Interesting comment by "renomedphys" ATS about proof-like circulation strikes and 1856 CuNi cents. 0

[RWB]

The post at: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1052229/very-proof-like-business-strikes-and-the-curious-case-of-the-1856-flying-eagle-cent   got my attention because it is clearly thoughtful, yet shows some confusion created by incomplete "expert" analysis. I've not copied the original - that would not be fair to the OP across the street. Maybe he/she will use the public cross walk so we can discuss the issues over here.

 

This is my response to the OP's remarks:

The OP’s comments well express the confusion that arises when coinage processes are either misunderstood or simply ignored.  Let’s look at a couple of points: “…when the dies are new and the planchets are among the first struck, regardless of the intent of the coiner, certain coins can be produced that really look proof-like.”

The quoted statement is a misunderstanding of how a “proof-like” coin is made. New dies are not mirror-like or some variant, but are more satin-like due to the final dip in acid given production dies. The “proof-like” weak mirror surface is given to a die by deliberate polishing to remove surface defects or repair minor cracks – essentially resurfacing the fields (aka “table”). The limited reflectivity imparted is incidental to die repair and not a deliberate manufacture.

Let’s take another, “As we are told by the experts, the term ‘proof’ is more about the coiner's intent, and less about the die used….” The experts are not named, but the “Coiner’s intent” is meaningless. It is as if the Coiner said, “On Tuesday these coins will be proofs; but on Wednesday they will be for circulation.”  As above, this is really about misunderstanding how coins of varying descriptions are manufactured.  For the 19^th and 20^th century period under discussion, ALL circulation strike coins were made on toggle presses; ALL proof coins were made on a large screw press (aka “fly press”) or later a special hydraulic press. It was not the Coiner’s “intent” that mattered; it was the physical equipment and specific die preparation that distinguished proof and circulation strike coins.

A proof coin of any denomination is an intentionally manufactured product. The dies are normal new dies that are deliberately polished to a mirror finish, and repolished as necessary to maintain the mirror characteristics. In most instances, the planchets are also polished although not to the same high degree of reflectivity. By polishing both dies and planchets, the mirror coin fields can be maintained at higher quality and for much longer than by polishing only the dies. (See Burdette: United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 for discussion of this relating to low quality 1936 brilliant proofs, and also for information on proof sets from 1858-1860 period.)

Dies can sometimes be switched from making mirror proofs to making circulation coins and back again. All that is involved is allowing dies to lose their polish in the first instance, or repolishing them in the second instance. This is merely deliberate use of the same dies on different presses.

Post-dating and restriking are separate nefarious actions, and only tangentially related to mirror fields on a coin.

A closing observation regarding the statement, “Mint records were pretty clear and understood by authenticators, but going off the old ‘looks like a proof’ method, lots of mistakes were made.” In real research some US Mint records are not clear or are internally contradictory. This is, in fact, the normal situation when considering proof coins made before 1858. Early Master coins (aka “proof coins”) and medals were made by the Chief Coiner on his private account, and with complete authority to do so by mint directors and secretaries of the treasury. Some of these are documented and many are not.  When a Medal Department was informally organized in 1854, it maintained very poor records of proof, pattern and other pieces struck on the medal press.

The old “looks like a proof” method is seldom accurate – it ignores the fundamental physical production differences between different types of coin press, die finishing, and planchet use. This is why original research and investigation is critical to uncovering the truth about various coinages such as 1856-date FE cents. Incidentally, this same research clearly tells us that no legitimate proof Columbian halves or Isabella quarters were struck; the same applies to 1894-S dimes. They all came from a toggle press with dies having received varying degrees of deliberate polish.

Edited February 17, 2021 by RWB
Fix formatting - as usual

[Henri Charriere]

44 minutes ago, RWB said:

This is my response to the OP's remarks:

...(See Burdette: United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 for discussion of this relating to low quality 1936 brilliant proofs, and also for information on proof sets from 1858-1860 period.)

My understanding of proof "sets," being raised by the Red Book as a primary source of information for U.S. coins, is they began to be sold as such beginning in 1936. If that is true, to what "proof sets" were you referring or was the context of your parenthetical reference made ambiguous [to me] by literary license?

[CaptHenway]

An interesting topic that was once of great personal interest, as for I while I was the one at ANACS who had to make that call. Sometimes it wasn't easy, as the quality of the Proofs varied considerably over time depending on who was making them.

An of course there are exceptions to every rule. In the early years of the Morgan Dollar series San Francisco obviously was giving every new die a splendiferous polishing that none of the other mints at the time did. Perhaps the Superintendent did not like that acid bath look that Roger mentions.

BTW, the condition of the planchet is not that important to a Proof-Like field on the coin. While I was at ANACS we certified a "clock" of 12 off-center silver dollars, many of which could be identified as to date and Mint. On each one you could see the coarseness of the original planchet in the unstruck areas, and the smooth to brilliant finishes of the struck fields. The coarse surfaces of the planchet were 100% obliterated by the quality of the fields on the dies, except on the typically weak-struck areas such as the ear or the eagle's breast. This was even so on an S-mint coin from the very early 1880's.

Will be back to discuss the Proofs at a later date.

TD

 

 

[RWB]

4 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

My understanding of proof "sets," being raised by the Red Book as a primary source of information for U.S. coins, is they began to be sold as such beginning in 1936. If that is true, to what "proof sets" were you referring or was the context of your parenthetical reference made ambiguous [to me] by literary license?

From 1858 the proofs were sold as silver set and minor set, gold was also sold in a set but many more individual proofs were sold than complete gold sets. The term "set" was rather loosely used, just as it was in 1936. There was no unique packaging - a "set" was just one of each denomination/metal - buyers could purchase individual pieces also. Gold dollars were a favorite for individual purchase.

[RWB]

2 hours ago, CaptHenway said:

An of course there are exceptions to every rule. In the early years of the Morgan Dollar series San Francisco obviously was giving every new die a splendiferous polishing that none of the other mints at the time did. Perhaps the Superintendent did not like that acid bath look that Roger mentions.

San Francisco was the only mint that used powdered lime to polish/resurface dies. The others used various grades (fineness) of emery. Below is a transcription of a letter requesting lime for polishing dies.

[RG104 E-229 Vol 10-17 SF]
The Mint of the United States at San Francisco,
Superintendent’s Office

January 31, 1881
Hon. Horatio C. Burchard
Director of the Mint
Washington, DC
Sir:
I have the honor to state that our Coiner requires for use in his department one can of Lime for
polishing dies and two dozen polishing sticks, which I will thank you to cause to be procured
and forwarded by the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint.
Very respectfully,
Henry L. Dodge,
Superintendent

[RWB]

Planchet surface affected proof and PL dies over from 25 to 100 strikes. The die surface gradually conformed to the average surface of the planchets, and thus lost its mirror.

[physics-fan3.14]

18 hours ago, RWB said:

Planchet surface affected proof and PL dies over from 25 to 100 strikes. The die surface gradually conformed to the average surface of the planchets, and thus lost its mirror.

While that is true, planchet surface also does not preclude PL or mirrored strikes. I'd love to see a "clock" as the captain mentions, but I have a couple of off-center coins myself which show this effect. Rough planchet, PL fields. 

[RWB]

5 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

While that is true, planchet surface also does not preclude PL or mirrored strikes.

True. However the depth of reflectivity degrades and eventually vanishes.

[physics-fan3.14]

17 minutes ago, RWB said:

True. However the depth of reflectivity degrades and eventually vanishes.

Oh, absolutely. I think you used the figure 25-100 strikes.... I'm not sure that's ever been proven, but I'm quite sure that the strikes from a newly polished die which produced PL finishes was quite small. I can provide statistics for how many PLs are known in a series compared to grading events, for many, many series based solely on my purchasing history. 

For those interested: Roger's research and experience mostly applies to the mint era of mid-1800's to mid 1900's. If you're talking about PL coinage after 1960.... it's different. 

[RWB]

11 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Oh, absolutely. I think you used the figure 25-100 strikes.... I'm not sure that's ever been proven, but I'm quite sure that the strikes from a newly polished die which produced PL finishes was quite small. I can provide statistics for how many PLs are known in a series compared to grading events, for many, many series based solely on my purchasing history. 

For those interested: Roger's research and experience mostly applies to the mint era of mid-1800's to mid 1900's. If you're talking about PL coinage after 1960.... it's different. 

Yep. I used the detailed dies data for 1936-42 proofs plus a test using  polished hardened steel against soft steel. Presumably, details of die steel alloy and hardening & tempering also factor into the mix. We also have information indicating that luster develops quickly on new dies, and that is a product of surface stress to a die.

Has "renomedphys" ATS had any comment?

[RWB]

For a long time assessing the character of a coin and circumstances of its manufacture was largely a combination of observation and hearsay, peppered with a few original documents. Don Taxay, Walter Breen did meaningful exploration into original source materials, but stifled additional work by providing only fuzzy references and sparse citations. R. W. Julian was probably the first to really use archival originals as the base for his work, but publication standards of the 1960s did not allow publication of precise sources.

Today, we know much more about how coins were produced, how the equipment operated, how planchets were treated and many other details. These create a much richer data set than ever before and allow better balance between the relative strength of data types.

Separating 1856 FE cents into categories based on die varieties and period of production opens the door just a bit more to how the US Mints operated internally - and how decisions were made, unmade, or adapted to suit an Officer's personal interests.