Orleans Strikes

I think you have to take into context the aftermath of the war between the states (civil war 1861-1865)in regards to the severe reconstruction policies of the North that were placed on the defeated South. That aspect with respect of the workers dislike (mostly southerners) to management (Yankee carpetbaggers)and it's not surprising "things" happened with respect to equipment. Sloppy performance was likely the norm.

From wipipedia concerning that period with the mint. Occupation by Union forces
A piece of the U.S. flag William Mumford tore down from the New Orleans Mint in 1862 became a symbol.

For many Southern sympathizers, the Mint soon became a symbol of their hatred for the Union occupation. After U.S. Marines under Farragut had raised the U.S. flag on the roof of the Mint in April 1862, a professional steamboat gambler named William B. Mumford ascended the roof and tore the flag down. He ripped the banner into shreds, and defiantly stuffed pieces of it into his shirt to wear as souvenirs. Union General Benjamin Franklin Butler, the military governor of New Orleans (who was soon to be derisively nicknamed "Spoons" for allegedly pocketing the silverware of New Orleans citizens arrested for treason against the United States), ordered Mumford executed in retaliation. And so, Mumford was hanged from a flagstaff projecting horizontally from the building on June 7, 1862. Mumford's hanging made national headlines. Jefferson Davis demanded that Butler immediately be executed if captured.[19] The event stuck in the minds of many New Orleanians: eleven years later, in 1873, a visitor to the city named Edward King mentioned it in his description of the structure.[20]

The mint reopened as an assay office in 1876. Its machinery was evidently damaged during the war, but because of its importance, unlike the mints at Charlotte and Dahlonega, in 1877 U.S. Mint agent James R. Snowden asked the superintendent of the office, Dr. M. F. Bonzano, to report on the condition of the facility for minting. Upon receipt of Bonzano's report, new minting equipment was shipped to New Orleans. The building was refurbished and put back into active minting service in 1879, producing mainly silver coinage, including the famed Morgan silver dollar from 1879 to 1904

Outstanding insight Terry.....simply outstanding.

Yes........It was indeed these exact sentiments that were the root cause for the issues that you see on the New Orleans mint coins today. However, these sentiments were not one sided. The war not only served to tear our nation apart from within, it left our people with disdain, stereotypical impressions, and even hatred for the next hundred years. No other event in U.S. history has affected us in the way that the civil war has.




Yup, an undertaking accomplished with funds appropriated by the U.S. Congress, based mainly on past requirements, without regard to the either current or future production quotas that Congress would place on the mint. Result: A refurbished mint capable of sustained coinage production of prior levels, but incapable of increased production volume required by Congress.

Okay, we are getting close here, the refurbishment was inadequate either because of Congress' lack of vision, or its refusal to fully fund a this venture in the South......Or......Maybe the vision was not realized by those on the scene assessing 'refurbishing' requirements. This is neither here nor there, it just didn't work out.

Now, what portion of the refurbishing was lacking? Were there were enough presses, enough workers ?.......Silver was imported directly from Mexico to the port, so what was was the weak link?

I think that possibly you confuse master dies with working dies then Mike. No master die was basined (ever). Master dies are created directly from the master hub. Working hubs are created from master dies and working dies are created from working hubs.

As far as different strikes being obtained at different mints due to different people employing different methods, I might agree there, but believe that 'most' irregularities originated at Philly prior to shipment.

Basining was not a form of shaping dies. Shape, curtature and flow avenues are results of hubbing..... Working hubs sometimes developed chips that were transferred to the dies....Basining simply removed chaff or other superficial relief irregularities (over the entire die face, not just the perimeter) due to hubbing.

The working conditions at individual mints is a factor that I feel varied greatly. The issue of rusted dies is purely speculative at best. This condition appears to be indicative of rust caused by moisture.....this condition appears also to be indicative of contact with a corrosive substance. Consider sulfuric acid for instance.....spill a bit on a die face, it eats or pits immediately, wipe it off, strike a few coins.....look again....you didn't get it all off the first time.....further pitting.....wipe it off again....strike more coins.....I am NOT saying this is what happened, but rather using this as one example of further possibilities.

The strike strength of the coins that you hold in your hand could also be dependent on a variety of factors. All mints had one basic problem in common though, and that one problem contributed more to the various cracks, weak strikes, premature die wear, Cuds, clashes, etc, etc, than all other factors combined. Do you know what that problem was?

You refer to basining yet again.....Basining had nothing whatsoever to do with die life......1921 Morgans were not basined for instance. Does this cause any bells or whistles to sound concerning the presence of 'scribbles' on many reverse dies? Some experts feel that these 'scribbles' are attempts to add a busy appearance to an area otherwise void of design. Yeah, right.

Believe it or not Mike, it is true.....not only do I own no Morgans or Peace, I am ridding myself of all other coins as well. I am neither dealer or collector. It just is not me. While I can empty my vault easily enough, I find it much harder to empty my head, and that is why I am still talking to you today.

Well 'later' has come, so.... as promised, (even after several clues), void of guesses or speculation, (with the exception of Dave), deja vu, here is the answer:




Improper annealing is the answer.




While the Philadelphia mint had difficulties annealing dies consistently, the New Orleans mint could not anneal planchets at a rate commensurate with required production levels.

This engineer sent to the N.O. mint found that the planchets were neither heated to a high enough temperature or kept at temperature for a duration that could be considered effective for striking coins.

Result: the planchets were so hard that when struck, silver displacement (flow), did not adequately transpire. (Weak strike) but actually, the strike was not weak, the problem was that the planchets were too hard.

If you were supervisor of the N.O. mint, and you had complained about the need to expand your annealing capabilities, and funding fell on the deaf ears of the Congress, while the Mint Director in Philadelphia ordered production levels increased, what would you do?

You are capable of annealing only half of the planchets per month required to meet production levels, so you might cut corners on proper annealing procedures, in an effort to save time.

To counteract the lack of metal 'flow', caused by your hard planchets, you might adjust the upper die in your presses by loosening the lower die, setting it 1/32" below flush with collar top in strike position, relocate the upper die to set on the lower die, thereby causing 1/32" more downward travel of the upper die at strike in effort to offset the hardness of the planchets. When clash occurs though, it will be more severe than normal die placement, coupled with increased die wear from striking a harder planchet.....and the die adjustment is rather ineffective as well. The lesser of the two evils (the greater being the kiss of death from not meeting production quota).

Heh, heh, I was expecting rebuttal to 'my' post Americanmafia......but since you commented, consider this, as well as inland versus shoreline proximity of both cities:

http://www.cityrating.com/cityhumid...Philadelphia

http://www.cityrating.com/cityhumid...=New+Orleans