Crazy 1881H Legend...

livingdinasaur
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:28 am
Location: CA.

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by livingdinasaur » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:51 pm

I thought at first, that the pictures by mkb were either machine doubling, or hub doubling. After looking at them several times, and blowing up the images, i find that they are indeed, HUB-doubling, but It also appears to be two different fonts used! The second font appears to be a smaller size. The split serifs, so commonly seen with HUB-Doubling are very clear.
This is the first i have seen of this happening.
I am very new to this area, and see things that are not readily visible to those who may be set in their ways, and do not notice, because they have seen so many, that they tend to "all look alike". No slurs, or insilence meant, or inferred,but look at the photos, and check the serifs. The tell the story. I believe a new variety has been discovered, and not noticed by the very ones who have spant so much time, and study in the coins. my congratulations to both of you!

Dick
Only the good die young!
I shall live forever!

Bill in Burl
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:41 am
Location: Golden Horseshoe, ONT

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by Bill in Burl » Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:12 pm

Dick ... This is not a "new" discovery or variety. It has been tracked and collected since before the 1960's when Hans Zoell published his pamphlets. This is a thread more than a year old and it was resolved back then. It's not unique; it's not new; and it's not a "discovery".... I've got nearly a dozen of them and any other Large Cent has a number of them .. or they are on his "shopping list" and have been for years. There weree not 2 different fonts used .. just multiple pressings.
Bill in Burl

mkb
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:57 pm
Location: California

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by mkb » Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:30 am

In looking at one of the 1882 H coins I have called a 2/1a for several years now, and that some are now calling a 2/1, its evident that this coin is actually a 2/1a/1. The Base of the portrait along with the Dot in E of REGINA clearly comes from an Obv.2 hub, as the Dot in E can be found on Obv.2 coins from 1882 and 1884. The rounded chin clearly comes from either an Obv.1 or an Obv.1a, as this chin is identicle on both of these obverses. At the top right of the A in REGINA is the remnants of a mark likely made by a die chip. This feature can be found on many Obv.1 coins from 1876. Clearly, this mark came from an Obv.1 hub due to the number of coins that have it. But the elongated serif on the top right side of the N in REGINA compares exactly to only an N found on Obv.1a coin I have. This means that the coin in question has unique features from three different hubs. If anything, this only adds to the argument that resinking dies of Canadian 1 cent coins occurred in 1881 and 1882 by the Royal Mint. This suggests that this particular die was resunk two times. If that is true, then it really is an odd one as I understand that any dies that were resunk, were usually resunk only one time. Note that there is also an 1882 H 2/1a in addition to this 2/1a/1.

bosox
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by bosox » Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:17 am

I respectfully disagree with several points posted by mkb in this thread.

1. The Royal Mint did not resink old dies when minting the Victorian cents of Canada. If mkb had read the entire 1883 mint report from which he posted an excerpt from page 40, he would have found on the very next page (page 41) that all 204 resunk dies were used to make British Imperial coinage, not Canadian coinage. In fact the annual reports from 1870 onward consistently show that the entire quantities of resunk dies each year were used on British coinage.

2. In addition the 1870 mint report describes the process of resinking dies as removing the damaged portion of the die ("reducing broken or worn dies in size") and using them for smaller denomination coins. In other words a die might have struck shillings one year, then the mint may have reduced it to strike sixpences the next.

3. In my book "Dies & Diadems" I tracked the appendage on the left side of the upper right serif of the N in REGINA back to the original matrix. Because it was in the original matrix, it appears on both obverse C1A and C1 coins of 1882, and cents from other years, except where it was removed on some of the intermediate punches. The "some" that mkb says are calling these coins obverse 2 over obverse 1 is "me", because that accurately describes the several such dies that I have observed.

mkb
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:57 pm
Location: California

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by mkb » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:16 am

Bosox, I read all of the 1883 report as it relates to the die department, and what was minted. To assume and/or suggest I didn't, is really not right. All you had to do is just ask me what I read, and what I didn't. That would have been the appropriate thing to do. From my earlier posts, it should have been crystal clear that my posting was in response to the statement: "There were no dies resunk at any time during the Victoria Large Cent mintages." That Royal Mint report clearly showed otherwise. I put that there to prove my statement was correct. Also, you should know that no 1 cent coins were minted for Canada dated 1883 - the year covered by that report. So, that report would not comment on any resinking of 1 cent dies for coins for Canada for that year as no 1 cent coins were made for Canada in that year. The only years I mention (for the third time now on this thread), in which resinking of Canadian 1 cent dies appears to have taken place, are the years 1881 and 1882.

Also, when it comes to die making, what YOU really need to explain is how come only the years 1881 and 1882 show all of this mixing of the hubs/matricies. Why only in these two years? I am not aware (yet) of any other years in which the characteristics of multiple hubs can be found on a single coin.

One argument on this thread, which somehow is being claimed as factual, is that more than one hub or matrix was used to make some dies. Where in the Royal Mint report is this mentioned? The answer is nowhere. Mixing of the hubs during die fabrication, of course, is an understood practice of the US Mint; but the Royal Mint is not the US Mint. There is no reason to assume that the Royal Mint followed the exact same practices that the US Mint did during die fabrication. If anything, the young US Mint would have been inclined to have lesser practices and experience than the older and more experienced Royal Mint. For example, did the US Mint ever resink dies in the 1800's like the Royal Mint? Is the answer no? So, when speaking of procedure, what the Royal Mint did is what needs to be discussed, and suitable references given - preferably from an author from Britain who has credibly written on the subject.

Why doesn't this theory (that more than one hub was used to make a single die at the time of fabrication) add up? It really should be obvious. Its because this would indicate a standard practice that should have been used on all coins, and that should have been used over a span of more than 2 years. After all, how long was this practice used by the US Mint?? Further, the evidence does not support this conclusion. Where does this mixing of the hubs appear elsewhere in the production of Canadian Victorian coinage? Do you see this in 5c, 10c, 25c and 50c pieces? If yes, which ones? To my knowledge, it cannot be found elsewhere. And why only in 1881 and 1882, and only for 1 cent coins??? Or did this "mixing of the hubs" which is supposed to be a natural part of die making production by the Royal Mint (just as it was with the US Mint), only occur in the years 1881 and 1882, and only with the 1 cent denomination? How is this a natural procedure, when its application is so limited?

These are the questions you need to answer before assuming that what I have proposed is incorrect. I would like to see your responses, and given the claims you made, you should be more than able to do so. Further, what you have proposed is just a possible explanation, and not fact; and can never be fact without credible documentation from the period proving so. Its okay to say "I have an alternate explanation", but its not okay to say your explanation is right and anything else is automatically wrong. Collectors will have to determine for themselves what makes more sense. To me, resinking the dies makes far more sense as it is far, far easier to explain. Too easy in fact. This was an acknowledged procedure by the Royal Mint, and its limited use was justified under the exceptional circumstances that were being experienced by the Royal Mint at the time.

Another thing which makes no sense to me, is you are willing to say that resinking of the dies did not occur because the Royal Mint does not say this happened for Canadian dies, yet you are perfectly willing to accept that the Royal Mint used more than one hub to make dies, even though the Royal Mint does not say this was done. How do you reconcile this logic?? On the one hand you need written proof in order to believe something, and on the other hand you do not?

bosox
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by bosox » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:57 am

mkb,

Then I guess I do not understand how you missed the table on page 41 of the 1883 report which reported all 204 re-sunk dies were used to coin British Imperial coinage. By the way, I only spoke of the 1883 report because that was the one that you referenced.

You may pick the mint report of any Victorian year that you choose. In most years the die department reported the total number of dies re-sunk that year. In nearly every year they reported the number of re-sunk dies used to mint British Imperial coinage. In every Victorian mint report having both numbers, they are identical. Hence I conclude that all dies re-sunk by the Royal Mint were used to mint British, not Canadian, coinage.

I also believe the Deputy Master in the 1870 report when he explained that re-sunk dies were reduced in size from the original die and used to mint small diameter coinage the second time around.

As you probably know, the Royal Mint reports are silent on how many punches were raised for each coin, British or colonial. Consequently the mint reports are of no use one way or the other on this point. That doesn't particularly matter, because the proof is on the coins, if you look at enough coins.

In response to your ultimatum, I need to explain nothing. In fact laying out the contents of my books to respond to your arguments on a chat room seems counter-productive to me. If, however, you would like a thorough explanation of dies being sunk by multiple punches, and much more regarding Victorian cents, I can only suggest that you buy Dies & Diadems and my previous two books, all copyrighted works. I think you will find them well researched and thought out, since in writing them I spent considerable time and expense going through both the Royal Mint files in London and the government of Canada files in Ottawa.

Cheers,
Rob Turner


P.S. The Royal Mint underwent extensive renovations in 1881 and 1882. More so than any other years, they contracted much of their operations to Heaton. Even their die press was replaced. Royal Mint operations were far from normal in those two years. Since you read the mint reports, you know that already.

mkb
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:57 pm
Location: California

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by mkb » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:00 pm

Rob,

You said:

“Then I guess I do not understand how you missed the table on page 41 of the 1883 report which reported all 204 re-sunk dies were used to coin British Imperial coinage.”

So I will repeat myself. As I said, I read that part of the report - I did not miss it. I also said that it was not relevant given the reason that information was posted.

“In most years the die department reported the total number of dies re-sunk that year. In nearly every year they reported the number of re-sunk dies used to mint British Imperial coinage. In every Victorian mint report having both numbers, they are identical. Hence I conclude that all dies re-sunk by the Royal Mint were used to mint British, not Canadian, coinage.”

This is correct, but oddly, in the years 1881 and 1882 the Die Department does not mention any dies being resunk. This also happens to correspond to the two years that elements from more than one hub appear on Canadian 1 cent coins. Is this a coincidence? Or was omitting such a reference done on purpose? Given the meticulous nature of these reports, it makes more sense to conclude it was done on purpose.

“I also believe the Deputy Master in the 1870 report when he explained that re-sunk dies were reduced in size from the original die and used to mint small diameter coinage the second time around.”

There is no mention in the 1870 report “that re-sunk dies were reduced in size”. On page 42 of the 1870 report, there is only mention that some broken or worn dies were re-machined for use on smaller diameter coins – there is no mention of resunk dies there. The only mention of resinking dies comes on page 100, where the Die Department reports 350 dies were resunk. Re-machining a worn or broken die into a smaller diameter, and resinking it are two different things.

“In response to your ultimatum, I need to explain nothing.”
“I can only suggest that you buy Dies & Diadems and my previous two books.”

So you try and make me look bad by issuing incorrect claims about what I have said, and then you extricate yourself from explaining yourself. Finally, you promote your books as having the needed answers. I can only conclude that all or much of this is for the purpose of driving sales of your books. And this is not the way to do so. If anything, this probably has the opposite effect.

MKB

bosox
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by bosox » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:12 pm

If a die is reduced in size for use on a smaller diameter coin, by definition the mint re-sank the die. And yes, I believe the process being described there is the same process being reported upon in the die department report through the years.

In 1881 and 1882 the die department only reported the number of resunk dies used to coin British coinage. They omitted the total number resunk in the prose section and yes I think it is a coincidence. This reporting omission happened in other years as well. I don't share your thoughts on the meticulous nature of the mint reports. Reporting errors and omissions are relatively common through the years.

I am not trying to make anybody look bad, but I entered this thread because I do disagree with several things that you posted. I gave reasons why I disagreed. We obviously continue to disagree.

You now want to know my explanation of what happened. I have published my explanation and you will find it there. Whether you choose to pursue that avenue is entirely up to you.

We could argue this for a long time and I doubt we would make any headway with each other, so I am content to let the readers of this thread (are there any?) decide for themselves what to believe.

Rob Turner

mkb
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:57 pm
Location: California

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by mkb » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:08 pm

Rob,

You said:

“In 1881 and 1882 the die department only reported the number of resunk dies used to coin British coinage.”

For 1882, there is no mention of any dies being resunk either in the “prose” section or in the multi-year table illustrating the number of British coins minted along with the number of dies used. For any who have not seen one of these reports - the “prose” section covers all dies made for Britain, for other countries and for Britain’s colonies (which would include Canada). But the table illustrating the number of coins minted and the number of dies used, only applies to British coins.

“Reporting errors and omissions are relatively common through the years.”

So if omissions are common, and given that omissions are present in the “prose” section such as the omission in the 1881 report that dies were resunk; could this also have been a purposeful omission, that no comment was made on how some dies for Canadian 1 cent coins were made in 1881 and 1882? Such a conclusion is more than reasonable.

Much of your explanation applies to all the years outside of 1881 and 1882, and for all denominations of coins. That is not in question. But your explanation for what happened in 1881 and 1882 is not convincing to me. Here is why:

(1) There is an admitted practice of resinking dies by the Royal Mint, yet there is no acknowledgement anywhere, that any dies were made using more than one hub.

(2) Only 1 cent coins have been found for the years 1881 and 1882, in which the characteristics of more than one hub were pressed into some the dies used to make these coins. No one has yet found any other year or any other denomination of Victorian coins (to my knowledge), having features from more than one hub. This suggests that a very non standard procedure was temporarily employed.

(3) The Royal Mint die reports of 1881 and 1882 do not mention in the commentary section of the Die Department, the resinking of any dies. Yet in the 1881 report, this is a known omission as resunk dies are mentioned in the table which lists the number of British coins that were minted, along with the number of dies that were used.

(4) The omission by the Royal Mint that any dies were resunk in 1881 and 1882 is highly coincidental to the Canadian 1 cent coins of 1881 and 1882, which reveal multiple hubs used in the die making process.

(5) The Royal Mint has made many omissions in its reports and so cannot re relied upon to be fully accurate.

bosox
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by bosox » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:07 pm

You are persistent, I'll give you that. I have no interest in pursuing any further a debate that is at impasse between us. My arguments are not convincing you and yours are not convincing me. I don't see either of us moving and any readers can decide for themselves.

Have a nice day.

Rob Turner

Bill in Burl
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:41 am
Location: Golden Horseshoe, ONT

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by Bill in Burl » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:57 pm

MKB .. I think that you should spend some time rummaging through the libraries and archives of the Royal Mint in London the way the Bosox did for 2 weeks over there before you form opinions and then try to cram it down people's throats. You learn much more from ardent study and dedicated collecting than you ever will by browsing over Ebay sales data and selected readings. I will whole-heartedly agree with Bosox that there was no resinking of dies for the Canadian coinage. I suggest that you buy his first book and completely learn the history and fully-referenced background behind the events leading up, and the actual minting, of Canadian coinage. His tomes are now considered the "bibles" for Canadian Large Cent coleectors.
Bill in Burl

mkb
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:57 pm
Location: California

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by mkb » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:44 pm

Bill, nearly 3 years ago both you and Rob (plus others) were adamant that there was no such thing as an Obverse 2/1 – first proposed by me. On another site you even posted a comment entitled “2/1 Disproof” where you said to me: “it pays to research, study, look at lots of coins and get your ducks in a row ..” But more recently, both of you have done a complete change on this matter – after saying I was wrong. Both of you now acknowledge that there is a 2/1, and neither one of you have yet admitted here (or elsewhere?) that you were both wrong on this matter, and that I was correct. Yet once again, you are telling me what I need to be doing. I have to wonder why you feel you need to follow me everywhere on the internet, and post negative comments on what I say? You may not realize this, but this is the kind of thing stalkers do. Here is a nice comment on such behavior at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

I suggest you read this.

And by the way, I am not attempting to ram anything down anyone’s throat. To the contrary, its you and Rob who are doing this here; but more so you as you have gone from website to website to website in doing so.

bosox
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by bosox » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:26 am

mkb,

You know, I suppose at some point early on I didn't conceive of a 2/1. Then three or four years ago I picked up a couple of coins that I thought may have been 2/1 cents. I am pretty sure that I had these coins when the CCRS discussions on the subject occurred. I may be wrong because the timing gets fuzzy as you get older, but in those earlier discussions I don't remember ever saying that a 2/1 doesn't exist because I had the coins at the time. Rather I recall not offering an opinion on it as you struggled to determine whether your coin was a 4/1 or 4/1a or 2/1a or a 2/1.

I do remember as part of those same threads you and I had a few spirited discussions and disagreed strongly on the number of coins some early dies produced.

If you can show me a thread where I said a 2/1 doesn't exist, then I'll eat a little crow and say you were right at the time and I was wrong.

BTW, the stalking allegation is ridiculous. If you offer strong opinions on a coin chatroom, you are going to get arguments. It happens to all of us.

Cheers,
Rob Turner

mkb - Just as a check to see if I'm losing brain cells, I checked the CCRS archives. I checked all of the threads we both posted in. I found no post where I said that 2/1 cents do not exist. Is there something else you remember?
Last edited by bosox on Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Bill in Burl
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:41 am
Location: Golden Horseshoe, ONT

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by Bill in Burl » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:45 am

MKB .. Your first mention of resinking of dies occurred, based upon a single VG (at best) coin. At that time I sent you one of my coins that was a better example so that you could see all the attributes. You were saying that it was an Obv 4/1 or 4/2 .. I forget which and told you that it couldn't be a 4 for that year. My problem with your assessment dealt with your statements concerning deliberate "resinking" of dies and your use of markers common to 1, 1a's, and 2's to talk about a single type obverse. I am not (nor is anyone else that I'm aware of) "following" you from website to website. I look in on any site that deals with Canadian coinage and register on if I think that there is anything that I can add to the discussions ... if not, I just kibitz or lurk. I felt that you were passing erronious information so I made a post in answer to yours. Readers are entitled to whatever opinion that they wish and they can sift through all the information that they need to make an informed decision on anything in their interest or niche. My opinion still is that there was no deliberate resinking of dies for 1882 (or any other year) .. they were the result of mismatching punches/hubs while turning out the working dies and finishing them.
Bill in Burl

mkb
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:57 pm
Location: California

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by mkb » Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:20 pm

Rob,

You said:

If you can show me a thread where I said a 2/1 doesn't exist, then I'll eat a little crow and say you were right at the time and I was wrong.

Regarding what you said, I probably should have had a separate comment specifically for you instead of rolling you together with Bill, saying instead - you did not acknowledge my coin and others as 2/1’s until more recently. That said, below are your comments in which you incorrectly called and 1882 as a Doubled Die Obverse. Now you call this coin as a 2/1. Bill agreed with you on this. His comment is farther down.

1882 Cent DDO

I thought you guys might like this one. It is an 1882-H cent with severe punch doubling (hub doubling in modern parlance) on the obverse. That is the same type of error that caused the very popular U.S. DDO 1955 cent.
The entire obverse is doubled laterally towards 3 o'clock and rotationally counterclockwise. Consequently the doubling is most severe in CANADA, REGINA, and the right side of the effigy. Looks like the diesinker had a rough morning.
The doubling on the chin makes it look like an obverse #1, but it is actually an obverse #2 cent.

I have seen some of this on 1881 cents (see Dan's website), but never on an 1882 and never this pronounced. In my mind this is a spectacular coin to study and I suspect quite rare.

stokrooky, 3/9/2008



Here is the coin you discussed – I believe its your coin:

http://www.canadiancoin.com/cgi-bin/can ... 1790&t=jpg



Here is another comment from you and Bill on this same coin, plus two others like it but with more wear:

Re: 1882 Cent DDO

Definitely an obv 2 with a DDO. They blew this one.

stokrooky, 9/26/2008


Re: 1882 Cent DDO

Definitely a 2 and only a 2! ..... we have had this discussion extensively before. It is definitely NOT an Obv 2/1 or 2/1a as a CCRS person has suggested. I think that a single Obv 2 die or two was smoothed out in the chin/throat to hide some damage or wear... or maybe damage to the hub that was smoothed out and then used to produce a few working dies. I have 4-5 of those .. they are hard to find, but not real scarce

Bill in Burl, 9/26/2008

Locked