How do overdates happen?

As the title says, how do overdates happen? Just to make sure I'm using the correct term, I mean when one number is on top of another on a coin. It seems like with the way a coin is made, there's no reason that should ever happen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Okay there are two types of overdates:

Old (pre-hub) each digit of the date was punched into the die by hand. Then the die is still good, so they punched a new(er) date into the die.

or

With hubbing of dies:

First the die is hubbed, or the design is placed on the die, then it is reheated and done a second time.. that is also how a doubled die occurs.

In the same way, with the second hubbing the wrong date is used, or just to save money, as in war time with the 1943/2 Jeff nickel, or the Merc dimes.

So, very technically, an overdate, like the 1942/1 Philly or Denver dimes, is actually a doubled die, but only part of the doubling (the date change) is normally visible.

 

Dies are expensive to produce, and before the 20th century most mints would rather alter an existing die to show the new date than scrap it if it was not too worn.

 

In the early days of the US Mint, it was quite expensive and time consuming to produce fresh dies. Therefore, if an error occurred in the production of a die or if the die was perhaps unused during the year of production, it might be used again with a new digit. It appears that sometimes an effort was made to remove the underdigit, but other times I doubt much effort was put into the removal or correction process. This would explain the 1817/3 Capped Bust half dollars where the 3 underdigit is bold as day-

 

So to follow up, usually these are a minority and most of the coins for that year were normal, so they must have considered it a problem. How then did they make a bunch of coins before they changed it? Or do they use multiple dies for the same year?

 

Thanks I always wanted to know.

 

OK, thanks for explaining that.

 

Rick Snow's guide to Indian Cent varieties states that digits weren't actually hammered in by hand like one might think but a dial down screw press was used on these issues while the dies where annealed. Also that the miss-placed digits found in the series was a "test" of the dies hardness as they thought nobody would notice. For further info check out all the volumes that he has produced. I don't know if that is the case for other for other issues.
Matt

 

I could see the misplaced date elements seen in the denticals as being a hardness test. When the die was tested the diameter of the die face was larger than the finished diameter so most if not all of the digits would be cut away when they reduced the diameter down to final size after hubbing. The traces still seen in the denticals are just cases where the digits were punched a little too high. But I find it hard to believe they would be doing it to test hardness up in the areas close to the center of the die where chances of the numbers still being visible after hubbing would be high.

One thing you need to understand about the early overdates is that while they are trying to salvage a previous years die, they are NOT doing it to a die that has already been used to make coins. Except for two cases every early overdate is a case where an unused, non-harden die was leftover at the end of the year. The new date was punched in, the die was hardened, and then it was used. If a used die was still serviceable at the end of the year they would just continue using it with the old date until it failed.

The reason used dies were not redated was because they couldn't repunch hardened tool steel easily, and since the hardening of the die was when it was at the greatest risk of failure, why risk a die that had already survived it. The chance of surviving it a second time would be small.

 

Yes, which begs the question - why bother overdating the die at all ?

It's clear the early US Mint was playing fast and loose with The Calendar vis a vis The Date on the Die vis a vis Mintage Records. In other words, it was not hugely important that the date on the coin was the calendar year in which it was struck; it was hugely important to pass the precious metal audit. It was vital that "consumed metal" balanced out with "coins produced" in a given period.

Put another way, mintage records state how many coins were produced in a given year - but nowhere does it state the coins were dated that year. Mint Director reports had little to do with the dates on the coins; it was all about making sure nobody was stealing precious metal.

A famous case is the King - the 1804 Dollar. Mint records indicate 19,750 silver dollars were minted in 1804, but no where does it say there were dated 1804. Evidence strongly suggests they were dated 1803 (possibly earlier).

Flowing hair half dimes are dated 1794 and 1795, but there are no Mint Director reports indicating any were actually delivered in 1794; rather, all were delivered in 1795. Moreover, it's clear some 1794 half dimes were minted after the earliest 1795 issues; they share the same reverse die, and that die is less worn on the 1795 coins1.

With all that going on, why overdate ? For some critics of the Mint, it reflects poorly on quality control to have an overdate. Why not just use the early date die with the date as punched ?





1 1794 h10c LM-4 shares the same reverse die as 1795 h10c LM-1 and LM-2, but the 1794 has a more advanced die state as indicated by several advanced die cracks.

 

It's so true.... it's easy to overlook the obvious, notably the fact that they didn't always overdate; sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't.

Perhaps that dichotomy is a reflection of Mint staff; some were trained in Europe, some weren't.

David Rittenhouse, first director of the US Mint, was completely self-educated. He never attended elementary school, and yet became a man of great distinction. An inspiration for us all !

The list goes on, and it's certainly reasonable to conclude that European minting practices had great influence at the nascent US Mint. But we broke away from some of their practices - as we cantakerous Americans so often do. Yes, we inherited their influences, but to great degree insisted on doing things our own way. The fact that we often chose not to overdate (as evidenced by the two examples I quoted above, as well as many more) suggests two different ways of thinking.

I've often wondered if their were case-by-case debates as to whether or not to overdate. We have Freedom of Speech, and we're not afraid to use it !

I can just see them saying "Just because we've always done it that way doesn't mean we have to keep on doing it !"

Our Revolution gave us a blank white sheet of paper on which we could re-invent ourselves. We could choose to retain or reject European traditions based mostly on their merit - or lack thereof. I think that's a huge part of our success over the years.

All of that from the simple fact that sometimes we overdated, other times not.... hmmm....

 

Why overdate? Well for one thing the law DID require that the coins bear the date of the year they were struck. Overdating an unused non-hardened die would allow them to obey the law. The illegal action was using the prior dated die during the following year. By law they couldn't do that but they just couldn't justify abandoning a perfectly good, and expensive, die just because it had the wrong date.

The Mint also had a way to "fudge" the date problem. The mint operated on a fiscal year that ran from July to June, so when they would list the mintage of a coin struck during a particular "year", those struck from July to Dec would have one date while those struck from Jan to June would have a different date. So the coins struck with the previous year dated die would still be struck during the "proper" fiscal year. The law calls for then to have the calendar year, but I can see them using the fiscal year accounting to try and hide it.

 

This suggests the Guvmint has been known to engage in shady practices and stretch the limits of legality ! This implies they break their own laws, as if they are above the law !

Why I'm SHOCKED ! Shocked, I say !

 

I find this discussion very interesting. I have been researching about British India Coins (1835-1947). I have discovered 2 different overdates similar to ones discussed here. Can someone describe difference in the process of overdating of the two types. I have attached pics of the same.

 

Here are the pics.

 

It is thought by many that the modern (post early 20th century) overdates are a hubbing error, caused when a die from the previous year is accidentally hubbed with a die from the current year. Earlier overdates were doubtlessly intentionally done as an economy measure but if this was the case for the modern overdates I would think that at least several dies would be overdated, not just a single die as nearly all modern overdates are from a single die.

 

The dates of coins posted are top two 1886/5, 1888/7, bottom two 1855 corrected to 1835 (there is no coin issued with date 1855 and the coins were struck between 1835-40) and 1897/6. I havent found a single overdate 1911 onwards in british india coins possibly because the alloy used for these dies was changed from bronze to steel.
What i would like to know is how would they erase an older numeral and overdate. The process of erasing an older digit.

 

I'm going to use two ugly words - cost cutting. I'm certain no business is immune to this.