A Short Study on Die States in Tinnies:
Most collectors of American coins are probably familiar with “VAM varieties”, especially if they collect the Morgan Dollar series.
When coins are struck, there is a fixed-die and a working die. The working die strikes against the fixed-die, separated only by a thin piece of metal called a planchet. This takes place under thousands of pounds of pressure, which causes the metal from the planchet to flow into the designs which are engraved on the dies, resulting in the production of a coin.
Over time, the dies start to wear out, resulting in:
- Loss of sharpness to the details of the design.
- The addition of new features to the design (usually from cracks appearing in the dies, wear damage to them, excess polish remaining on the dies after the cleaning/polishing process).
There are also “flaws” which can be the result of:
- Errors made at the time the dies were engraved.
- How well the dies were cleaned and polished before and during their use.
In the Morgan Dollar coin series, these errors were (and still are) being cataloged and described as “VAM Varieties”, with a unique number given to each one. The short definition is that they are the variations and errors in the finished product that came about during the manufacturing process, and/or through the use of more than 1 die pair.
A collector of this specific area in coins can tell you that the study of VAM varieties allows them to determine the earliest struck piece to the last, how many different sets of dies were used, and authenticity itself.
How does knowledge of die flaws, and die characteristics benefit the tinnie collector?
Immediately, I thought of 2 good ways this would benefit us tinnie collectors, especially when it comes to less-commonly seen tinnies, where there was most-likely only 1 manufacturer, and very limited production:
- With a known, good example to compare against, it gives the collector the ability to authenticate their piece. It’s just another tool in the “arsenal” against fakers, which would be practically impossible for them to duplicate, since many die flaws can’t be readily seen with the naked eye. It may seem like overkill, but with some tinnies selling for hundreds of dollars, the incentive to fake them is definitely there.
- When comparing a tinnie with an intact paper label against one without a label, the presence of the same die flaws allows the collector to identify the maker of the unlabelled example. This is useful with the very early tinnies.
For the purpose of this study, I had some limitations:
- I only have 2 duplicates in my collection, and both are maker-marked, but demonstrate a few different concepts.
- The photographs were taken by aiming a compact digital camera through a stereoscope.
The tinnies used:
Oldenburg 34-02, marked Hoffstätter, Bonn, in Gold and Silver Grades.
Jugend 34-01, marked Reichsverband Pforzheim. One is numbered 4, and the other is numbered 53, but I was unable to photograph this detail (they’re under the end of the pin, near the catch).
I’ll start with Jugend 34-01, which demonstrates different die pairs in use:
In the example marked 4, the letter “H” is cleanly-struck (notice the lower-left area of the letter):
And now, the example marked 53:
The “53” marked example, shows excess remaining metal on the working die, which the engraver left behind. This resulted in an incuse striking flaw, which should be present on all “53”-marked examples, since the inclusion of the flaw was from the manufacturing of the die.
Oldenburg 34-01 demonstrates two things: the exact same die pair in use, which produced 2 tinnies at different times, as evidenced by wear to the die:
The die characteristics of these two, are as follows:
- The eagle’s right wing shows raised “blobby-looking” bubbles that show the die had damage to it, at the time these 2 tinnies were made.
A comparison of the obverse flaws, which show slight die-degradation. The shape, appearance, and location of the damage show that the same dies were used to make both.
(The wing on the silver example):
(The wing on the gold example):
The maker’s mark has some characteristics worth noting:
a) The small vertical line above the 3rd T in “Hoffstätter”.
b) There is a thin, horizontal (& slightly curved) line, just below the hammer.
c) The overall thickness of the letters on the gold example, versus those on the silver example.
d) The little squiggly line next to the B in “Bonn”.
First, the silver example:
And the gold example:
All of the reverse characteristics I mentioned above, also point to the same set of dies being used, but have you noticed the difference in thickness between the letters of the silver example, and the gold example? The letters on the silver example are generally thinner, and sharper, which indicates that it was produced earlier than the gold example was.
I hope you’ve enjoyed this, and that it furthers discussion!
Thank you,
A.
Most collectors of American coins are probably familiar with “VAM varieties”, especially if they collect the Morgan Dollar series.
When coins are struck, there is a fixed-die and a working die. The working die strikes against the fixed-die, separated only by a thin piece of metal called a planchet. This takes place under thousands of pounds of pressure, which causes the metal from the planchet to flow into the designs which are engraved on the dies, resulting in the production of a coin.
Over time, the dies start to wear out, resulting in:
- Loss of sharpness to the details of the design.
- The addition of new features to the design (usually from cracks appearing in the dies, wear damage to them, excess polish remaining on the dies after the cleaning/polishing process).
There are also “flaws” which can be the result of:
- Errors made at the time the dies were engraved.
- How well the dies were cleaned and polished before and during their use.
In the Morgan Dollar coin series, these errors were (and still are) being cataloged and described as “VAM Varieties”, with a unique number given to each one. The short definition is that they are the variations and errors in the finished product that came about during the manufacturing process, and/or through the use of more than 1 die pair.
A collector of this specific area in coins can tell you that the study of VAM varieties allows them to determine the earliest struck piece to the last, how many different sets of dies were used, and authenticity itself.
How does knowledge of die flaws, and die characteristics benefit the tinnie collector?
Immediately, I thought of 2 good ways this would benefit us tinnie collectors, especially when it comes to less-commonly seen tinnies, where there was most-likely only 1 manufacturer, and very limited production:
- With a known, good example to compare against, it gives the collector the ability to authenticate their piece. It’s just another tool in the “arsenal” against fakers, which would be practically impossible for them to duplicate, since many die flaws can’t be readily seen with the naked eye. It may seem like overkill, but with some tinnies selling for hundreds of dollars, the incentive to fake them is definitely there.
- When comparing a tinnie with an intact paper label against one without a label, the presence of the same die flaws allows the collector to identify the maker of the unlabelled example. This is useful with the very early tinnies.
For the purpose of this study, I had some limitations:
- I only have 2 duplicates in my collection, and both are maker-marked, but demonstrate a few different concepts.
- The photographs were taken by aiming a compact digital camera through a stereoscope.
The tinnies used:
Oldenburg 34-02, marked Hoffstätter, Bonn, in Gold and Silver Grades.
Jugend 34-01, marked Reichsverband Pforzheim. One is numbered 4, and the other is numbered 53, but I was unable to photograph this detail (they’re under the end of the pin, near the catch).
I’ll start with Jugend 34-01, which demonstrates different die pairs in use:
In the example marked 4, the letter “H” is cleanly-struck (notice the lower-left area of the letter):
And now, the example marked 53:
The “53” marked example, shows excess remaining metal on the working die, which the engraver left behind. This resulted in an incuse striking flaw, which should be present on all “53”-marked examples, since the inclusion of the flaw was from the manufacturing of the die.
Oldenburg 34-01 demonstrates two things: the exact same die pair in use, which produced 2 tinnies at different times, as evidenced by wear to the die:
The die characteristics of these two, are as follows:
- The eagle’s right wing shows raised “blobby-looking” bubbles that show the die had damage to it, at the time these 2 tinnies were made.
A comparison of the obverse flaws, which show slight die-degradation. The shape, appearance, and location of the damage show that the same dies were used to make both.
(The wing on the silver example):
(The wing on the gold example):
The maker’s mark has some characteristics worth noting:
a) The small vertical line above the 3rd T in “Hoffstätter”.
b) There is a thin, horizontal (& slightly curved) line, just below the hammer.
c) The overall thickness of the letters on the gold example, versus those on the silver example.
d) The little squiggly line next to the B in “Bonn”.
First, the silver example:
And the gold example:
All of the reverse characteristics I mentioned above, also point to the same set of dies being used, but have you noticed the difference in thickness between the letters of the silver example, and the gold example? The letters on the silver example are generally thinner, and sharper, which indicates that it was produced earlier than the gold example was.
I hope you’ve enjoyed this, and that it furthers discussion!
Thank you,
A.
Comment