How many 20thC micro-collectors are there?

[Peckris 579]

the 'broken tooth'

which also suggests a single die variety..?

Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die?

On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable?

[Coinery 1,156]

the 'broken tooth'

which also suggests a single die variety..?

Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die?

On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable?

I haven't got the book to hand, but didn't I read that it's 'most' manifest the broken tooth, rather than all? I'm not sure though????

[declanwmagee 122]

the 'broken tooth'

which also suggests a single die variety..?

Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die?

On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable?

That's a good thought - the deliberate marking of a die (and thus, potentially, more than one)

Numbers:

1915: 11.4% of 47m - loads more than one die could do

1916: 18.7% of 86m - well that's conclusive then.

It's more than one die, which means that the broken tooth has to be deliberate.

[Coinery 1,156]

the 'broken tooth'

which also suggests a single die variety..?

Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die?

On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable?

That's a good thought - the deliberate marking of a die (and thus, potentially, more than one)

Numbers:

1915: 11.4% of 47m - loads more than one die could do

1916: 18.7% of 86m - well that's conclusive then.

It's more than one die, which means that the broken tooth has to be deliberate.

Wouldn't it be more logical to 'add' a mark to the dies to identify them, like a hairline or something, which would appear raised on the coin? Breaking a tooth would actually mean blocking the tooth on the die wouldn't it? I of course have not actually looked to see how the broken tooth appears on these coins, but will tomorrow!

[Peckris 579]

the 'broken tooth'

which also suggests a single die variety..?

Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die?

On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable?

That's a good thought - the deliberate marking of a die (and thus, potentially, more than one)

Numbers:

1915: 11.4% of 47m - loads more than one die could do

1916: 18.7% of 86m - well that's conclusive then.

It's more than one die, which means that the broken tooth has to be deliberate.

Wouldn't it be more logical to 'add' a mark to the dies to identify them, like a hairline or something, which would appear raised on the coin? Breaking a tooth would actually mean blocking the tooth on the die wouldn't it? I of course have not actually looked to see how the broken tooth appears on these coins, but will tomorrow!

We call it a 'broken' tooth, but it's actually more like a half tooth, and something that could be done quite deliberately I would have thought, as it would be undetectable to ordinary users, while collectors of the time didn't even bother with much of anything after 1816. But even they did, few would have looked closely at a new currency issue, as 20th Century coins just weren't of any interest at all pre-WW2.

[Accumulator 52]

the 'broken tooth'

which also suggests a single die variety..?

Possibly - do we know what the estimated numbers are compared with the mintage expected from a single die?

On the other hand, the tooth may have been deliberately damaged to monitor the die, if the Mint decided the change was otherwise undetectable?

That's a good thought - the deliberate marking of a die (and thus, potentially, more than one)

Numbers:

1915: 11.4% of 47m - loads more than one die could do

1916: 18.7% of 86m - well that's conclusive then.

It's more than one die, which means that the broken tooth has to be deliberate.

Wouldn't it be more logical to 'add' a mark to the dies to identify them, like a hairline or something, which would appear raised on the coin? Breaking a tooth would actually mean blocking the tooth on the die wouldn't it? I of course have not actually looked to see how the broken tooth appears on these coins, but will tomorrow!

We call it a 'broken' tooth, but it's actually more like a half tooth, and something that could be done quite deliberately I would have thought, as it would be undetectable to ordinary users, while collectors of the time didn't even bother with much of anything after 1816. But even they did, few would have looked closely at a new currency issue, as 20th Century coins just weren't of any interest at all pre-WW2.

Has anyone found a recessed ear variety without the 'modified' tooth? I've seem them advertised but never been convinced. It's very difficult to identify a recessed ear, as such, but the give away (other than the half-tooth) is a fully struck reverse and no ghosting, as intended.

[Accumulator 52]

On the basis that images bring a thread to life:

Non-recessed ear (no ghosting, but not fully struck on the reverse):

[Accumulator 52]

Recessed ear (no ghosting and fully struck on the reverse):

[Gary D 76]

I would suggest that it's a blocked die and is progressive. I would also suggest that as it's a blocked die that it was used at the end of the 1915 run over into the beginning of the 1916 run. My reasoning for this is that the 1916 show a full half tooth missing whereas the 1915 has just a crescent missing from the right side of the tip.

[declanwmagee 122]

I would suggest that it's a blocked die and is progressive. I would also suggest that as it's a blocked die that it was used at the end of the 1915 run over into the beginning of the 1916 run. My reasoning for this is that the 1916 show a full half tooth missing whereas the 1915 has just a crescent missing from the right side of the tip.

You're quite right, Gary:

1915 top, 1916 below....

So how did one die make so many coins?

Edited April 20, 2013 by declanwmagee

[Coinery 1,156]

I would suggest that it's a blocked die and is progressive. I would also suggest that as it's a blocked die that it was used at the end of the 1915 run over into the beginning of the 1916 run. My reasoning for this is that the 1916 show a full half tooth missing whereas the 1915 has just a crescent missing from the right side of the tip.

You're quite right, Gary:

1915 top, 1916 below....

So how did one die make so many coins?

Now the debate heats up because, whilst I too proposed a block, your 2 images now make it unclear!

Is it possible that the tooth was played with by the mint?

- your 1916 image looks far less sharp, which would concur with an overused die, but ALL the teeth look shorter, and their appears to be some differences in angle on a couple to the left of the 'broken' one. Also, the O looks wider on the '16, maybe recut, but doesn't look it and, of course, the gap between the colon dot and O appears different between the two!

So, is it the same die? Or maybe they really were playing with the beads (or was it a matrix issue, of which I don't fully understand that proccess), which still does surprise me, as it would be more of a challenge to block a die, than engrave it?

Can you see anything else on the two obverses that might further confirm a die match or not, Declan?

[Nick 329]

So how did one die make so many coins?

So, is it the same die? Or maybe they really were playing with the beads (or was it a matrix issue, of which I don't fully understand that proccess), which still does surprise me, as it would be more of a challenge to block a die, than engrave it?

If I understand the process correctly, the matrix is the master die and is used to create the punches which are in turn used to create the die(s). Therefore any damage to the matrix or punches will perpetuate through to the dies, so it may be possible for many dies to exhibit the same issues. For instance, the sixpence issue from 1868 through to early 1873 all show the same flaw in the uppermost olive leaf at 10 o'clock on the reverse.

[Coinery 1,156]

So how did one die make so many coins?

So, is it the same die? Or maybe they really were playing with the beads (or was it a matrix issue, of which I don't fully understand that proccess), which still does surprise me, as it would be more of a challenge to block a die, than engrave it?

If I understand the process correctly, the matrix is the master die and is used to create the punches which are in turn used to create the die(s). Therefore any damage to the matrix or punches will perpetuate through to the dies, so it may be possible for many dies to exhibit the same issues. For instance, the sixpence issue from 1868 through to early 1873 all show the same flaw in the uppermost olive leaf at 10 o'clock on the reverse.

So, that kind of rules out a matrix issue, as a matrix error would unlikely be progressive?

[Nick 329]

So how did one die make so many coins?

So, is it the same die? Or maybe they really were playing with the beads (or was it a matrix issue, of which I don't fully understand that proccess), which still does surprise me, as it would be more of a challenge to block a die, than engrave it?

If I understand the process correctly, the matrix is the master die and is used to create the punches which are in turn used to create the die(s). Therefore any damage to the matrix or punches will perpetuate through to the dies, so it may be possible for many dies to exhibit the same issues. For instance, the sixpence issue from 1868 through to early 1873 all show the same flaw in the uppermost olive leaf at 10 o'clock on the reverse.

So, that kind of rules out a matrix issue, as a matrix error would unlikely be progressive?

But it could easily be a punch issue. If a piece of one of the teeth breaks off, it's because there is a weakness. If you continue making dies with a weakened punch then it is easily possible that more and more of that tooth will break off.

[Coinery 1,156]

So how did one die make so many coins?

So, is it the same die? Or maybe they really were playing with the beads (or was it a matrix issue, of which I don't fully understand that proccess), which still does surprise me, as it would be more of a challenge to block a die, than engrave it?

If I understand the process correctly, the matrix is the master die and is used to create the punches which are in turn used to create the die(s). Therefore any damage to the matrix or punches will perpetuate through to the dies, so it may be possible for many dies to exhibit the same issues. For instance, the sixpence issue from 1868 through to early 1873 all show the same flaw in the uppermost olive leaf at 10 o'clock on the reverse.

So, that kind of rules out a matrix issue, as a matrix error would unlikely be progressive?

But it could easily be a punch issue. If a piece of one of the teeth breaks off, it's because there is a weakness. If you continue making dies with a weakened punch then it is easily possible that more and more of that tooth will break off.

If the teeth were represented by just a single 'ring' punch, used on multiple dies, then that would seem the most plausible explanation?

[Peckris 579]

I would suggest that it's a blocked die and is progressive. I would also suggest that as it's a blocked die that it was used at the end of the 1915 run over into the beginning of the 1916 run. My reasoning for this is that the 1916 show a full half tooth missing whereas the 1915 has just a crescent missing from the right side of the tip.

You're quite right, Gary:

1915 top, 1916 below....

So how did one die make so many coins?

Alternative theory :

The 1915 attempt to deliberately 'mark' the die was only partly successful, and Mint employees had a hard job spotting them. So in 1916 they made a better effort at it. The point is, 1) are there any intermediate stages? and 2) Declan's question - how did one die get used on so many coins?

It also goes without saying that there WAS a definite and deliberate change to the obverse die, which resulted in a much better reverse strike on those pennies, as Steve's pictures show. Having the broken tooth present on ALL those obverse dies on not anywhere else, seems stretching coincidence a bit too far.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Peckris

[Coinery 1,156]

2) Declan's question - how did one die get used on so many coins?

I don't think they ARE the same die, which might explain it...the spacings and shapes of the lettering are all very different.

I did think the idea of the punch itself being altered (or broken) was possible, if there was indeed a ring of beads used as a punch?

[Colin G. 147]

I would suggest that it's a blocked die and is progressive. I would also suggest that as it's a blocked die that it was used at the end of the 1915 run over into the beginning of the 1916 run. My reasoning for this is that the 1916 show a full half tooth missing whereas the 1915 has just a crescent missing from the right side of the tip.

You're quite right, Gary:

1915 top, 1916 below....

So how did one die make so many coins?

You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices.

[Nick 329]

2) Declan's question - how did one die get used on so many coins?

I don't think they ARE the same die, which might explain it...the spacings and shapes of the lettering are all very different.

I did think the idea of the punch itself being altered (or broken) was possible, if there was indeed a ring of beads used as a punch?

I think that the terminology that I used earlier ie punch is misleading. I should have said hub, because punch implies that it is only part of the design or legend. In post Victorian production, the matrix, hub and dies all contain an entire coin either incuse or in relief. Therefore if the shapes and spacings of the letters are different then the matrix and hub that were used to produce the dies must also be different.

[Coinery 1,156]

I would suggest that it's a blocked die and is progressive. I would also suggest that as it's a blocked die that it was used at the end of the 1915 run over into the beginning of the 1916 run. My reasoning for this is that the 1916 show a full half tooth missing whereas the 1915 has just a crescent missing from the right side of the tip.

You're quite right, Gary:

1915 top, 1916 below....

So how did one die make so many coins?

You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices.

This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself.

If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not?

[Peckris 579]

I would suggest that it's a blocked die and is progressive. I would also suggest that as it's a blocked die that it was used at the end of the 1915 run over into the beginning of the 1916 run. My reasoning for this is that the 1916 show a full half tooth missing whereas the 1915 has just a crescent missing from the right side of the tip.

You're quite right, Gary:

1915 top, 1916 below....

So how did one die make so many coins?

You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices.

This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself.

If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not?

I'm a bit hazy on the physics, but I seem to remember that the original design is a massive piece of sculpture that gets reduced in a complex piece of engineering that scales down the original EXACTLY. From there, I assume that a master matrix is produced and is used to create the punches automatically. So I would hazard a guess that the tooth - if it was broken deliberately - was possibly done on the matrix which would explain the slightly haphazrd success with the operation.

[Nick 329]

I would suggest that it's a blocked die and is progressive. I would also suggest that as it's a blocked die that it was used at the end of the 1915 run over into the beginning of the 1916 run. My reasoning for this is that the 1916 show a full half tooth missing whereas the 1915 has just a crescent missing from the right side of the tip.

You're quite right, Gary:

1915 top, 1916 below....

So how did one die make so many coins?

You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices.

This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself.

If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not?

I'm a bit hazy on the physics, but I seem to remember that the original design is a massive piece of sculpture that gets reduced in a complex piece of engineering that scales down the original EXACTLY. From there, I assume that a master matrix is produced and is used to create the punches automatically. So I would hazard a guess that the tooth - if it was broken deliberately - was possibly done on the matrix which would explain the slightly haphazrd success with the operation.

Is the matrix not the opposite of a coin (like a die)? If so, you'd have to add something to it, rather than remove something to effect the missing point of a tooth.

[RLC35 288]

I would suggest that it's a blocked die and is progressive. I would also suggest that as it's a blocked die that it was used at the end of the 1915 run over into the beginning of the 1916 run. My reasoning for this is that the 1916 show a full half tooth missing whereas the 1915 has just a crescent missing from the right side of the tip.

You're quite right, Gary:

1915 top, 1916 below....

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o310/declanwmagee/Coin%20Forum/1915-1916RE.jpg[

So how did one die make so many coins?

You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices.

This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself.

If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not?

I'm a bit hazy on the physics, but I seem to remember that the original design is a massive piece of sculpture that gets reduced in a complex piece of engineering that scales down the original EXACTLY. From there, I assume that a master matrix is produced and is used to create the punches automatically. So I would hazard a guess that the tooth - if it was broken deliberately - was possibly done on the matrix which would explain the slightly haphazrd success with the operation.

Is the matrix not the opposite of a coin (like a die)? If so, you'd have to add something to it, rather than remove something to effect the missing point of a tooth.

Exactly Nick. To mis-form a denticle like it has on the 1915 and 1916, part of the denticle woud have to be "clogged" or filled with something, so the metal does not flow correctly into that part of the die. You see quite a few of the 1916 broken tooth pennies, so the Mint personnel didn't notice it for a long time, or they didn't care that the clog was present.

[Coinery 1,156]

I would suggest that it's a blocked die and is progressive. I would also suggest that as it's a blocked die that it was used at the end of the 1915 run over into the beginning of the 1916 run. My reasoning for this is that the 1916 show a full half tooth missing whereas the 1915 has just a crescent missing from the right side of the tip.

You're quite right, Gary:

1915 top, 1916 below....

So how did one die make so many coins?

You are all assuming the fault was on a working die, there is nothing to say that the fault was not present on a master die or one of the matrices.

This is what we're trying to determine. For me personally, I'm saying they're likely not the same dies at all, but rather an error (or deliberate marking) further back in the production proccess, at matrix level, though I don't fully understand the matrix story myself.

If the two coins are different dies, then that would rule out a blocked die, except by an amazing coincidence, suggesting damaged matrix (or original cast, whatever that's called - anyone got any decent educational links for the matrix proccess?), whether deliberate or not?

I'm a bit hazy on the physics, but I seem to remember that the original design is a massive piece of sculpture that gets reduced in a complex piece of engineering that scales down the original EXACTLY. From there, I assume that a master matrix is produced and is used to create the punches automatically. So I would hazard a guess that the tooth - if it was broken deliberately - was possibly done on the matrix which would explain the slightly haphazrd success with the operation.

Is the matrix not the opposite of a coin (like a die)? If so, you'd have to add something to it, rather than remove something to effect the missing point of a tooth.

Which takes us back full-circle to my first point about a clog, which is an unlikely choice for a mint ID. Equally, that would suggest it's either a coincidental clog on two different dies (which Declan's looks to be) or one die produced a hell of a lot of coins! Can a matrix be clogged/blocked, as this too would explain it?

[Coinery 1,156]

I've just realised we are not seeing the wood for the trees here. The progressive broken tooth are shown across the normal and recessed ear varieties, so they CAN'T be the same die with a progressive block. They would be from the same matrix, no doubt, but totally different working dies.

Of interest would be to know the number of matrixes created from the master-design (presuming that to be the process, for any given date...maybe it's just one?