1878-S dollar. Can you separate fact from fiction?

[RogerB]

Here's a good test of critical thinking abilities. List the facts; list the assertions; list the falsehoods; list the Santa Claus list.

See how well you do.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussio ... gan-dollar

[RogerB]

Hint: Work in chronological order.

[RogerB]

Your research should have taken you back to this thread ATS:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussio ... gan-dollar

[RogerB]

OK. Simple answer w/o footnotes.

Dies received late April 16.

First coins struck afternoon of April 17. Ten (approx) for distribution, then rest run at power until reverse die broke just short of 1,000 pieces.

Only coins from this die pair, called VAM-60, were made the first day. No other coins share this reverse.

The so-called "Specimen" touted by a TPG is merely an early strike off a new die pair. It has not connection to the first coins struck at SF. There is no documentation about it being specially made, or any other unique circumstances. Therefore, it earns no special designation, and no special label. It is, in my opinion, worth what a buyer cares to pay without consideration of the label.

Further the word "Specimen" is undefined and has no meaning.

[78-sLongnock]

You are correct, the 1878-S Vam 60 was the first strike of the B-1 Rev in the afternoon of April 17th 1878.
The first 10 were handed out the the dignitaries in the audience.
Henry Dodge ( Head of SF mint ) sent Director Mr Linderman (Head of all Mints) Announcing via Telegraph that the first Morgan’s were minted. By the time Mr Linderman (head of the Mint) answered via telegraph later in the month of April
“That he wanted 5 of them”, it was to late.
So Dodge authorized that the die pair of Vam 58 were to be polished up and the first five were sent to Linderman.
The progression for this run is as follow: Vam 58, Vam 56 and finally Vam 62.
Below is a Rev pic of the 78-s Vam 58 and is possible one of the other 5 ( I believe) that were sent to Director Linderman.
( BTW, this was all noted in my presentation at the Jan FUN show back in 2019.)

[RogerB]

RE: "So Dodge authorized that the die pair of Vam 58 were to be polished up and the first five were sent to Linderman.
The progression for this run is as follow: Vam 58, Vam 56 and finally Vam 62.
Here is one of the other 5 ( I believe) that was sent to Director Linderman."

This might be true, but there is no evidence. Carson also sent 5 coins as requested on the same date Apr 29. By the time the request was made, SF was producing coins. There was no purpose for Dodge to do any more than was done on the 17th. On the 18th, a total of 2,000 coins were delivered to the Cashier.

A telegram sent by Dodge at 5 PM on April 20 stated that “eight reverse and three obverse dies for the new dollar have been condemned.” This means that no more than 48,000 coins had been struck from eight reverse and three obverse dies.

If no other coins share the reverse with VAM 60 and only VAM 26, and VAM 57 share the obverse, then VAM 56 and 58 are not germane.

[messydesk]

...
Further the word "Specimen" is undefined and has no meaning.

This is a recurring problem exacerbated by the fact that TPGs want a two letter abbreviation to put in front of the numeric grade to tell us all about the coin. Fortunately, the word "special" also starts with "SP," and that comes in handy when trying to define what it means.

What we refer to as normal business strikes are made using:
- Normal production press configuration
- Normal production dies
- Normal production planchets
- Normal post-coining handling procedures

Proof coins are made using:
- Presses configured for proofs
- Proof dies
- Specially prepared planchets
- Special care when handling

Some modern production techniques make this even harder to follow, but that's not being considered here.

If you combine all the possibilities of press configuration, dies, planchets, and handling, there are 16 different types of coins that can be made, where MS and PR precisely cover 2. All of the other 14 are possible, even if not realistic. Proof dies in normal production has happened, and those end up getting called MS coins, often with a PL honorific. Presses configured for proof production wouldn't normally be used with normal dies, planchets, and handling procedures, so those combinations don't come into play. Many combinations remain, however, and the problematic "SP" prefix covers them. The 78-S VAM 58 said to be the Linderman specimen shows signs of special care when handling and arguably signs of the press being set differently from what it would have been for normal production. The facts are that Linderman requested 5 coins, was provided with 5 coins, and was impressed by them enough to mention it when he paid for them. Assuming the provenance is correct, the subject coin, struck from fresh dies, is one of those 5. Unfortunately, there is no documentation indicating deviation from normal production practices. The coin is providing the evidence, albeit circumstantial, for that.

[RogerB]

The Ajax toggle press in use on the 17th produced the same pressure regardless of how it was activated -- manually or by power belt. (This was an immense advantage of Peale's 1836 design.) It would be wasteful and pointless to take the time to adjust the spacing wedge - which had to be tested every time it was moved - without some significant purpose. same applies to the other 2 presses also available.

If we assume that the TPG word "Specimen" has some meaning related to special treatment, then we are left with trying to figure out IF there was any reason for special treatment. A coin made from a new dies pair will ALWAYS look nicer than one made, 1000 piece later - initial die wear is dulling to sharp detail and begins metal shifting that produced luster. Merely pulling a coin off the top of the receiving hopper before the next one can hit it is not "special."

The whole TPG claim of a "Specimen" 1878-S dollar is nothing more than ignorance combined with promotional lies and greed.

[78-sLongnock]

So per you “only 8 Rev and 3 OB where used” for the production of the 78-s B-1’s
So please explain the following die progression’s

Series 1: Vam 60, Vam 26 EDS, Vam 57 Type 1 & 2 Vam 26 LDS, Vam 57 Type 3, 4, & 5. (Only 1 OB used for all Three and 3 different Rev’s on each of them)
Series 2: Vam 58, Vam 56, and 62. ( 2 OB’s and 2 Rev’s )
Series 3: Vam 72 and Vam 59. ( 1 OB and 2 Rev’s)
Series 4: Vam 27 and vam 27A. (1 OB and 1 Rev)
My math adds up to 5 OBs and 8 Revs
BTW all the the about Vams are in hand and are highest grades known

Below are pics of a Vam 60 in 63 DMPL

[RogerB]

Permit me to state up front that "die progressions" involve a lot of assumptions and I really do not pay much attention to them. Here are a few facts and I leave it to you and other dedicated specialists to take things from there.

Dodge received 10 pairs on the 16th. His next batch of 15 arrived on the 25th or 26th.
Here are two central documents:

1) SF dollars delivered in April, and
2) Dodge's telegram at end of day April 20.

Pages from RG104 E-271 Vol 1 Detail.jpg (137 KiB) Viewed 3058 times

18780420 SF Dies condemned_Page_1.jpg (159.76 KiB) Viewed 3058 times

Notice that through close of business April 20 48,000 silver dollars had been delivered. Also through close of business the same day, Dodge telegraphed "Eight reverse and three obverse dies for the new dollar have been condemned."

This means there could have been eight different reverse dies paired with three obverse dies to make 48,000 good coins. (Some dies might have been ruined during heat treatment.)

We know that one combination, VAM-60, made less than 1,000 pieces on the 17th. Since the identical obverse was used with other reverse dies, we know that it was the reverse that failed. This leaves us with 7 rev and 3 obv dies to make 47,000 coins.

But --- Deliveries are not necessarily good coins struck. The next delivery of 8,000 on the 22nd might have included some coins struck on the 20th, but with dies that remained usable.

Further --- A poorly hardened and tempered die can deteriorate very quickly; same basic steps seen in a die that lasted for 300,000 strikes, merely occurs much faster. (This is a caveat about any die progression where we assume some sort of arbitrary quantity of coins struck in order to create each of the "die states.")

PS: Your VAM-60 is consistent in appearance with a coin off new, gently polished dies, and is certainly one of the first 1,000 struck. In my simple-minded opinion, it is far more interesting and valuable than the bogus "Specimen" of a different variety touted by PCGS.

[messydesk]

The telegram saying how many dies were condemned doesn't really say how many were used through 4/20. Many could have been deemed useless before being put in a press. We do know that one that was used and condemned was the VAM 60 obverse. We also know that the VAM 57 and 26 used the same reverse obverse. Given the delivery numbers, those three varieties could account for the other 47,000, but that's not certain. Perhaps it was only 2, meaning of the 10 die pairs sent, 2 reverses were usable, with at least one being condemned by 6:45 pm on the 20th. 6 or 7 would have been unusable from the start. The VAM 60-26-57 obverse may have been the only obverse in use through the 20th, meaning the 3 condemned obverses were never usable. So starting on the 22nd (4/21 was Easter Sunday), there were 2 reverses and 7 obverses that were either not yet determined to be unusable or were still in the press. By the 26th, it would seem they ran out of reverses, with the second reverse in use, and the bulk of the production being the VAM 27, which is the most common B1 reverse. The VAM 58 wasn't made until later, and the VAM 72 and 59 share the obverse with VAM 18, which is a B2 reverse.

One unprovable yet plausible assumption could be that the production was:

4/17 1000 VAM 60 (counted on 4/18)
4/18 1000 VAM 26
4/19 24000 VAM 57
4/20 22000 VAM 26
4/22 8000 VAM 57
4/23-25 86000 VAM 27
4/26 out of reverses, wait for more dies
4/29 10000 VAM 58

[78-sLongnock]

To Clarify Messydesk’ above notes
1878-s Vam 60, 26, and 57 used the same (1) OB But 3 different Revs
1878-s Vam 58 used 1 OB Shares Rev with Vam 56,
1878-s vam 56 used 1 OB shared with vam 62
1878-s vam 62 used 1 Rev not shared with any other B-1
1878-s vam 27 and 27A used one OB and one Rev not used any where else
1878-s vam 72 and vam 59 share the same OB but your 2 different Revs
In all 5 OBs and 8 Rev’s were used in the minting of the B-1 no matter when the Dies
Showed up in San Francisco

Roger can you share the date when the telegraph from Linderman to Dodge was received asking for
5 First strike Morgan’s?

[messydesk]

April 29, 1878, telegram from Linderman:
"Requests that five standard silver dollars of the coinage be forwarded."

[RogerB]

The "Five standard dollars of this coinage" merely means Linderman wants 5 coins from those currently being made up to that date -- i.e., "Don't make anything special." This is a common request and is also used in relation to selecting Annual Assay coins and Special Assay pieces. There are multiple letters reminding Coiners (and Superintendents) not to "cherrypick" coins.

As for the dies condemned as of CoB on the 20th, Dodge does not tell us which ones (by die number). That info might be in the die report he sent Linderman in early May, but the document has not been located. (This might be something to look for the SF "Letters Sent" E-1.1 “Letters Sent,” Box 5: Oct 1877-Dec 1878. If anyone is going to look I can give them the date.) We have the one from May 15 to June 30.

[RogerB]

RE: "We do know that one that was used and condemned was the VAM 60 obverse. We also know that the VAM 57 and 26 used the same reverse."

Wait a minute....in one place I'm told the VAM 60 reverse was not used with any but the one obverse die. Also, that the obverse was paired with several other reverse dies.

Now you're saying the VAM60 reverse was used for VAM 26 and 57.

If the first die was VAM 60 and it cracked before 1,000 were made, then either the obverse was condemned or the reverse was condemned --- can't be both or neither.

Please clarify.

[RogerB]

RE: "We do know that one that was used and condemned was the VAM 60 obverse. We also know that the VAM 57 and 26 used the same reverse."

Wait a minute....in one place I'm told the VAM 60 reverse was not used with any but the one obverse die. Also, that the obverse was paired with several other reverse dies.

Now you're saying the VAM60 reverse was used for VAM 26 and 57.

If the first die was VAM 60 and it cracked before 1,000 were made, then either the obverse was condemned or the reverse was condemned --- can't be both or neither. Which die for VAM 60 was never used again?

Please clarify.

[vampicker]

The VAM 60 reverse die was only used for the VAM 60

The obverse was used for the other two marriages noted.

[RogerB]

That is what I understood.

Where did this come from: "We also know that the VAM 57 and 26 used the same reverse." This statement clearly says VAM 26 and 57 used the same ("identical')reverse....or is that supposed to refer the the REV HUB design not the specific die?

BTW -- the following from the SF letter book might help. These are the telegrams/letters sent by Dodge. Note that he received an additional 15 die pairs on the 26th. [RG104 ARC 1633988, Box 5 of 36 “Letters Sent to Mint Bureau Officials.”]

p.281
April 19, 1878
Director Mint
Washington D.C.

Six dies already broken- send more immediately Scott causes me great anxiety. I shall have another man try a different process of hardening to-morrow.
H.L. Dodge, Superintendent.


p.285
April 24, 1878
Director Mint
Washington D.C.

Cicott and Bowen have both been successful in hardening dies. I anticipate no further trouble. Have given Scott two weeks leave of absence.
H.L. Dodge, Superintendent.


p.285
April 26, 1878
Hon. H.R. Linderman
Director of the Mint
Washington D.C.

Sir:
The fifteen pairs of dies for Standard Silver dollars shipment of which was advised in yours of the 18th inst., have been received
Very Respectfully
H.L. Dodge, Superintendent.


p.293
April 30, 1878
Hon. H.R. Linderman
Director of the Mint
Washington D.C.

Sir:
In compliance with your request by telegraph yesterday, I forward to your address per registered mail five Standard Silver dollars.
Very Respectfully
H.L. Dodge, Superintendent.

p.294
April 30, 1878
Director Mint
Washington D.C.

Twelve obverse dies and two reverse on hand send more soon as possible.
H.L. Dodge, Superintendent.


p.301
May 3, 1878
Hon. H.R. Linderman
Director of the Mint
Washington D.C.

Sir
I have received the fifteen pairs of Standard Silver Dollar dies as per your letter of advice dated 25th ultimo
Very Respectfully
H.L. Dodge, Superintendent.


p.305
May 6, 1878
Hon. H.R. Linderman
Director of the Mint
Washington D.C.

Sir:
I have the honor to inform you that we have three presses running on Standard dollars and are turning out about 10,000 a day. We shall only continue at this rate a few days until the great accumulation in the Coiner’s vaults is reduced. Nearly all the silver in the
Mint was in blanks ready for the press and it was very desirable to get these out of the way.
Respectfully
H.L. Dodge, Superintendent.


pp.322-325
May 21, 1878
Hon. H. R. Linderman,
Director of the Mint

Sir:
In response to your telegram of the 20th inst. calling for my reasons for dispensing with the services of Thomas Scott I have the honor to reply:
Mr. Scott was represented to me when I entered upon the duties of this office as an expert at hardening and tempering dies, the only person in this mint able to do that
work. He is a man considerably advanced in years and during the first two or three weeks of my incumbency in this office he was obliged to be absent one or more days on account of sickness. We were then much pressed with business having a large accumulation of deposits, and depositors clamorous for trade dollars. Dies were breaking frequently and work on the presses consequently delayed.
I at once recognized the importance of having another man instructed in the art of hardening, tempering basining etc. of dies, and upon inquiry learned that some months before, a machinist by the name of Y.N. Hawks had been employed in the mint, recommended by Mr. Scott and to whom Mr. Scott had agreed to impart all the knowledge he possessed on the subject of dies. Mr. Hawks was paid an extra compensation owing to his superior skill but Mr. Scott failed to instruct him as he had agreed to do.
About the 24th of January last I had an interview with Mr. Scott on the subject, reminding him of his recent illness and absence from duty and the importance of having another man who could do his work and also of the previous understanding that he would instruct Mr. Hawks and asked him if he would do so. Mr. Scott’s reply to me was that although he had promised to instruct Mr. H. he had changed his mind that his knowledge was his capital and that he would not impart it to anyone. I thus informed Mr. Scott that I considered it my duty to hire another man instructed in that department and on the same day 24th January in my note to you I said Scott the Machinist utterly refuses to instruct Hawks or any one else in his process of hardening dies etc.
On the 26th of the same month, Jan. 78, Mr. Cicott, the Coiner, addressed me a letter, a copy of which was forwarded to you, in which he says: “During Director Linderman’s last visit to the mint he decided with me as to the importance of having in this department another machinist besides Mr. Scott (the foreman of the machine shop) who was familiar with the intricacies of hardening and basining dies and other specialties of mint work.
“A new machinist was there upon appointed with the express view of receiving such instructions as were necessary upon these points. But Mr. Scott says now upon deliberation and reconsideration that in Justice to himself he cannot give the required information, etc. ++++++ and I would suggest that if there is at the Philadelphia Mint a competent machinist who is skilled in this work and who can be spared from there, that it would be advisable to transfer him to this Mint +++++++.
“As he persistently refuses to instruct another person, in my opinion the course I above purpose of importing a man from Philadelphia who is already familiar with this work would be the best one to pursue.”
During the time I have been connected with this Mint I have had numerous complaints from the Coiner of insubordination and profane language on the part of Mr. Scott. On one occasion Mr. Cicott directed one of the Machinists in Mr. Scott’s department to make some repairs to an elevator, which order Mr. Scott countermanded using very disrespectful language towards Mr. Cicott. When I remonstrated with Mr. S. and reminded him that Mr. Cicott orders should be respected he remarked to me. “Mr. Cicott is a young man and when he is older he will know more.”
....On the 17th of April I received ten pairs of Standard dollar dies together with a long letter of instructions and suggestion from Mr. Barber the Engraver at the Philadelphia Mint, relative to their treatment in hardening, etc. These dies together with Mr. Barber’s letter I sent to Mr. Scott. On the afternoon of the same day notice was given that coining of the new dollar would commence and a number of visitors came in by invitation. Less than one thousand pieces were struck when a die broke and work was suspended. The next day following little progress was made and on Saturday after four days trial I found seven pairs of dies had been condemned and only 48,000 pieces struck and very many of them were made after cracks were developed in the dies. During all this time Mr. Scott appeared dogged and sullen.
On the 19th I telegraphed you “Six dies already broken – send more immediately. Scott causes me great anxiety. I shall have another man try a different process of hardening to-morrow.”
On Saturday 20th April I called Mr. Scott in consultation and then learned he had not read Mr. Barber’s letter. I sent for the letter and at my request he read it in my office- I asked him if it contained any suggestions of use to him. He replied quite contemptuously, “No Sir, not the slightest. Mr. Barber ought to know better by this time than to give me any more instructions” or words to that effect. Mr. Scott at that interview suggested that Mr. Bowen foreman of the press room undertake the work of hardening, he, Bowen, having had experience in working steel. I adopted the suggestion and requested Mr. Cicott and Mr. Bowen to undertake the work. In a very few days and with very little loss of dies their success was assured and the presses kept constantly running. You will remember that several months ago I requested you to send me a suitable person
to do Mr. Scott’s work and owing to the many complains made against him I should have dismissed him long ago had I not indulged in the popular belief here, that his services could not be dispensed with without detriment to the public service.
Your telegram came late yesterday and I was obliged to delay my answer till today. I have requested the Coiner to give his views on the subject which he has done in writing a copy of which I enclose herewith.

Respectfully
H.L. Dodge, Superintendent.

[vampicker]

Where did this come from: "We also know that the VAM 57 and 26 used the same reverse." This statement clearly says VAM 26 and 57 used the same ("identical')reverse....or is that supposed to refer the the REV HUB design not the specific die?

Think it was simply a typo and he meant obverse. The three VAMs actually do share an identical obverse

[RogerB]

OK. Thank you!