Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="KBBPLL, post: 26560067, member: 104064"]It's an interesting topic to me because I've been pondering this for a few years regarding the Barber coins in the 1899-1905 era: which was the "master", a hub or a die? When Barber re-engraved the leaf veins on the reverse of the dime for 1900 coins, it had to have been done on a hub (because these are incuse features). This then became the "master design." In 1901 however, Barber added a fold to the right ribbon. This had to have been done on a die (you can't add metal to a hub). So from that point on, the "master design" was on a die. The same can be said for re-engraving of PLURIBUS on the half dollar reverse for 1901 (with an "early release" of four dies in late 1900 for the 1900-O halves). Also, similar to the dime changes, the Liberty nickel reverse in 1901 had the leaf veins re-engraved (hub) but the left wheat leaf was lengthened (die). The interesting part is that in all these cases, both designs appeared in multiple years. Both the "thick" and "thin" ribbon appear on SF coins through 1905. Both PLURIBUS types on the halves were used for SF and New Orleans sporadically through 1905. Both nickel reverses were used in 1901 and 1902. The mint was not stockpiling dies during this era - they were made as they were needed. Therefore during these overlap periods, there were two different "master design" hubs being used to create dies. Another oddity is that the mint seemed to prefer using the "old" designs for the branch mint dies, whereas Philadelphia moved to the new hub and stuck with it. Perhaps some prejudice against the branch mints? I know this diverges from your topic, but I think my point is that the "conventional wisdom" regarding whether the master design was on a hub or a die, and how many were created and used, etc, is perhaps often faulty. Another "master hub mystery" I suppose.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches