Question re. life cycles of production dies.

13 posts

» Quick access to the last post

Does anyone have a reliable source for this information? While it would be interesting to know about the lifespan of modern dies and how it relates to the types of metal used, what I really need to know is the lifespan of dies used in the older presses of the early industrial age. I guess the information about modern practices might be obtained from the current mints, that's not really what I'm looking for. Perhaps it might help if I explained how the information is to be used.

I'm trying to arrange a divorce.

No, my beautiful green eyed, half Irish, half Sicilian lovely isn't coming back onto the market. Got your attention though maybe? The divorce I'm referring to is that between the grading standards applied to modern coins and those produced using far simpler tech. I think everyone understands that you can't apply the same standards to a brand new 2018 BU Lincoln cent that you would to a Victorian Penny. They simply don't exist in that state any more and arguably (see below) never did. Yet here we all are trying to do exactly that with our current systems of grading coins.

A large part of the argument is to be based on the fact that in less quality conscious times, the use of worn dies and low pressure strikes means that coins didn't generally have the same level of detail even when newly minted. It's difficult to prove though as the population of 250 year old mint state coins is quite tiny and I suspect that it's possible that those pieces preserved by long ago collectors were chosen from coins struck by new dies and are atypical of the majority.

I reckon there's an even stronger case to be made for pre industrial age hammered coins but as that's way outside my pay grade I'll stick with what I know.

Did mintmasters follow the modern industrial practice of replacing parts after a fixed number of strikes regardless of condition, or did they simply wait for the die to become unusable?

How common was retooling?

Did provincial mints or private mints like Boulton's simply shut down production while waiting for copies cut from the master dies to be delivered?

Does anyone even know how many presses were in use during a typical production run?


These and a thousand others are the kind of questions I'd like to be able to answer. I'm hoping that the information hasn't been lost to us but I've had no luck in finding any of it. So perhaps a coin forum might be a good place to try?
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
Huge question my friend. Boulton was obsessed with quality to the extent espionage was a huge problem for him. (Even the moneyers at the Royal Mint kept poking about trying to nick his tech.)

'Pre' Boulton, the RM mints equipment dated to 1662, using the same old techniques. Other mints were more advanced, but many resisted due to the same fears as today. Technology costing jobs and privilege.

Anyway... Boulton 'thought' he had a regal contract in 1788 I think it was, so setup the first ever steam powered mint, along with the all important standardisation. Unfortunately it turned out not to be and he spent the next 9 years producing tokens and refining the process.

He controlled the whole process, employing people to press, harden, engrave and polish the dyes, especially the master dies. He employed names like Wyon throughout his times, but there were many. The hammer die was used for around 20,000 strikes and the anvil die for around 45,000. They used active quality control though, generally having 3-4 dies available for each press in case one started to fail. He was especially anal about the dies, searching everywhere for the right hardened steel.

All this is relevant [in GB] until 1860-1892
Let’s hear more oggy!
Taking a break from swapping for a while, but still interested in pre 1799 Spanish coins, I will make time for that!

Looking for pre 1783 coins
Quote: "redsmithstudios"​Let’s hear more oggy!

I wouldn't even know where to start, so you'll have to be a bit more specific about what you'd like to hear more about!

I've just realised what a hugely massive coin collecting nerd I have become though. 8)
I know a bit about the die numbers used on some Victorian coins, but I'm not sure if it was a particularly scientific experiment and whether any records have survived to show what data they were able to collect.
Quote: "oggy"

​I've just realised what a hugely massive coin collecting nerd I have become though. 8)
Hardly a lamentable tragedy, now is it? :P
Outstanding Oggy, you are a jewel among men. I'm really glad I asked here.

Do you have a source for the number of strikes used by the Soho Mint? And for comparison how does this compare to the regal mints? Interesting that the two parts of the die wear out at diffent rates, I hadn't even considered that possibility. It does make perfect sense though that the static half of the pairing would suffer less damage. Great information! I'll have to give some thought to how that would impact the coin population. While at first glance it might seem that Boulton's product undermines the theory that older coins can't be judged by modren standards but I beg to differ. I'd like to be able to prove that it's exactly because of his forward thinking that his offerings are the exception.

Just to clarify, are the figures of 20,000 and 45,000 strokes an average lifespan or was that just the point at which experience suggested the dies should be discarded before problems arose? The difference might seem unimportant but if it's the latter it would put Boulton many years ahead of his time. In many idustries such practices didn't become commonplace until the introduction of ESTA type monitoring and formalised QA practices over 200 years later. I was for many years a service tech in both the paper and carpet industries so I have an equally nerdy obsession with such details and an understanding of their potential significance.

I think most coin collectors have a reverence for Boulton which is in my view more than justified. Here's a question for everyone familiar with British issues (and the anticipated answer might be very revealing of where exactly I'm going with all of this).... have you ever seen a badly struck Cartwheel?

Would you think it fair to say that Boulton enjoyed far more freedom in his relationship with the Royal Mint than that of a provincial mintmaster?

Jesse, I'd welcome any information about die numbers. I'm guessing you are referring to the mid Victorian silver issues? These would be firmly on the modern side f the equation and would be a useful comparison. I reckon it's difficult to state the exact border between modern coins and the older, cruder issues but I've always considered it to be the 1787 currency reform.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
The average number of coins per die for the French Revolutionary Cinq Centimes and 1 and
2 Décimes was 18 000 - 20 000. This information is from here page 17 - 20, unfortunately completely in French. These figures match with the British figures.
These coins have been struck in huge quantities and are still relatively common in low grades, but almost impossible to find in AU or better.
It is a very fascinating series with
Ma collection de Révolutionnaires - My coins from the French Revolution
Quote: "pnightingale"
​Jesse, I'd welcome any information about die numbers. I'm guessing you are referring to the mid Victorian silver issues? These would be firmly on the modern side f the equation and would be a useful comparison. I reckon it's difficult to state the exact border between modern coins and the older, cruder issues but I've always considered it to be the 1787 currency reform.
​I go by the 1816 currency reform or "Great Recoinage", although 1787 isn't completely unreasonable; just that to my knowledge very few non-Maundy (silver) issues were actually struck in the period 1787-1816, with the exception of the Soho mint coins and some Bank of England issues.

1816 I prefer since you can see more definitively a machine-struck precision and uniformity in the final issues of the reign of George III (from the sixpence to the sovereigns) that would continue to characterise British coinage until today. Contrast that to the (comparatively) cruder 1787 sixpence and shilling, and pre-George III issues.
Quote: "pnightingale"​Outstanding Oggy, you are a jewel among men. I'm really glad I asked here.

​Do you have a source for the number of strikes used by the Soho Mint? And for comparison how does this compare to the regal mints? Interesting that the two parts of the die wear out at diffent rates, I hadn't even considered that possibility. It does make perfect sense though that the static half of the pairing would suffer less damage. Great information! I'll have to give some thought to how that would impact the coin population. While at first glance it might seem that Boulton's product undermines the theory that older coins can't be judged by modren standards but I beg to differ. I'd like to be able to prove that it's exactly because of his forward thinking that his offerings are the exception.

​Just to clarify, are the figures of 20,000 and 45,000 strokes an average lifespan or was that just the point at which experience suggested the dies should be discarded before problems arose? The difference might seem unimportant but if it's the latter it would put Boulton many years ahead of his time. In many idustries such practices didn't become commonplace until the introduction of ESTA type monitoring and formalised QA practices over 200 years later. I was for many years a service tech in both the paper and carpet industries so I have an equally nerdy obsession with such details and an understanding of their potential significance.

​I think most coin collectors have a reverence for Boulton which is in my view more than justified. Here's a question for everyone familiar with British issues (and the anticipated answer might be very revealing of where exactly I'm going with all of this).... have you ever seen a badly struck Cartwheel?

​Would you think it fair to say that Boulton enjoyed far more freedom in his relationship with the Royal Mint than that of a provincial mintmaster?

​Jesse, I'd welcome any information about die numbers. I'm guessing you are referring to the mid Victorian silver issues? These would be firmly on the modern side f the equation and would be a useful comparison. I reckon it's difficult to state the exact border between modern coins and the older, cruder issues but I've always considered it to be the 1787 currency reform.

I'll try to answer this step by step, so if I miss anything out just yell and we'll return to it. I'll also link a 300 page PhD thesis at the end of the post so if you REALLY want to read about Boulton, you can.

​Do you have a source for the number of strikes used by the Soho Mint? And for comparison how does this compare to the regal mints?​

- I'll get back to this in answer to a later question, but I don't have exact numbers for all coins. I believe the royal mint kept records of the number of dies though, and it came to roughly 60% more hammer dies than anvil dies (And anvil dies cost more)

Interesting that the two parts of the die wear out at diffent rates, I hadn't even considered that possibility. It does make perfect sense though that the static half of the pairing would suffer less damage.

- The hammer die was also shorter so it could be placed nicely over the blank, meaning it couldn't take the blow as effectively as a longer die.
-
I'll have to give some thought to how that would impact the coin population. While at first glance it might seem that Boulton's product undermines the theory that older coins can't be judged by modren standards but I beg to differ. I'd like to be able to prove that it's exactly because of his forward thinking that his offerings are the exception.

-
Absolutely correct. The Royal Mint studiously ripped off his designs and engineering, and once his son took over they had to move everything in house. He was the pioneer of many things mint related.

​Just to clarify, are the figures of 20,000 and 45,000 strokes an average lifespan or was that just the point at which experience suggested the dies should be discarded before problems arose? The difference might seem unimportant but if it's the latter it would put Boulton many years ahead of his time. In many idustries such practices didn't become commonplace until the introduction of ESTA type monitoring and formalised QA practices over 200 years later. I was for many years a service tech in both the paper and carpet industries so I have an equally nerdy obsession with such details and an understanding of their potential significance.

- I agree, very important, and it's the latter.

This was in 1791 about an EIC issue: (actual quote but slight paraphrase)
"Request Lawson consult with Nichols about supplying the mint constantly with perfect neat sharp well polished dies which should be changed after striking 30-40k peices"
"There must always be 3 dies per working press, and ideally 4 and I think they should be changed every 5-6 hours as I'm not happy with our quality - The 3rd set should be in the hands of the examiner/polisher to ensure its A-OK. No dies may be worked after losing sharpness and polish"

Basically, he setup everything from getting good quality copper to perfect steel, to perfect engineering, to make his product far superior from the pack.

I think most coin collectors have a reverence for Boulton which is in my view more than justified. Here's a question for everyone familiar with British issues (and the anticipated answer might be very revealing of where exactly I'm going with all of this).... have you ever seen a badly struck Cartwheel?

No. The 1799 Farthings were also excellent, and examples of perfectly uniform coin. Quality I personally believe suffered a little with the 1806 and 1807 pennies, but the rest were good.

Would you think it fair to say that Boulton enjoyed far more freedom in his relationship with the Royal Mint than that of a provincial mintmaster?

Yes and no. The mint hounded him for access and technology (as did foreign powers), but in terms of how he wanted to make the coins, he was king.

These would be firmly on the modern side f the equation and would be a useful comparison. I reckon it's difficult to state the exact border between modern coins and the older, cruder issues but I've always considered it to be the 1787 currency reform.

I think you answered this yourself. The 1797 Cartwheel issues and the 1799 farthings were the first 'modern' coinage in the UK. Not sure what Casstaylor is talking about specifically, as the only silver coinage soho struck were EIC issues and tokens, no regal issues.

Additionally the RM actually all but shutdown in 1786, and produced no copper at all from 1773 until 1821. a A few maundy sets were produced in this period, but if you look at the 1800 Maundy set for example, you'll see it's crude without proper QC.(When they opened using Boultons methods and Quality control). It's why you see so many well struck halfpenny/penny tokens for that period. Most of them produced by SOHO as they improved their minting processes.

Once Boulton died, the RM were more able to move on his industries and take the technology, and it took them a few years to get going. Once it reopened using the new tech and learned to use it, it was far better.

If you fancy some deep reading about Boulton specifically: rhttp://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3202/9/Tungate_11_PhD_minusvol2.pdf
Now this is why I like Numista!!! Thanks oggy & phil!!!
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.  It's what you know for sure, that just ain't so.  Mark Twain
Thank you gentlemen, that's a lot of information to digest. Give me a few days to do so and then supplementary question may follow.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
I'm still trying to process the current information and work through the pdf file.

Until then, let me briefly address the issue of the dividing line between modern and pre industrial coinage. I've somewhat dodged the question by starting my collection with the 1707 Act of Union, which gives a quite neat 260 year window for explicitly "British" coins. So yeah, that's a bit of a copout. The releases of 1787 don't just represent a more lifelike image of the sickly, ageing monarch and some apparent advances in technology. There's also the sheer scale of production to be considered. I'd be fairly confident in saying that this represents the first genuine example of mass production. That's why they're cheap!

A collection from 1787 though wouldn't be appealing to me as I find all the 18th century coins to be pretty impressive. I guess it would make more sense from a purely numismatic standpoint to start with Queen Anne in 1702. Coins from the 1600s are just a little too crude for my tastes and I'm satisfied that there's enough of a difference between those and the coins of Anne to justify making that a good place to start. However it's a largely academic matter as my collection is pretty sparse at the earlier part.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 11:59.