Overlay experts - seeking your help - I keep getting an error

[jfines69]

Those images in the article were from 1998(?).
Was the date applied with a "punch" for each numeral (like applying a mint mark then) or was it carved into the master after it was created using the galvano?

I agree but it would be hard to know if the process changed any from, say 1909, where the mint has almost 90 years until the first two digits would have to changed.
The following is newbie speculation_ ....... The first two digits may have been part of the design on the galvano(?) back in 1909. This scenario would make sense from an efficiency standpoint. This would account for the 19 being consistently placed year to year.
Also there may have been a "jig" when applying the date to the master (or was it carved into the master?). That would keep the first two consistantly spaced/placed. The placement of the 3rd and 4rth digits could theoretically move slightly, even in a "jig', if the 1 was inverted and the numeral was not perfectly centered in the metal "punch".

I do not remember when they stopped hand punching the dates on... Now I need to do some research... Hopefully I can find the info!!!

[Justafarmer]

I think 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925 have a common 3 digit sub-master in their lineage as the attached overlay images indicate. Think I plotted the 1923 date to far west - just a mite.

[Petespockets55]

I think 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925 have a common 3 digit sub-master in their lineage as the attached overlay images indicate. Think I plotted the 1923 date to far west - just a mite.

Neat how this lets you compare devices on different coins.

[Justafarmer]

I Re-plotted the 1923 Date the results are in attached images

[Petespockets55]

I Re-plotted the 1923 Date the results are in attached images

Thanks. It looked like it would fall in line once it was replotted.

[jfines69]

The first plotting of the 23 could represent a slightly misaligned die!!!

[stoneman227]

Just wondering where you got your pics of the coins you originally used. If the were in any way not parallel to the film/sensor plane them some distortion could occur.
Check out my post here for an example.

http://www.lincolncentforum.com/forum/showthread.php?40033-Questioning-1911-D-rpm-3&highlight=1911-d

John

[jallengomez]

Have you read the notes and more detailed design changes in the Variety Vista word document? See link-

http://varietyvista.com/01a%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%201/images/LC%20Obverse%20Design%20Changes.doc

[Justafarmer]

Mostly utilizing images from PCGS Coinfacts and Heritage Auctions. I am making my overlays and plotting based on and relative to the design elements LIBERTY and IGWT.

[stoneman227]

I can't guarantee this overlay is perfect so be my guest and use the originals I am posting here for your project.
The 12-S is unc. but the 10-S is just the best I have. They were both shot , one after the other so camera setup can be out of the equation . The third pic is the overlay.

John

[Justafarmer]

I can't guarantee this overlay is perfect so be my guest and use the originals I am posting here for your project.
The 12-S is unc. but the 10-S is just the best I have. They were both shot , one after the other so camera setup can be out of the equation . The third pic is the overlay.

John

Thanks - now I'll re-plot and see if I can emulate your results. It might take me a minute or two.

[Justafarmer]

Had to re-plot the 1910 Cad rendering. Didn't adjust 1912. Keep in mind there is some degrading of the image when converting a CAD drawing to a jpeg.

Image 1 - The re-plotted 1910 overlaid onto the 1910 Stoneman provided.
Image 2 - The original 1912 overlaid onto the 1912 Stoneman provided
Image 3 - The 1910 Cad rendering overlaid onto the 1912 Cad rendering
Image 4 - The combined 1910_1912 rendering overlaid onto Stoneman's 1910_1912 overlay
Image 5 - The date extracted from the combined Cad rendering and overlaid onto the Date only overlay image provided by Stoneman

Looking at the overlay (Date Only) it does appear these years have a common 3 digit master in their lineage. Also if you look at the 3 digits - the "1"s are shorter for 1912 which indicates to me that a HUB used for 1912 was modified.

[ray_parkhurst]

The "2" punch may have been a new one that was a bit smaller, and to make it visibly fit better with the rest of the numerals (especially the 2nd 1) the other numerals were adjusted on the hub(s).

[Justafarmer]

I have adjusted and re-plotted 1909 through 1916. The following images are

1. 1909 through 1916 overlaid onto each other - Cad rendering only
2. The above Cad rendering overlaid onto Stoneman's 1910/1912 overlay
3. Date extracted from the 1909 through 1912 Cad rendering
4. The extracted Cad rendering of the Date overlaid onto Stoneman's 1910/1912 cropped date image
5. The extracted Cad rendering of the date only (from above) with only the 1910 and 1912 dates remaining

[ray_parkhurst]

Wow, that is super cool. Could the variations in the numerals of 19 be just due to alignment and rendering errors, or do you think there is actual differences? It appears a new punch was created almost every year for the second "1" and of course a new/different punch for the last digit.

Really nice study, will be good to hear all the comments from folks more knowledgeable than I regarding the die making process early in the 20th.