1793 Wreath 1C Vine and Bars Edge, Special Strike SP?'s
0

76 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Anyways 😜 I've said some crazy unheard of, buckle your seat belt type stuff.

This was one of them :)

Thanks all

Edited by SlickCoins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wonder why no professionals mentioned underweight coins upto 10% or more, let alone overweight by 5%.

For the record, I'm no professional, or do I claim to be one.

Only obvious from my threads.

Thanks all :)

4. Rollers set too close together made strip, and therefore blanks, too thin. Tentatively listed as mint errors only if about 10% or more underweight, without incomplete planchet or lamination, and without evidence of overstriking on tokens or other coins. Lesser weight deviations are more common (several are recorded at 1794).(An example of 1794 variety 57 in the collection of the ANS weighs 190.95 grains (12.37 grams). "Wrong stock" would apply only if the cents were on blanks cut from half cent strip, therefore of half cent thickness. Three possible standard weights: a 1793 variety 16 or any 1793 Liberty Cap on the earliest half cent stock (made mid-May for 1793 half cents at 22.2 mm) would weigh about 172.64 grains (11.19 grams), 1793 Liberty Cap through 1795 on late 1793-95 half cent stock (made for half cents at 23.8 mm) would weigh 150.11 grains (9.73 grams), and 1795 Plain Edge through about 1800 would weigh 121.26 grains (7.86 grams).)

 

Authentication is recommended. Prolonged acid baths outside of the Mint also lower weight, though at the cost of blurring details and ruining the coin.

 

5. Rollers set too far apart made strip, and therefore blanks, too thick. Tentatively listed as a mint error only if more than 5% overweight; specimens under 5% excess are more common (several are known dated 1794) and are not of interest to error collectors. Authentication is recommended: cast and electrotype copies are usually grossly overweight also. Look at the edge first. (Major examples include: 1794 variety 52,222 grains (14.39 grams, 6.7% overweight). Unseen. 1795 variety 8, 187 grains (12.12 grams, 11.3% overweight), Kagin's 1/30/1986 : 4139.)

 

Edited by SlickCoins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2021 at 4:57 PM, SlickCoins said:

. Rollers set too far apart made strip, and therefore blanks, too thick. Tentatively listed as a mint error only if more than 5% overweight; specimens under 5% excess are more common (several are known dated 1794) and are not of interest to error collectors. Authentication is recommended: cast and electrotype copies are usually grossly overweight also.

Originally the Mint purchased copper in sheets - not ingots. Most of this copper was intended for cladding ship hulls and was similar to Swedish "plate money." Sheets were cut to a little over coin width. Rolls used at the early Mint were poorly made and weak...the Mint had only 2 horses to turn the rolls. It took many passes at slight thickness adjustments to get the strip to the point where sample blanks were satisfactory. Once that was achieved, blanks were cut and weighed on average, not individually.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2021 at 7:15 PM, RWB said:

Originally the Mint purchased copper in sheets - not ingots. Most of this copper was intended for cladding ship hulls and was similar to Swedish "plate money." Sheets were cut to a little over coin width. Rolls used at the early Mint were poorly made and weak...the Mint had only 2 horses to turn the rolls. It took many passes at slight thickness adjustments to get the strip to the point where sample blanks were satisfactory. Once that was achieved, blanks were cut and weighed on average, not individually.

I've always wondered in the beginning when horses were used. How long would they work them until they switched then out with a fresh horse. That was bound to be hard on a horse walking it in circles constantly to turn those big drive belts for a long period of time. I've been thinking about that since I read FMTM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks absolutely fascinating. The things we learn are awesome. My associate is in a silly mood and wanted to know if “horse detail “ was used as a way of notifying workers to step up your work or your work will be stepping in it. xD As your cleaning up

Edited by James Zyskowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a sample of horse expenses, "Oats and Hay $160.50," for 1801 [RG104 Entry 40]. At times the Mint also had a contract with a local farmer to graze and board horses when the Mint was closed for an extended period. The Mint's guard dog also had a separate maintenance item.

9-detail.jpg

The small numbers after each item are warrant numbers authorizing payments for materials or services.

As for scooping horse poop, that was likely relegated to any available unskilled laborer. But --- where it was put is not known.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Anyways, thanks a bunch all I've learned so much.

Just had questions?

Retained Interior Die Break. It's when a piece of the die breaks off but then settles back into the die. An IDB is when it falls out, not retained. JC, on CUDs on Coins has designated 4 mm to be the minimum size in order to qualify, which in my simple calculations, should be about the size of an eraser on a pencil.

Weight? Could said rollers make it weigh 10% underweight or more as stated, along with the 5% overweight, true or false?

Thanks again all for everything

PS, RWB you da man :) awesome information.

Edited by SlickCoins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2021 at 10:56 AM, SlickCoins said:

Retained Interior Die Break. It's when a piece of the die breaks off but then settles back into the die

A piece of a die cannot break off then "settle back into the die."  A coinage die is not "Little House on the Prairie." When a piece breaks off of a die, or when there is spalling, the force of coining will grind it into the die face and soon into an abrasive dust. This was a problem with 1913 nickels Type I (See Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915 for details and comments by Mint Engraver Barber.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks @RWB, yeah I didn't know if that would apply to something like this.

Updated info on ejection marks per Breen.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong.

Better ejection marks pictures. :)

Ejection: Single Planchet

Any failure of the feeding mechanism to eject the newly struck coin completely from the coining chamber will produce a mint error. Except for double profiles, these are major errors, some grotesque, all prized.

Also better Die Break Pictures. :)

22.2. Die breakage: Includes chips, single cracks, multiple cracks, split dies, bisecting cracks, rim crumbling, and major rim breaks. Accidents, one and all, not errors, though often collected by mint error specialists. An early complete listing is included in Die States for the individual varieties. Also see the keys to the various dates, which normally list the more bizarre or extreme die breaks.

No need to carry on thanks again all for everything.

20210721_06_31_53_1.jpg

20210721_06_33_52_1.jpg

20210721_06_33_37_1.jpg

20210721_06_36_08_1.jpg

20210720_21_51_24_1_1.jpg

20210720_21_51_15_2_1_1.jpg

Edited by SlickCoins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes sir, I wanna personally thank everyone, sorry I didn't have all my ducks in a row.

I'm so new it's not even funny, every answer I get contradicts even Mr. Breen, I'm so lost.

To be honest, yes you all helped me with the pictures/angles nobody likes, along with a bunch of teaching, like quoted by fellow members nobody likes the one who bucks the system, aka the teachers, for this I'm sorry.

I just had questions, that obviously didn't fit the norm, for putting up with me, I wanna thank everyone. :)

Thanks all for everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0