Why is the date so crooked going from the 184 to the 5 on these coins? Google a picture of one and you'll see what I mean. It looks like two different dates pasted together. Notice the shape of the 5. What happened at the mint that caused this peculiar date shape? Was it a lazy diecutter who just took a die from 1843 or 44, smoothed out the last digit, and stamped a 5 on the empty space? Did the diecutter cut the first three digits, get drunk, and then cut the last one? Who knows? (Not talking about the RPD)
Looks like a worn RPD. Don't have my books here. Look on Fortrin's web site for a better photo of the variety. That would account for the thick "18." Can you blow up just the date for a better look at the crooked "5."
I'm not talking about the RPD (although the coin has it). I'm talking about why the shape of the 5 is so weird compared to the rest of the date.
It's easy to see. What went on at the Mint to cause the shape of the 5 to be so much different from the 184? It just doesn't fit. This is on all 1845s BTW.
I believe I read somewhere that the dates on many coins were gang punched with just the last digit added. That may be the case here as it looks like it. The repunched "18" argues against that though. The fact that all these coins have it may be a numismatic mystery never to be solved. I wanted to see a blow up of the date to see if there was any evidence supporting your theory. I'm going to bed...will check thread Monday.
One has to remember this was 1845 the availability of new punches and tools wasn't there. Nothing was wasted, and the concerns wasn't how the job looked but to get the job done. And what was the job? To provide coinage to the masses. No one at that time in vision that some 150 +/-years later that someone would be questioning the who,what where,and why's numbers were crooked on a coin. They were given tools to work with some were better than others and they were used to the best of the ability of the mint worker . The mint worker was not a skilled ,individual but more likely someone who learned as he goes. And as pointed out in another posting some of the answers to why things were done.... we may never know! These were very crude times in manufacturing . As long as the job got done no one question the quality .
The date looks like it's on the dime to me. The RPD made the 184 a bit fat. That makes the 5 look thin and stand out.
You can see a similar attitude afoot in modern computer programming. I have Comcast, and their system does not allow me to use my 2020-dated debit card to pay my bill, because they did not program the possibility of post-201x expiration dates into their billing system. Similarly, I suspect the Mint made an "184_" punch - or a few - for economy, and added the final digit on a yearly basis. Something similar happened with Morgans.
...and crooked! The coin is a dime and not every 1845 has a date w/a crooked 5. as seen above. That adds more evidence for a "gang punch" used for the first digits. Who knows.
