| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 4,715 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
That strikes me as a very plausible reason--some real perspective on why it's done.  Edited by DVCollector
04/06/2014 02:13 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1021 Posts |
I do think your answer makes the most sense.
It is done to test the "softness" of the die, rather than the "hardness"
|
|
Valued Member
United States
149 Posts |
One of the more colorful reasons I've seen was a tongue-in-cheek explanation from Ron Landis (Gallery Mint, expert nickel carver) saying that there was a rat problem at the mint, and periodically a die sinker would get bitten while sinking the date.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2757 Posts |
the rat explanation doesn't sound like the most parsimonious explanation.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Why would you deliberately disfigure a die in a tender place - denticles are tiny and easily damaged - for a hardness test? One would think that a successful hubbing would demonstrate the proper hardness, as a too-hard die wouldn't properly receive device details. I've always considered denticle MPD's to be from bounces of the date punch, whether traced to hub or die.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2077 Posts |
If the die was too hard before hubbing, it would destroy the hub, something that I'd think they'd want to avoid. They probably chose the dentils because it was somewhat inconspicuous. Numismatics wasn't big back then and they probably figured that no one would notice.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:
I've always considered denticle MPD's to be from bounces of the date punch, whether traced to hub or die. To sink the date, the digits weren't hammered into the dies; a smaller logotype press was used--at least that's what I've read from several sources.  Otherwise, I think you would see a lot of "chatter" in the date impression. I doubt a single hammer blow could do it, and you might as well see these bounces above the date too. Edited by DVCollector
04/06/2014 9:17 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6370 Posts |
Someone had a long night partying on New Year's Eve, or at least on Twelfth Night.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9794 Posts |
I just won a copy of Kevin Flynn's book "Two dates are better than one" and am looking forward to getting it, and seeing what he has to say on the subject. I don't always agree with Kevin in his hypothesis in the Two Cent varieties, but I do respect him and have most of his books, they are all good references IMO. Quote:
DVCollector - To sink the date, the digits weren't hammered into the dies; a smaller logotype press was used--at least that's what I've read from several sources. Otherwise, I think you would see a lot of "chatter" in the date impression. I doubt a single hammer blow could do it, and you might as well see these bounces above the date too. That is my impression too, hence wanting to see what Kevin has come up with in his book. I've wanted it for some time, but just didn't want to pay full price for a copy, won one on ebay for $10 tonight  "Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
and you might as well see these bounces above the date too. You mean like "One in the neck?"  I dunno - just kind of theorizing here more than anything else. Deliberately hitting the denticles doesn't make intuitive sense to me, though, since the spaces between them are some of the smallest details on a die and would be very susceptible to destruction. Further, I should think the Mint would have had more-sophisticated methods for hardness testing. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8520 Posts |
Yeah, one in the neck, how does that happen ?
Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1021 Posts |
Im really interested to see what Kevin says about the misplaced digits in the denticles (or other parts of the coin for that matter).
Since there are so many dates where these mis-placed digits are present, there must be some kind of explanation behind it. I'm still not convinced that it was a die hardness/softness trial due to the other explanations above.
Wish there were Mint records/procedures available that could shed some light on to this.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
You also see multiple digits in the necklace on Liberty. There are several cases--1882, 1883, 1888, perhaps others too. Oddly these are also "1" digits, and they are far removed from the date placement. I find it interesting how they straddle the necklace, it almost appears intentional--to me. That MPDs are found in the denticles and Liberty--and not in the fields--could be due to the fields getting polished flat before hardening. We'll never really know how many blunders--or intentional "test marks"--were made on IHC dies. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
716 Posts |
Flynn offers that the mostly likely explanation for MPD's is just plain carelessness by inexperienced engravers or apprentices. He uses the IHC as an example. The area available to strike the date on an IHC is 1/8" between the bust and the denticles. A misalignment of the date punch by 1/10" would put the date in the denticles or the bust. He hypothesizes that unskilled engravers could be trained to perform the monotonous task of repetitively punching the date into hundreds of working dies that were produced for each year. Boredom from repeating a manual task can lead to lack of concentration, and mistakes were made. As evidence, he offers that 95% of all MPD's are directly above and below the normal date position. (I guess one could argue that the '1' in the neck variety would be an argument against this explanation). He also states that between 1880 and 1900, there were many more MPD's in smaller coins than in larger ones. He states that larger coins have a larger work area into which the date can be properly set, thus minimizing MPD's. He offers that this is not the only explanation, but it the most likely one. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:The area available to strike the date on an IHC is 1/8" between the bust and the denticles. A misalignment of the date punch by 1/10" would put the date in the denticles or the bust. Except all the IHC MPDs in denticles that I know about are the tops of the digits. If this were simply caused by inexperience/carelessness, one might expect to see more bases of digits emerging from the denticles. On the other hand, if one was trying to test the hardness in the denticle area, it makes far more sense to impress the top of the digits. That way, the upper part of the digit wouldn't be crossing the fields, and possibly be too deep to polish out, thus blundering the die further. I guess everyone has a theory on these MPDs. I enjoy hearing all the ideas, even if some theories seem a bit more plausible than others--I'll hold off from making up my mind.  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 19 / Views: 4,715 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 04/05/2014 4:40 pm
