1921-D Struggling With This One

VAM-1CB, late die state.

The characteristic cracks from E * P are quite common on 1921-D, occasionally noted on 1921-P, and as far as I know unknown on 1921-S. No corresponding reverse pattern is known to be common.

This brings to mind some of the radical differences in the "characteristic" 1921 varieties. As we know, all dies originated in Philadelphia, yet they were handled very differently at each mint. Common to all of them, though, is perhaps the least-known clashing of any year of Morgan production. Odd, that.

Philadelphia minted the astounding number of almost 45 million dollars. That's (roughly) 5 presses, two shifts, 100 days' continuous operation. Chances are, more presses than that were involved. Die cracks abound, some of them remarkably complex for a still-functional die, yet comparatively few Philadelphia varieties are known for actual breaks. The prevalence of pitted-die Philadelphia varieties is understandable to me; they had the most dies, likely the longest production run, and the greatest likelihood of dies sitting still long enough to pit.

Denver minted the fewest 1921's, yet still exceeded all but 1887-P and 1889-P in terms of previous-year production. As near as I can tell, the sound of dies cracking must have been a continuous noise in Denver. One can almost believe that an undamaged Denver die is an anomaly.

San Francisco 1921's fascinate me. Very few die cracks are known. Heavily-polished dies abound; they are found on a plurality of 1921-S VAMs. Strikes tend to be very weak, yet one can see Bustie-style "drawn to the edge" features on some dates and upper reverse lettering. Others, though, demonstrate such a strong depth of strike, especially on the upper obverse lettering, as to be noticeable to me in photographs. Intellectually I know that "taller" lettering is not possible, but it almost seems like the distance from PLURIBUS to the adjacent field is greater. I've seen this dozens and dozens of times, only on San Francisco coins.

No corresponding reverse strongness or weakness is noted. Would a die alignment issue be the culprit? The "drawn" feature - as well as the denticle lines of 1L and 1Y - *does* correspond, obverse and reverse.

There is much to be considered in the bigger picture of 1921 Morgan production. It is why the date fascinates me more than all the others combined.

Here's what I mean about the San Francisco coins:





This is VAM-1L. The "opposite" side:





The bottom of the reverse is....interesting, considering the same area of the obverse. Note the "filleting" at the letter bottoms, and what looks like surface deterioration between them and the denticles. I've had two of these, and both exhibited the same features.

They're all my own pics. Although I've massaged them to bring details into greater prominence, I can assure you that they were all shot with my usual attention to parallelism vs. the camera.

Actually, my poor choice of terms led to a misinterpretation on your part - the "drawing" aspect is very common on San Francisco coins. It's part of the fascination. I have only a dozen San Francisco coins pictured in my archives, comprising 8 different VAMs. Every single one shows the date "drawing" to one extent or another, and half show it on the reverse as well.

The only unique feature shown in my pics is the characteristic VAM-1L diagonal lines from the denticles - the "strange field textures" - more pronounced in person than my pics indicate.

You got pic #3 exactly right - it's a strong, clear strike, interesting for that as the only one of the 4 which can be described that way. If we use it as the basis for an assumption of "misaligned die," why, then, doesn't the other end show some similar pattern?

I have on the desk in front me me a VAM-1Y, whose defining characteristic is the same type of denticle line as 1L, only one per denticle instead of two. It's a Mint State coin - to my knowledge, the only Uncirculated example known - and although the strike is abysmal, it lends itself to conclusions regarding strike process without having to factor wear.

This one shows a slightly different pattern. The date is sharply drawn; the corresponding reverse less-sharply drawn than the 1L I pictured but still showing the signs. At the other end, the obverse top is weak and slightly drawn; the corresponding reverse bottom sharply-struck. I could envision this being struck by one die in alignment, while the other was slightly off-horizontal, favoring the bottom of the reverse while everything else was fairly weak. Even a slight misalignment, in a coin this weakly-struck, should be easily visible.

I'd call it "orange peel," if you're referring to the stuff most easily seen below STATES (although it's elsewhere, too). I'll answer the "why" with a question - what would the fields of the coin look like if striking pressure was so low as to fail to shove the planchet into 100% of the places it was supposed to go?

The other possibility is long-term deterioration of the die face due to overuse(?).

My first theory might explain the fascinating details you point out in the denticles - they're incompletely struck. My VAM-1Y (of the abysmal strike) shows the same denticle details. I'd like to see the reeds, but I ain't going to crack it out to see them.

Actually, my questions were for you - your knowledge of press mechanics and metallurgy exceeds mine.

well done SD... I do concur, I did feel the UM break was so distinct
That it had to have been vammed.....BUT how tuff the 21's are...especially the scribbles ugggg............

LMOA ZEEE....and yes.....and thankyou, and the eye, at least one is better.....and as free flowing of thought as many of my threads are, I have been trying to STOP.at points..so you all might follow what I am thinking about....