Walter Breen
May 8-August 29
(500,000)
Scot's second head punch is a close copy of his first, apparently deriving from the same original sketch. It is lower in relief and minutely less tall, the bust is shorter and narrower, and the cap is smaller, differing slightly in proportions and more noticeably in its wrinkles. There are minor differences in facial features, especially around the eye, apparent only on superimposing transparencies.
In handworking the hair on the first few obverses of this group, Scot tried to continue, or rather imitate the preceding style. These and some later obverse dies (most of all, those of numbers 38-41, 42, 43, 49-51) are remarkably similar for extremely fine treatment of the hair, reflecting the use of new burins with single or multiple needle points. These probably took more time than previous dies. Still later ones have notably coarser hair, most likely to save time. These are in lower relief, evidently to lengthen die life.
The first few reverses (of numbers 29-36 and 39) came from a single wreath punch, which broke at the right ribbon end. Instead of taking time to make another one, and possibly delaying coinage, Scot cut the next seven dies by hand. One of the hand cut reverses was put to use before the last of the set from the wreath punch. Weeks later, Scot completed another wreath punch which served for most of the remaining reverses for this year, used also with the Gardner head (49-63). Wreath punches again became standard after the latter part of 1796.
One of these hand cut reverses had unusually small letters, not seen on other regular design dies of any de-nomination. After using it to make at least 8,000 (possibly over 10,000) "Fallen 4/1 coins (number 37), Scot removed this reverse, had it annealed, modified the wreath, and punched 94 tiny five-pointed stars at the border. Dentils partly conceal some of the stars. Eckfeldt rehardened the die and sent it back to press. Unsurprisingly; it failed quickly; and the Starred Reverse (38) has become one of the most famous rarities in the series. (Editor's note: The author believed that the reverse dies used for the "Fallen 4" variety (number 37) and the "Starred Reverse" variety (number 38) were the same. Others, including Denis Loring and myself, believe that these were different dies, possibly related through the use of the same wreath punch. Another observer, Jim Neiswinter [Penny-Wise, no. 145,7/15/1991, pp. 181-183], noted that the reverse die of number 37 was Originally used as reverse J of the 1793 Liberty Cap series (numbers 17-20 for 1793). Careful examination of the enlarged illustrations for these three reverses will indicate several similarities and differences. If the 1793 reverse was softened to punch border denticles over the beads, reannealed, and polished, the weakness of leaves and berries on the "Fallen 4" reverse die would be easily explained. The differences between the reverses of numbers 37 and 38 are more difficult to explain in these terms, and the possiblity of this die surviving a second modification of this nature seems rather remote.) R. W. Julian conjectured that the stars may have been an experimental anti-counterfeiting device, and that their number purposely matched the last two digits of the date. (Julian, "Cent Coinage of 1794-1795," pp. 7, 9.) No Archives document refers to any such experiment. However, all Scot needed was verbal orders from Rittenhouse. Most likely the director sooner or later realized that one could not go on adding stars indefinitely. Sheldon had noticed the long tailed R on the Fallen 4and the Starred Reverse, but at least in my hearing he never even voiced a suspicion that they shared the same letter punches, let alone that they were different states of a single die.
Die breakage remained a serious problem, as before, because Voigt continued at least part time to try to use the Droz press with its double screw action. Only when this press was extensively modified was the problem solved. The effect was that many of the dies lasted longer before breakage began, so that the varieties 51-65 are mostly less rare.
(Craig Sholley, August 1, 1996 letter to the editor, notes: "This passage contains two of the most enduring myths of US numismatics-that of the Droz presses and that a press was responsible for die breakage.
''First I'll address the press breaking dies' part. This comes from Taxay, page 121. Taxay quotes from the Congressional proceedings, so there seems little doubt that Mint officials made this excuse. However this is 'official excuse making' and nothing more.
"The press was not responsible for die breakage; the real problem was poor forging and hardening techniques. These problems were particularly severe before Eckfeldt started doing the forging and hardening, as we have in this instance. This is particularly borne out by the fact that the problem exists in 1794, yet one year later the Mint would purchase presses which were much larger than those currently in use and did not have a problem."
Regarding the three presses in use in 1793 and 1794, Sholley notes: "So where did the presses come from? Two came from John Harper. On Aug. 29,1792, Harper was paid $217.85 for 'cuttings, presses, castings' (see Stewart, pg. 170. I have cross-checked most of the records in Stewart with the Mint records; they are accurate quotations). And from Voigt's second account book we have the third press-on April 8, 1793, Philip Lesher was paid 70 cents for 'hauling a press and frame from Mr. Hamilton's: This accounts for. the three original presses and their being of domestic origins explains both the light strike on the earliest coinage and the need to order a press capable of striking dollars.")
The earlier varieties of this group are of the same fabric as before, being struck on planchets from the Taylor and Bailey shipment of December 1793.
Determining a rational emission sequence was unexpectedly difficult. Sheldon's was unsatisfactory for mechanical and stylistic reasons, even before the discovery that the reverse of his number 63 (Fallen 4) was reworked to make the Starred Reverse variety, his number 48. The EAC sequence was better but left several stylistic gaps. The problem here was less with dielinked varieties (thanks to extensive die state research after 1958) than with finding a reasonable order for the disconnected groups of varieties. Using Sheldon numbers, these were:
S-42, 41, 43, 44, NC-5, 45, 46
S-63, 48, 47, NC-9, 49, 51, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56
S-57
S-58, 59
S-61, 60, 62
S-64, NC-6, 65
S-66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, NC-3, 72
Because the obverse of 5-41 is a close copy of obverse
15 of 5-37 (number 24), and shows the small date punches found on previous dies, clearly this group came first. Because the reverse of 5-47 was made from the same wreath punch as the reverses of 5-41 to 46, the group containing it was next. Because 5-66 shares a reverse die with the Gardner heads, clearly it immediately precedes the latter. That left the isolated variety 5-57, the isolated pair 5-58 and 59, and two groups of three varieties. The single obverse shared by NC-6, 5-64 and 65 resembles those of 5-47 to 51, though its layout is more like that of later dies, and the reverse of 5-65 shares a wreath punch with 5-61.
Moreover, the layout of the 5-66 obverse is nearer to that of S-58 and 59 (the other wide date dies) than to any of the others; and the relief is lower on these three than on earlier dies. The order used herein fits all the above considerations, and to these eyes makes more sense than any of the alternatives:(Editor's note: One assumption made here is that the dies were used in the same order they were produced. It is entirely possible that the manufacturing sequence and the emission (or use) sequence are not the same.)
29-36 (S-42, 41, NC-10, 43, 44, NC-5, 45, 46)
37-48 (S-63, 48, 47, NC-9, 59, 51, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56)
49-51 (S-NC-6, 64, 65)
52-54 (S-60, 61, 62)
55 (S-57)
56-57 (S-58, 59)
58-65 (S-66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, NC-3, 72)