MORE ON THE JUDD-9 SILVER DISME STUDY

I read with interest the monograph, History Recovered: Saga of the 1792 Silver Disme by Robert L. Rodriguez and Anthony J. Lopez that was published on the Newman Numismatic Portal. As a long-time professional scientist and amateur numismatist, it was very interesting to me to see modern and very high technologies applied to coin analysis. Rodriguez and Lopez applied highly advanced and expensive non-destructive technologies to the analysis of the three known 1792 silver dismes, which Rodriguez had purchased. They concluded that one of the three coins is THE design work surface for one of the first two coins of the United States, a 1793 half cent.

There are a number of places where I believe they go wrong, some trivial and some important. As an example of the former, they note the obverse inscription, LIBERTY PARENT OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY, and go from there to the conclusion that the inscription captures what would become the driving forces in the development of the United States which were science and industry. It is nice to think that the 1792 Mint personnel were so prescient, but I think we have to put the motto back into its place in the late 18th century. At that time science generally meant wisdom and knowledge; industry meant diligence and attention to business. What we think of today as science and industry did not exist in 1792. It is a coincidence that the lab scientists appreciated the motto in the sense in which they knew it.

Much more importantly, they state that the goal of their project was to interpret the scratch marks on one of the three coins. Rodriguez notes that the scratches began to speak to [him] and that they were made with intention and meaning. Later, they said that they needed to recover the additional information that Edward Cogan had burnished away in 1863, so that we might prove that this Judd-9 was used to design the 1793 half cent. Suffice to say, one should NEVER go into a scientific study with a preconceived conclusion, but this is quite obviously what the authors did.

 

The first piece of interesting data was a micro X-ray fluorescence (µ-XRF) scan of the date area of one coin, which was dateless as a result of having been burnished. To their surprise, the scan recovered the date from the metal below the surface. This should not be surprising, because the organization of the metal below the surface is normally changed by the pressure of striking. Recovery of a date from such a flattened surface is typically the job of Nic-A-Date, which does so by acid-etching the surface, damaging the coin. But it does reveal the worn-off date. The µ-XRF scan is a great improvement on acid etching because it is non-destructive. The fact that the date could be recovered by µ-XRF was interesting but in no way surprising.

Their next analysis was to compare the obverse of the disme to those of the 1793 half cents. They found, as I had previously reported, that the obverse heads, except the hair, were identical. I concluded that all were done from the same hub. Rodriguez and Lopez came up with other, far more complicated conclusions.

Another of the three coins they studied has numerous scratches on both sides; two of those on the obverse they took as guide marks for where to engrave the head of the half cent. That, however, makes no logical sense. If the engraver were to place guide marks for impressing a hub, he would put them on the die, not the coin he was using as a model. In addition, we have no way to know when the coin was scratched, whether it was done by one person or more, or who might have done it. There are also a number of scratches that the authors do not discuss.

 

Without going into too much detail here, the authors also concluded that someone had etched a love token between E and M on the reverse and the letters L J on the obverse. I'm quite willing to believe that the graffiti on the coin includes these letters, but the authors go on to suggest that the L J stands for Libertas and Justitia from the Nova Constellatio coins of a decade earlier and that E and M stand for Adam Eckfeldt and his first wife, Maria Hahn. (I note, for what it may be worth, that Eckfeldt was not employed at the Mint in 1792 and never designed any coins.) Those are huge leaps, but there's more. They then concluded that the modification of the design for the half cent occurred in four steps: adding Liberty and Justice, lowering the date, removing Liberty and Justice, and then cropping the head and adding the liberty cap. That is a whole lot of conclusions from a couple of graffiti scratches. Their proof that the reverse of the half cent was also laid out on the silver disme reverse was the presence of a scratched W (that looks exactly like the M) and other scratches they interpret to represent I:II in Roman numerals, which they interpret as 1/200, the denomination.

There is a term for interpretations such as these: pareidolia. The very human tendency to see pattern and meaning where there is none, it often manifests itself in things like UFO sightings, weathered rocks taken to be pieces of human artwork, slices of toast with the face of a saint, and – far more frighteningly – political conspiracy theories.

The monograph by Rodriguez and Lopez does not approach the level of conspiracy theory, but their findings do not support their conclusions. The graffiti on the coin is real. Some of it does form letters. The scratches in front of Liberty's chin do closely resemble a heart shape. But to conclude that the disme was used to lay out the design of the half cent does not make sense and does not follow from their findings. To assign any specific meaning to the letters L and J or E and M requires some kind of evidence beyond wishful thinking.

We will make this simple. We stand by our research.

First, Dr. Eckberg, as a scientist describing the research technique deployed in this study as, micro X-ray fluorescence (µ-XRF) scan, blows it. It is not μ-XRF. XRF measures surface composition and is not even remotely close to X-ray micro-diffraction (μ-XRD). They are completely different. XRF uses a handgun or a small-fixed chamber and not a 1100-meter synchrotron ring that creates X-rays a million times more powerful than that which is received in a doctor's office. Dr. Eckberg's description of the scientific methodology used is incorrect. He is biologist by training and not a physical scientist so to make this mistake between XRF and X-ray micro-diffraction is a significant error.

Second, we totally disagree with Dr. Eckberg's descriptions. No one has come remotely close to recovering subsurface data images before us. This is ground-breaking research, unlike doing simple overlays or using XRF analysis. As for his 1792 copper Disme/1793 half-cent overlay analysis, we identified this more than a year before he wrote his article. We have the photos to prove it.

Third, it is outrageous that he states, The fact that the date could be recovered by µ-XRF (completely wrong) was interesting but in no way surprising. Dr. Eckberg is not a physicist and his comments come from someone who is not knowledgeable in this field. The materials scientists and physicists at the Argonne National Laboratory's Advanced Photon Source were not even sure this image recapture could be accomplished. Two of them are leaders in the field of X-ray diffraction. His comment about the date being interesting and no way surprising is disappointing and demonstrates his lack of understanding of non-destructive techniques. And to say that …μ-XRF scan is a great improvement on acid etching because it is nondestructive again demonstrates his lack of knowledge about X-ray micro-diffraction. This technique is revolutionary and has spawned a new investigative field called Cultural Heritage Research and is now used in Argonne's research descriptions' database

When Dr. Eckberg asserts that we had a preconceived conclusion which is known in science as a hypothesis, is mildly insulting. My key assumption was that the etch marks were made with intention but as to what they were, I had no idea. Not until Anthony J. Lopez, an acknowledged expert and author in numismatics, joined this project and after we identified Vertical Reference Line 1 and 2, that no one else had done before, not even Dr. Eckberg, because they were dismissed as graffiti and not worth a second look. And because of our second look, we started on a journey to find a way to help us unravel them. We hypothesized that this coin was somehow related to the 1793 half-cent, but we wanted additional confirmation. When we confirmed our hypothesis, our conclusion was now supported by scientific data. To say that we had a preconceived conclusion is again an insult and we personally take umbrage with it.

Another example of Dr. Eckberg being incorrect with his facts quotations is that only two silver dismes were μ-XRD, not three, and not μ-XRF, and the third was only used for image overlays and the design process that we determined was a likely sequence. Without our discoveries, this process could not have been imagined. We stand by this too.

As for the love token theme, we identified it as Educated Speculation with reasonable re-interpretations of what was cited in the paper.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Rodriguez and Tony Lopez

I stand corrected on micro X-ray diffraction vs. fluorescence. I should have been more careful with the terminology, and I apologize for the error. That said, to anyone who has collected Buffalo nickels, it is not surprising that the date could be recovered using advanced technology. If acid etching can do it, some sufficiently powerful non-destructive test should also be able to do it. Rodriguez and Lopez and their associates are to be congratulated for finding a non-destructive methodology capable of doing so, and I am sure it will have applications in other contexts.

I am also sorry that they think I don't understand what an hypothesis is. I do, and assuming that the etch marks were made with intention is backwards with respect to the scientific method of hypothesis testing, which is the same in physical and biological sciences. You have to assume a "null hypothesis," that the marks have no specific meaning, and then test whether that is correct. The scratch marks making up the letters are not consistent with the null hypothesis, so they must have been intentional, but what they might mean is speculative. The other marks the authors claim were designed to direct placement of the half cent still make no sense. The disme and half cent heads were made from the same hub. I do not see how putting a couple of scratch marks on a struck disme could possibly have anything to do with placement of the hub on a new die blank.

As far as them claiming primacy on the discovery of the similarity between the disme and half cent, that has been noted at least since Crosby in 1897. Breen described it 70 years ago. What my 2017 article did, and what Rodriguez and Lopez did not do, is explain WHY the two obverses are so similar – they are so similar because they were produced from the same hub. Rodriguez and Lopez actually cite my 2017 Numismatist article, so they were obviously aware of it. But they apparently did not understand that my findings mean that the obverses were much more than related, as they put it.

Once I figured out that the Wreath cent and 1793 half cent obverses had been produced from hubs, it was logical to test whether the half cent hub had previously been used to create the 1792 disme. Until my study, numismatists believed that the obverses of all of these coins, as well as the 1794 cents, had been produced from individually hand-engraved dies, so my study provided a paradigm shift. Hubbing saved a great deal of time and handwork; without it, the engraver could not have kept up with production. It's one of those facts that is very simple – obvious, even – in retrospect, but it eluded researchers for many decades until my study.

Rodriguez and Lopez's multistep notion of how the disme obverse might have evolved into that of the half cent is excessively complex and fails to take into account the use of a hub for both coins. To paraphrase Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is generally the best one.

Again, Dr. Eckberg tries to get around his fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between what X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and X-ray micro-diffraction (μ-XRD) can accomplish. He even details the term in his fourth paragraph of his initial commentary. The XRF instrument typically used in the numismatic field is approximately a $35,000 hand-held device versus the billion-dollar Advanced Photon Source synchrotron at the Argonne National Laboratory.

His comment, I stand corrected with the terminology… reflects an under-appreciation or fundamental misunderstanding about the power, capability and difficulty of utilizing this new investigative technique, μ-XRD, that is entirely different from XRF. XRF is a non-destructive technique that measures the material composition to barely one micron beneath the surface. X-ray micro-diffraction measures subsurface distortions in the crystal structure deep inside the object. For him to say, …it is not surprising that the date could be recovered using advanced technology, is contrary to the expectations of the scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory. The images recovered by the Argonne scientists were a first and they were surprised by their quality. It was a groundbreaking new technique and to relate it to a destructive acid etch debases this discovery. No museum would have taken the risk we did in subjecting very rare and valuable rarities to this new investigative technique.

A recovery of a subsurface image from the interior of a coin had never been accomplished before our first successful scan which took place between February 28 and March 3, 2018, on a Judd-9. The physicists were not even sure this could even be accomplished. We are recovering sub-surface data that emanates from the atomic level. With this paper, we introduced the power of μ-XRD to the numismatic field. In our second paper, to be published in 2025, another groundbreaking power of μ-XRD will be shown.

Dr. Eckberg demonstrates his error in his initial commentary when he states, The first piece of interesting data was a micro-X-ray fluorescence (μ-XRF) scan of the date area of one coin, which was dateless as a result of having been burnished away. This date recovery was not the first piece of interesting data. It was the last since I was not able to acquire the Judd-9a until January 13, 2020, when it became available in a private transaction. At this time, we had been invited to present our findings at the April 2020 Argonne National Laboratory User Forum. After acquiring the Judd-9a, we submitted another beam line application which was accepted, and this visit was in July 2020.

Dr. Eckberg wants to return to his hub idea for these two coins, the Judd-9 and the 1793 half cent. What he misses is this coin is a design work surface. After the conceptual design, the following stages are then begun for the creation and refinement of the dies. All one has to do is view the initial drawings of Augustin Dupré that he used to create several of the Comitia Americana medals. Indeed, Dupré himself was known to use trial strikes of his medals as physical design surfaces upon which he would create the final designs of his creations. This process is well documented on the iconic Libertas Americana medal. The notion that this same methodology was done shortly thereafter in the late 18th century during the infancy of the US Mint to create its earliest coinage is not as outlandish as Dr. Eckberg seems to think.

He also ignores the two citations about Adam Eckfeldt where we stated this new information, the design process, should be used to re-interpret previous statements. For example, the referenced W. Elliot Woodward auction catalog description of October 1863 we reference for Lot 2021, for the 1793 half cent to be auctioned states, Nearly sixty years since, it was presented to a gentleman by Mr. Adam Eckfeldt as a specimen of his work... (p. 43 of the paper). The design work surface concept helps support the notion that the 1793 half cent is a specimen of his work.... Dr. Eckberg also makes a leap where he asserts, ...the half cent hub had previously been used to create the 1792 disme. He gets it completely backwards since the disme was produced before the half cent.

We did not say Dr. Eckberg didn't understand what a hypothesis was, but that he stated we had preconceived ideas. We took offense at his implication we had these biases and that our preconceived ideas were not a fact based hypotheses. As far as a null hypothesis, it attempts to disprove a claim. The alternative hypothesis is trying to prove a claim which will be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. His assertion you have to assume the null hypothesis is incorrect unless you are trying to disprove a claim. The alternative hypothesis is trying to prove a claim which will be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. This is what the paper was all about, trying to prove something, not trying to disprove.

Dr. Eckberg states, As for claiming primacy on the discovery of the similarity between the disme and the half cent, that has been noted at least since Crosby in 1897. We did not claim a similarity. Tony Lopez, who pioneered the use of image overlays as early as 2011, created the overlay in May 2016 using a silver disme and the 1793 Cohen 1-2 half cent. We identified the disme profile and hairline matched precisely the Cohen 1-2 but differed from the Cohen 3-4. Dr. Eckberg's overlay used a 1792 copper disme to compare to a 1793 Cohen 3-4 half cent. For imaging, this was a poor choice.

In summary, Dr. Eckberg made many errors in stating his facts about our paper. He did not get the sequence of scan events correct, the nature of the science that was used, or that our design sequence was one of what we stated as, Figure 49 illustrates our view of what we believe (emphasis added) was the design flow for the 1793 half cent.

Without our subsurface image recoveries or being the first to identify Vertical Reference Lines 1 and 2, this flow sequence could not have been developed. We proved these etch marks were obvious reference points and that no one had ever viewed them as such before. We started with a 5x power loupe, progressing to scanning electron microscopes and eventually gained access to the Argonne National Laboratory's Advanced Photon Source synchrotron to find the evidence presented in our paper. In conclusion, Dr. Eckberg made many errors in fact and misunderstanding.

Robert L. Rodriguez and Anthony J. Lopez

To read the earlier E-Sylum article, see:
HISTORY RECOVERED: SAGA OF THE 1792 DISME (https://www.coinbooks.org/v27/esylum_v27n18a07.html)

Link to History Recovered: Saga of the 1792 Silver Disme on Newman Portal:
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/637653

	NBS (coinbooks.org) Web