How many 20thC micro-collectors are there?

[Nick 329]

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?

Can you explain the thinking behind this statement? How can you have design differences produced from the same matrix?

[davidrj 194]

The progressive broken tooth are shown across the normal and recessed ear varieties

??????????????????!

Surely accepted wisdom is that the broken tooth is diagnostic for the recessed ears. do we know of a contradictory example??

[davidrj 194]

duplicate post

computer misbehaving

Edited April 22, 2013 by davidrj

[davidrj 194]

duplicate post

[declanwmagee 122]

Surely accepted wisdom is that the broken tooth is diagnostic for the recessed ears. do we know of a contradictory example??

I do hope that's the case - I wouldn't have any degree of confidence in diagnosing one without the tooth as an indicator.

[Nick 329]

Surely accepted wisdom is that the broken tooth is diagnostic for the recessed ears. do we know of a contradictory example??

I do hope that's the case - I wouldn't have any degree of confidence in diagnosing one without the tooth as an indicator.

I have studied Accumulator's photos for recessed and non-recessed and I can't see any part of the ear that looks any more recessed than on the other. What is one supposed to be looking for?

[Coinery 1,148]

The progressive broken tooth are shown across the normal and recessed ear varieties

??????????????????!

Surely accepted wisdom is that the broken tooth is diagnostic for the recessed ears. do we know of a contradictory example??

I hold my hands up here, I've got myself into a twist. For some reason I was getting Declan's two photos mixed up in my head with Accumulator's two posted images of recessed and non-recessed ear types! Sorry!

I think in part I've also twisted myself with Dave G's statement that not all the 1915 recesseds have the broken tooth!

Edited April 22, 2013 by Coinery

[davidrj 194]

I have studied Accumulator's photos for recessed and non-recessed and I can't see any part of the ear that looks any more recessed than on the other. What is one supposed to be looking for?

Not really a recessed ear at all really - its the area around the ear that's recessed - the normal bust is convex, whereas the resessed ear type has a definite concavity - best seen if you view the coins at an angle

Once you know the difference, you can spot them a mile off, even on badly worn examples

Edited April 22, 2013 by davidrj

[Coinery 1,148]

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?

Can you explain the thinking behind this statement? How can you have design differences produced from the same matrix?

Quite simply...I'm still confused between the matrix and the oversized original it's made from. I've got brain overload, trying to draw comparisons between the hammered die process and the modern equivilent!

So, help me out here...is the original oversized artwork, the item that's used to refashion dates, for example? Sorry, chaps, having a bit of a mare with this one!

[Nick 329]

I have studied Accumulator's photos for recessed and non-recessed and I can't see any part of the ear that looks any more recessed than on the other. What is one supposed to be looking for?

Not really a recessed ear at all really - its the area around the ear that's recessed - the normal bust is convex, whereas the resessed ear type has a definite concavity - best seen if you view the coins at an angle

Once you know the difference, you can spot them a mile off, even on badly worn examples

Thanks David. So, is it a design difference or a consequential difference? ie a change in strike pressure might affect metal flow characteristics and thus the obverse may appear less convex and the reverse becomes better struck.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Nick

[Peckris 579]

Surely accepted wisdom is that the broken tooth is diagnostic for the recessed ears. do we know of a contradictory example??

I do hope that's the case - I wouldn't have any degree of confidence in diagnosing one without the tooth as an indicator.

That's interesting - when I was a schoolboy collector, I noticed the 'recessed ear' examples (without yet knowing that's what they were called), but only recently learned of the broken tooth feature. They were quite distinctive, but perhaps more so when fairly worn? Maybe they are harder to spot when EF - UNC.

[davidrj 194]

Thanks David. So, is it a design difference or a consequential difference? ie a change in strike pressure might affect metal flow characteristics and thus the obverse may appear less convex and the reverse becomes better struck.

Definitely a design change in my view

[RLC35 288]

I have studied Accumulator's photos for recessed and non-recessed and I can't see any part of the ear that looks any more recessed than on the other. What is one supposed to be looking for?

Not really a recessed ear at all really - its the area around the ear that's recessed - the normal bust is convex, whereas the resessed ear type has a definite concavity - best seen if you view the coins at an angle

Once you know the difference, you can spot them a mile off, even on badly worn examples

David,

Your lead on a focal, for the flatter effigy (hollow Ear) is a really good way to differentiate the two apart! I would have never noticed it! Thanks....

[RLC35 288]

Surely accepted wisdom is that the broken tooth is diagnostic for the recessed ears. do we know of a contradictory example??

I do hope that's the case - I wouldn't have any degree of confidence in diagnosing one without the tooth as an indicator.

That's interesting - when I was a schoolboy collector, I noticed the 'recessed ear' examples (without yet knowing that's what they were called), but only recently learned of the broken tooth feature. They were quite distinctive, but perhaps more so when fairly worn? Maybe they are harder to spot when EF - UNC.

Peck,

You are correct, it is easier to detect the Hollow Ear, with a coin in Fine or below. In the upper grades it is a little harder to see (I just checked a few!).

[Colin G. 147]

This is an area I am currently looking at and struggling to find any certain information, from information i have, it appears that three tiers of production were used (matrices, hubs/master dies, working dies). The "matrix" is an incuse image of the design, and is used to strike "hubs/master dies/punches" (which are positive) from which "working dies" were then produced (again incuse). A fault could easily occur during the striking process when creating master dies and therefore, this flaw transfers to a number of working dies and then these flaws can potentially be repeated across a vast number of coins.

The matrices and master dies were produced in fairly low numbers, with quite a few working dies appearing to be struck from each master die.

If anyone does know of any good sources of information on this subject please let me know!!

[Nick 329]

This is an area I am currently looking at and struggling to find any certain information, from information i have, it appears that three tiers of production were used (matrices, hubs/master dies, working dies). The "matrix" is an incuse image of the design, and is used to strike "hubs/master dies/punches" (which are positive) from which "working dies" were then produced (again incuse). A fault could easily occur during the striking process when creating master dies and therefore, this flaw transfers to a number of working dies and then these flaws can potentially be repeated across a vast number of coins.

The matrices and master dies were produced in fairly low numbers, with quite a few working dies appearing to be struck from each master die.

If anyone does know of any good sources of information on this subject please let me know!!

Your information sounds similar to what I have found whilst scouring the web, except that my understanding is that 'master die' is another name for a matrix not a hub/punch, but I may be wrong. There is much conflicting terminology out there.

[TomGoodheart 400]

e mRfm eH.. Wha?

Sorry. I must have dozed off early in the thread.

Did I miss anything?

[Coinery 1,148]

This is an area I am currently looking at and struggling to find any certain information, from information i have, it appears that three tiers of production were used (matrices, hubs/master dies, working dies). The "matrix" is an incuse image of the design, and is used to strike "hubs/master dies/punches" (which are positive) from which "working dies" were then produced (again incuse). A fault could easily occur during the striking process when creating master dies and therefore, this flaw transfers to a number of working dies and then these flaws can potentially be repeated across a vast number of coins.

The matrices and master dies were produced in fairly low numbers, with quite a few working dies appearing to be struck from each master die.

If anyone does know of any good sources of information on this subject please let me know!!

Your information sounds similar to what I have found whilst scouring the web, except that my understanding is that 'master die' is another name for a matrix not a hub/punch, but I may be wrong. There is much conflicting terminology out there.

I spent the best part of an hour scouring the net, but only finding modern methods (mostly current US), involving computer programming, which only served to confuse matters further...definitely lots of conflicting info!

When you've pulled the whole thing together, Colin, I'd very much benefit from and pleaure in the read, because I can't get my head around it at all! Someone give me a later medieval broken punch and an over-mark anytime!

[Peckris 579]

This is an area I am currently looking at and struggling to find any certain information, from information i have, it appears that three tiers of production were used (matrices, hubs/master dies, working dies). The "matrix" is an incuse image of the design, and is used to strike "hubs/master dies/punches" (which are positive) from which "working dies" were then produced (again incuse). A fault could easily occur during the striking process when creating master dies and therefore, this flaw transfers to a number of working dies and then these flaws can potentially be repeated across a vast number of coins.

The matrices and master dies were produced in fairly low numbers, with quite a few working dies appearing to be struck from each master die.

If anyone does know of any good sources of information on this subject please let me know!!

Your information sounds similar to what I have found whilst scouring the web, except that my understanding is that 'master die' is another name for a matrix not a hub/punch, but I may be wrong. There is much conflicting terminology out there.

I spent the best part of an hour scouring the net, but only finding modern methods (mostly current US), involving computer programming, which only served to confuse matters further...definitely lots of conflicting info!

When you've pulled the whole thing together, Colin, I'd very much benefit from and pleaure in the read, because I can't get my head around it at all! Someone give me a later medieval broken punch and an over-mark anytime!

The original design sculpture reduction will be in relief, so from that (in hardened metal?) they must sink the incuse master/matrix. That in turn must be used to create the punches in relief, which in turn are used to sink the incuse dies. Does that sound a reasonable sequence?

[Nick 329]

This is an area I am currently looking at and struggling to find any certain information, from information i have, it appears that three tiers of production were used (matrices, hubs/master dies, working dies). The "matrix" is an incuse image of the design, and is used to strike "hubs/master dies/punches" (which are positive) from which "working dies" were then produced (again incuse). A fault could easily occur during the striking process when creating master dies and therefore, this flaw transfers to a number of working dies and then these flaws can potentially be repeated across a vast number of coins.

The matrices and master dies were produced in fairly low numbers, with quite a few working dies appearing to be struck from each master die.

If anyone does know of any good sources of information on this subject please let me know!!

Your information sounds similar to what I have found whilst scouring the web, except that my understanding is that 'master die' is another name for a matrix not a hub/punch, but I may be wrong. There is much conflicting terminology out there.

I spent the best part of an hour scouring the net, but only finding modern methods (mostly current US), involving computer programming, which only served to confuse matters further...definitely lots of conflicting info!

When you've pulled the whole thing together, Colin, I'd very much benefit from and pleaure in the read, because I can't get my head around it at all! Someone give me a later medieval broken punch and an over-mark anytime!

Found a reference to modern methods, but is at least relevant to UK coin production and I suspect the basics won't have changed that much.

Making dies.

[Coinery 1,148]

Found a reference to modern methods, but is at least relevant to UK coin production and I suspect the basics won't have changed that much.

Making dies.

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each.

Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely?

Edited April 23, 2013 by Coinery

[Nick 329]

Found a reference to modern methods, but is at least relevant to UK coin production and I suspect the basics won't have changed that much.

Making dies.

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each.

Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely?

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but there is a weighty tome explaining the entire working of the Royal Mint (c. 1870) in excruciating detail (and I really do mean that) which may contain some useful information. If not, it's a handy cure for insomnia.

The publication is "The Royal Mint by George Frederick Ansell" and you can download a PDF free from Google books. The pages relating to matrices, punches and dies are 63-67.

[Coinery 1,148]

Found a reference to modern methods, but is at least relevant to UK coin production and I suspect the basics won't have changed that much.

Making dies.

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each.

Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely?

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but there is a weighty tome explaining the entire working of the Royal Mint (c. 1870) in excruciating detail (and I really do mean that) which may contain some useful information. If not, it's a handy cure for insomnia.

The publication is "The Royal Mint by George Frederick Ansell" and you can download a PDF free from Google books. The pages relating to matrices, punches and dies are 63-67.

Brilliant! That sounds absolutely perfect, and a likely cure for my lame knowledge of matrixes! I'll just need to fill in the years between 1870 and the computer age to be home and dry!

Any references for that anyone?

Thanks, Nick!

[Peckris 579]

Found a reference to modern methods, but is at least relevant to UK coin production and I suspect the basics won't have changed that much.

Making dies.

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each.

Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely?

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but there is a weighty tome explaining the entire working of the Royal Mint (c. 1870) in excruciating detail (and I really do mean that) which may contain some useful information. If not, it's a handy cure for insomnia.

The publication is "The Royal Mint by George Frederick Ansell" and you can download a PDF free from Google books. The pages relating to matrices, punches and dies are 63-67.

Brilliant! That sounds absolutely perfect, and a likely cure for my lame knowledge of matrixes! I'll just need to fill in the years between 1870 and the computer age to be home and dry!

Any references for that anyone?

Thanks, Nick!

There's also a fairly comprehensive article on production of proof coins in the 1985 edition of Coins and Market Values. I'm in the throes of moving home, so don't expect a scan anytime soon, but briefly:

1. artist prepares a large plaster model

2. from this is produced a rubber mould which is electroplated with copper and nickel

3. the electrotype is reduced by special machinery

4. the resulting steel punch is in relief

5. the 'reduction punch' is used to sink a matrix (incuse) at which stage beading is added BY HAND and any blemishes removed

6. from the finished matrix working punches are produced (relief)

7. the working punches are used to sink working dies (incuse) as many times as needed

There's much much more about the production of blanks, but I thought this might be helpful. And as you can see, when the beading is added manually, it would be easy enough (though delicate and small scale) to add a 'broken tooth'.

[Coinery 1,148]

Found a reference to modern methods, but is at least relevant to UK coin production and I suspect the basics won't have changed that much.

Making dies.

Thanks, Nick, I did read that one, but tuned-out when it mentioned graphics and computers. It would be fantastic to read a 'history of' type work! When the last hand sunk die was created, when the switch to reduction methods came about, when the last mechanical (non-computer) method was employed, and the process for each.

Somebody must have written something for the BNJ at some point, surely?

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but there is a weighty tome explaining the entire working of the Royal Mint (c. 1870) in excruciating detail (and I really do mean that) which may contain some useful information. If not, it's a handy cure for insomnia.

The publication is "The Royal Mint by George Frederick Ansell" and you can download a PDF free from Google books. The pages relating to matrices, punches and dies are 63-67.

Brilliant! That sounds absolutely perfect, and a likely cure for my lame knowledge of matrixes! I'll just need to fill in the years between 1870 and the computer age to be home and dry!

Any references for that anyone?

Thanks, Nick!

There's also a fairly comprehensive article on production of proof coins in the 1985 edition of Coins and Market Values. I'm in the throes of moving home, so don't expect a scan anytime soon, but briefly:

1. artist prepares a large plaster model

2. from this is produced a rubber mould which is electroplated with copper and nickel

3. the electrotype is reduced by special machinery

4. the resulting steel punch is in relief

5. the 'reduction punch' is used to sink a matrix (incuse) at which stage beading is added BY HAND and any blemishes removed

6. from the finished matrix working punches are produced (relief)

7. the working punches are used to sink working dies (incuse) as many times as needed

There's much much more about the production of blanks, but I thought this might be helpful. And as you can see, when the beading is added manually, it would be easy enough (though delicate and small scale) to add a 'broken tooth'.

Thanks, Peck, much appreciated! I hope the move's a positive thing, and goes well!