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: r
http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3202/9/Tungate_11_PhD_minusvol2.pdf