Using dies from previous years 0

[RWB]

In another post, a member mentioned the practice of retaining reverse dies (those without date) from the previous calendar year to the new year. In checking a little more in my database I came across this interesting example from the Denver Mint.

The die record, large chart, is for 1922 cents. Reading left to right, it shows the date, obverse die number, pieces struck and date die was condemned. The same is repeated for the reverse die. From these data we can tell which obverse and reverse dies were paired, and pieces actually struck –– NOT pieces accepted for distribution.

But this die record has a lot of die numbers written in red with annotations. If we rotate the sheet to the left and enlarge the reverse die list, we find something very interesting. Reverse dies #786 through #795 were originally sent to Denver for coinage in 1920. These were retained for two years and then used in 1922. Also, Dies #11 through #18 were from dies intended for use in 1921 but retained (reverse dies for the balance of the year were also from 1921).

Thus, we can see that not only were reverse dies retained and used across the new-year transition, but they could be carried forward at least two years. Further, in 1922, no Denver cents were struck from new dies provided in calendar year 1922. [See forthcoming research on 1922 No D cents by Tom DeLorey.]

Presumably, the prior year dies were either new or in good condition, but a general “sloppiness” in cent detail during the 1920s suggests quality control was lax. [See David W. Lange’s columns in The Numismatist for his observations about cent coinage during the ‘20s.]

Edited April 10, 2021 by RWB

[DWLange]

Undated dies were retained as long as useable, and the definition of "useable" was pretty lax during the 1920s, when tight cost-cutting was the order of the day. That's why we see coins have sharp obverses where the date is and mushy reverses that had been used far too long. When the reverse finally gave out, the obverse, now becoming worn, was paired with a fresh, sharp reverse!

[GoldFinger1969]

And all these dies were made out of......steel ?  Special steel ?

Don't they use harder alloys today ?

[DWLange]

Both the alloys and hardening process have improved over time. Even so, the US Mint periodically regressed in its quality, such as in the 1920s, 50s and early 80s.

[RWB]

Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon was one of those parsimonious hypocrites who, when given governmental authority, totally screw up quality and public service. Director Grant was mostly a worm, and Mary O'Reilly - highly competent and dedicated - never had authority to restore things to the performance under Ray Baker. Director Ross had a lot to fix when she took office, but as a former governor she understood better than Grant how to succeed even when the Sec Treasury (Morgenthau) was aloof.

[GoldFinger1969]

Nellie Tayloe Ross and Margaret O'Reilly were two fascinating and interesting women.  God Bless !

Edited April 12, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Nellie Tayloe Ross and Margaret O'Reilly were two fascinating and interesting women.  God Bless !

There's an entire JNR issue devoted to "The Women Who Ran the Mint." But like other JNR issues, it rarely gets mentioned or referred to as a resource. So much work; so little reward.

[GoldFinger1969]

Nellie was governor of Wyoming and lived to be 101...as my grandfather would say, she got her money's worth out of Social Security (and her pension, too !!  ).

[RWB]

Ross was the first elected female governor in the US.

[DWLange]

There's an entire JNR issue devoted to "The Women Who Ran the Mint." But like other JNR issues, it rarely gets mentioned or referred to as a resource. So much work; so little reward.

Little reward, perhaps, but I have a complete set of the JNR and treasure it.

[RWB]

2 hours ago, DWLange said:

I have a complete set of the JNR and treasure it.

It's nice to know that one of the best researchers and writers in numismatics has a set.

[Conder101]

On 4/12/2021 at 4:51 PM, DWLange said:

Little reward, perhaps, but I have a complete set of the JNR and treasure it.

So do I, and I recently went back and reread them.  Still good and I picked up some things I missed the first time around.