's being mentioned in FMTM, another reason to start re-reading the book.

Yes, the dust thing was how they recognized something was amiss and as I recall it was alongside a bunch of bags of 1933 Saints, too !  Which sorta ties into the whole issue of Izzy Switt's 1933's.

[RWB]

The missing bag of 1928 DE was in a different cage than the 1933 coins.

The Mints had a drug problem - it was rampant excessive alcohol use. There are several archive letters regarding dismissal of employees for being drunk on the job.  Here's a typical example:

[GoldFinger1969]

Well, the alcohol problem had to have subsided a bit during the 1920's, right ? 

Prohibition.......

[Fenntucky Mike]

Sounds like it was a long time problem. They took away the "Drink Money" in 25 along with banning "spirituous liquors" on site and here we are 50+ years later in 77.... 

Man. no smoking or swearing either in 25. I'd be sacked the first day, could never last more than an hour before the bad words would start pouring out..

Edited December 30, 2020 by Fenntucky Mike
Can't do simple math

[RWB]

Alcohol and drug abuse evidently increased during "Prohibition." As did disregard for law, violent criminal gangs, discrimination of all descriptions, and private donations to charities.

Reporting of criminal and social statistics was not highly reliable, either, so there is a lot of anecdotal "evidence" in the record books.

[Hoghead515]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

Alcohol and drug abuse evidently increased during "Prohibition." As did disregard for law, violent criminal gangs, discrimination of all descriptions, and private donations to charities.

Reporting of criminal and social statistics was not highly reliable, either, so there is a lot of anecdotal "evidence" in the record books.

I agree. Speak easys and boot legging became a big thing. Made some people want it more

[GoldFinger1969]

46 minutes ago, Hoghead515 said:

I agree. Speak easys and boot legging became a big thing. Made some people want it more

I'm just disappointed the bootleggers didn't hide some Saints in some hoards we can uncover 90+ years later.  

[Hoghead515]

59 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I'm just disappointed the bootleggers didn't hide some Saints in some hoards we can uncover 90+ years later.  

I come from a boot legging family. My mamaw bootlegged years ago and a bunch of my family from way back. A bunch of em made shine and sold it years ago. If any of them stashed back any they sure didn't pass it down the line. 

[RWB]

In some jurisdictions - mostly in southern and border states - moonshiners and law enforcement had a cozy agreement. The shiners paid a "tax" to the Sheriff in exchange for warnings about state or Federal raids. This is similar to the money drug cartels pay to several Central and South American law enforcement departments today....but not nearly so violent.

Although both the above are bribes, the Sheriffs used the money to supplement miserable officer salaries and buy radios and other equipment to help with other law enforcement activities. BUT -- much of this is anecdotal....FBI and USSS files contain limited full investigations and case files.

[Hoghead515]

What i don't understand is they were melting ingots at CC mint in 1880 (page 258) and they used copper tongs, pails, and etc. because of the iron discoloring the silver ingots. But they used cast iron molds to pour the ingots. Were the plates of the mold treated somehow or was it far enough in the process where it wouldn't discolor them?  Im wondering why they didn't line the insides of the molds with copper plating. Thank you for any feedback. And a big shout out to RWB. This is one of my favorite books I've ever read. This is my kind of reading material. I always loved history and I really enjoy it because most history books just tell what they done. This one explains in detail of how they done it and what they used to do it down to the detail. Very rare to find a book that goes into fine details. And that's what is more interesting to me than anything. Cant wait to get done and start over again with the CD. This book has made me appreciate my older coins from that time period. 

[Hoghead515]

Id love to read a book sometime also of today's processes. The equipment and how they part and refine metal. And the instruments used in these modern times. And how the rules have changed. Im into that kind of stuff. 

[RWB]

Thank you for the nice comments. They are much appreciated.

It was OK to use iron molds and tools as long as the iron was no mixed with the silver alloy. Since the melting point of iron was higher than silver or copper, this was not a problem.

Iron caused silver and gold to be brittle and crack when rolled into strips. Other impurities with lower melting points were much more common - and a bigger problem - in coining metals than iron.

[RWB]

9 hours ago, Hoghead515 said:

Id love to read a book sometime also of today's processes. The equipment and how they part and refine metal. And the instruments used in these modern times. And how the rules have changed. Im into that kind of stuff. 

This would be something that could be done by one of the engineers at the Mint Bureau - but it's unlikely to happen.

The US Mints no longer handle parting, refining or alloying. Blanks for clad and brass coins are cut from rolls of metal supplied by contractors. All the gold and silver planchets are bought from outside suppliers, subject to US Mint checking assays and XRF analysis.

[DWLange]

No one seems to have commented on the fact that the dismissed employee in that letter was named "Barber." Was he related to William and Charles Barber, the first the chief engraver and the second to succeed him three years later?

[Hoghead515]

6 minutes ago, DWLange said:

No one seems to have commented on the fact that the dismissed employee in that letter was named "Barber." Was he related to William and Charles Barber, the first the chief engraver and the second to succeed him three years later?

I noticed that but never said anything. I also wondered the same thing. 

[RWB]

I found no connection with the Mint Engraver during research for FMTM. There was also a plate engraver named Barber in Philadelphia. He made illustration plates for Harpers and several other magazines. Artist Thomas Eakins also made illustration plates sometimes from his own paintings. (See notes in Girl on the Silver Dollar.)

Edited January 2, 2021 by RWB

[Hoghead515]

Another thing I found very interesting is that no 2 mints were exactly alike. I never thought about that before. I guess its probably like that at every factory. Even today. Depending on the bosses or employees they go about things in slightly different ways. Or use slightly different equipment. Ive never really thought about that before. I always thought making a coin was making a coin or whatever. But places are set up differently and they have to take a slightly different approach at it to get the job done. Alot of people will read this thread and think im rambling on about something crazy unless they read and pay attention to the book. Then they will get an understanding about what im talking about. I am rambling on and I'm sorry about that but you gotta understand that I'm one of those people it doesn't take much to fascinate me. I live way out in the woods and never got to see or read about this kind of stuff much up until we got internet put in.  We never had internet here up in till around 3 years ago. Finally got wifi last spring. But I never really thought about the mints, or any factory as far as that goes, of making the exact product, pretty much the same process, but using slightly different techniques ,tools,or etc.  Ill quit yapping now. Just thought I'd share that if there is anyone out there who even cares. Lol. 

 

 

 

 

[GoldFinger1969]

19 minutes ago, Hoghead515 said:

Another thing I found very interesting is that no 2 mints were exactly alike. I never thought about that before. I guess its probably like that at every factory. Even today. Depending on the bosses or employees they go about things in slightly different ways. Or use slightly different equipment.

Roger or another veteran can pine in, but having just finished Bower's RED BOOK on Morgans (I'll finish the Double Eagle one tomorrow ) I can tell you:

• The striking quality of Morgans at the New Orleans (O) Mint were consistently lousy.  Why they never got better over the years I have no idea.  Clearly, they weren't reading this website. 
• San Francisco Mint had usually the best-struck coins for Morgans.
• Philly and Denver (when they got in the act) were usually 1st or 2nd or 3rd for a particular year.

From a collector/numismatic POV, strike quality and luster matter. 

From a minting perspective, the higher-ups at Treasury or Philly may have not given a hoot.  They figured all the coins were either going to get worn in circulation or stay in bags -- who cares about luster or strike quality ? 

Anybody who complained could just go buy the proofs, if available, right ? 

Anyway, the lousy surface quality and strike quality for Morgans comng from New Orleans and the usually good quality from SanFran easily got drilled into my head from Bowers' RED BOOK.  

Not sure I got any Mint segmentation on quality from Bowers' DE RED BOOK (finishing up) or even from Roger's SAINTS magnus opus.  The details are there, I just can't recall any particular pattern Mint-wise 8 months after reading the book. 

[Hoghead515]

8 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Roger or another veteran can pine in, but having just finished Bower's RED BOOK on Morgans (I'll finish the Double Eagle one tomorrow ) I can tell you:

• The striking quality of Morgans at the New Orleans (O) Mint were consistently lousy.  Why they never got better over the years I have no idea.  Clearly, they weren't reading this website. 
• San Francisco Mint had usually the best-struck coins for Morgans.
• Philly and Denver (when they got in the act) were usually 1st or 2nd or 3rd for a particular year.

From a collector/numismatic POV, strike quality and luster matter. 

From a minting perspective, the higher-ups at Treasury or Philly may have not given a hoot.  They figured all the coins were either going to get worn in circulation or stay in bags -- who cares about luster or strike quality ? 

Anybody who complained could just go buy the proofs, if available, right ? 

Anyway, the lousy surface quality and strike quality for Morgans comng from New Orleans and the usually good quality from SanFran easily got drilled into my head from Bowers' RED BOOK.  

Not sure I got any Mint segmentation on quality from Bowers' DE RED BOOK (finishing up) or even from Roger's SAINTS magnus opus.  The details are there, I just can't recall any particular pattern Mint-wise 8 months after reading the book. 

Thats probably why then aint it. Cause of the different processes each mint used. Such as the annealing processes. Is why certain ones has better quality coins. Thanks for the feedback. Thats some interesting info to think about  

[RWB]

51 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

• The striking quality of Morgans at the New Orleans (O) Mint were consistently lousy.  Why they never got better over the years I have no idea.  Clearly, they weren't reading this website. 
• San Francisco Mint had usually the best-struck coins for Morgans.
• Philly and Denver (when they got in the act) were usually 1st or 2nd or 3rd for a particular year.

Hoghead515 mentioned a key reason the coins from different mints were not identical - annealing of planchets. Goldfinger's comments about Morgan dollar quality revolve around this, and alloy purity. New Orleans was reopened in 1879 with inadequate equipment upgrades and old machinery. Their annealing furnaces were old and could rarely perform to maximum capacity. Mint HQ, however, insisted on dollar output that consistently exceeded the mint's annealing capacity. Thus, a large proportion of New Orleans coins were struck on planchets that were too hard. This caused early die failure and produced coins with substandard detail.

Philadelphia used a lot of refined silver from the New York Assay Office. NYAO had intermittent problems with contamination of fine silver from multiple sources, and they were less consistently successful in producing silver bars of quality high enough for Philadelphia's coinage needs. Annealing planchets was not a problem, but "toughening" silver was.

San Francisco' s new building in 1874 and upgrades to melting, refining and annealing equipment and processes allowed them to be largely independent of the other mints. Quality control was maintained internally and this included the purity of silver (and gold) for coinage. They also had an assay quality control cross check with Carson's mint that helped both mints better manage metal purity.

In the 1870s Trade dollars and subsidiary silver from Philadelphia were also affected by attempts to use melted large coppers - cents and half-cents. After much arguing, it was determined that the old coppers were contaminated with heavy metals and nickel. This degraded gold and silver coins made with the old copper. The mint had to buy pure copper for coin alloy use from a company in Baltimore. (The copper came from the Lake Superior area.)

Hope this clears up a few questions.

All mint operations and processes were tightly integrated and adapted to equipment and local resources at each mint factory. This is why we cannot depend only on the appearance of a coin for technical variety and versions.

[GoldFinger1969]

Fascinating Roger, thanks .....will I read those details in FMTM ?

Edited January 3, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

13 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Fascinating Roger, thanks .....will I read those details in FMTM ?

Some of it. The NYAO impurity bits were not known with FMTM was written, and some other things were less well understood. The more we learn the more we understand, and the more we understand the more we know how much there is yet to learn.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

Some of it. The NYAO impurity bits were not known with FMTM was written, and some other things were less well understood. The more we learn the more we understand, and the more we understand the more we know how much there is yet to learn.

Nobody was looking at the coins from different Mints too closely like under a magnifying glass.  As long as the major details were pretty clear and not "mushed" the higher-ups probably felt it was good enough for circulation and/or storage bags.

It wasn't until decades later that enough people cared about strike quality and other quality control stuff. 

[Hoghead515]

11 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Nobody was looking at the coins from different Mints too closely like under a magnifying glass.  As long as the major details were pretty clear and not "mushed" the higher-ups probably felt it was good enough for circulation and/or storage bags.

It wasn't until decades later that enough people cared about strike quality and other quality control stuff. 

Yep. It was probably hard for them to see and know the quality of each others finished products and keep up with them do to the distances apart from each other. Like you said it probably looked good enough to them. They probably thought they was on with all the other mints. Just my guesses on it. Id say your spot on. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Hoghead515

[GoldFinger1969]

2 hours ago, Hoghead515 said:

Yep. It was probably hard for them to see and know the quality of each others finished products and keep up with them do to the distances apart from each other. Like you said it probably looked good enough to them. They probably thought they was on with all the other mints. Just my guesses on it. Id say your spot on. 

If they had cared about the numismatic community, they would have filled a few bags with all the various years and mint marks for Saints and Morgans before they were melted and saved them for posterity !  

Edited January 3, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[Hoghead515]

Im to the part in the book where they are talking about the presses they used back then. I just read about the powerful hydraulic press they used for proofs at Philadelphia in 1893.  I was just wondering before I read on if there is a section ahead of me that explains how they prepared the planchets for proofs back then? I've always wondered how they prepared them exactly. I know they polished them but never knew the exact steps taken. Also dont they use different dies for proofs? If so is it the same metal composition as regular dies? I have a million questions about proofs. Is there a good book someone could refer to me that describe everything about a proof from old days to new? Thank you for the feedback my friends. Im really starting to appreciate this hobby a whole lot more by having the privilege to talk to you all and read some amazing material such a FMTM. 

[RWB]

I'll try to answer several of the questions in this post.

Coins, like any manufactured product, were subject to quality controls that incorporated a range of acceptable pieces. Legal quality was tightly controlled and reviewed by the Annual Assay Commission - weigh and metal purity. Appearance quality - how the coins looked - was influenced by Treasury's production demand and administrative acceptability. Gold coins from Charlotte or Dahlonega Mints were nearly always of inferior appearance when compared to Philadelphia, but that was acceptable to mint directors -- it got American gold into American commerce. If we jump to New Orleans Morgan silver dollars, we find a similar situation. Introduction of the Special Assay check at Mint headquarters in Washington, added and independent review of nearly every delivery of gold and silver coin. This is where defective quality was most frequently identified and local mint officers encouraged to be more vigilant in their inspection. For New Orleans dollars, inferior quality was known about at headquarters, but deemed acceptable. The law required significant production of silver dollars and that overrode tighter quality control. Also, it was recognized that most silver dollars were not going into circulation - they merely clogged hallways and vaults.

[RWB]

Early master coins (i.e., mirror proof coins) were made for diplomatic use and exchange with museums in foreign countries. The famous 1834 proof sets were for diplomatic presentation. A few collectors wanted pieces too, and that began the Mint's active engagement with coin collectors.

From 1858 forward mirror proof coins were part of the Philadelphia Mint's policy of supporting collectors. Medals were the largest portion of this from a revenue standpoint. Mirror proofs were struck from normal dies that had been hand polished to a mirror-like finish in the fields. These were hardened and used in a large medal press to strike the coins. Planchets were made in the ordinary way, and either selected for unmarred surfaces or polished with an emery wheel until they were somewhat mirror-like. This was not a deep a mirror as on the dies.

Overall, it appears that about 30% of proof coins were rejected and either mixed with normal circulation coins, or melted. Larger coins had higher defect rates.

Proof dies did not last very long - a thousand strikes, maybe more. This was due to the overpressure used in making the coins and tighter quality control than for circulation production.

[GoldFinger1969]

The Satin vs. Sandblast (Matte) Saint-Gaudens Proof back-and-forth was very interesting.

When you are used to Proof coins being shiny and mirror-like, anything else being called a "proof" would have been confusing.