Pick on this for me...

atarian · June 4, 2010 1:08PM

merc dime . During the depression they found ways to cut costs and in 1936 they reused a 1929 die and retooled it for 1936. Remember 1936 was still part of the great depression. instead of minting new coins why not use un issued 1929 dated coins?

atarian · June 4, 2010 1:08PM

BTW one of the nicest examples ive ever seen of it.

AUandAG · June 4, 2010 1:15PM

What's not to like with that one??

Fantastic! Great pic too!

bob

edited: I really don't understand how that can be determined to be a 1929 underdate. It really
does not match anything, in my minds eye, that I can imagine.

Good old mint!

fcloud · June 4, 2010 1:19PM

That overlay is the 1936 date, over a 1929-S dime.

I'll post some of the straight images in a little while.

<< What's not to like with that one??

Fantastic! Great pic too!

bob

edited: I really don't understand how that can be determined to be a 1929 underdate. It really
does not match anything, in my minds eye, that I can imagine.

Good old mint! >>

fcloud · June 4, 2010 1:23PM

My weak one...

My strong one...

My 1929-S DDO

Meltdown · June 4, 2010 1:27PM

That first picture is incredible. How scarce are those?
I'm going to go searching next time I hit the shop.

fcloud · June 4, 2010 1:34PM

<< That first picture is incredible. How scarce are those?
I'm going to go searching next time I hit the shop. >>

It only took about two years of looking at ever 1936-S at every local dealer and every show to find the first one, and about two to three weeks later I found the one with the nicer strike.

TomB · June 4, 2010 1:35PM

I don't know. Perhaps I'm simply ignorant, but I think this is more a case of seeing what you want to see vs. seeing something that is truly there and coming to the correct conclusion.

atarian · June 4, 2010 1:38PM

the weak version is on page 61 of the cherry pickers guide 4th edition vol 2. they list it as a possible over date but is the weak version. I would personally would like to see this coin in person at some point. The price guide ( unsure how on the ball they really are) has a good price on them. but I like this version better.

Raybo · June 4, 2010 1:59PM

<<

>>

That looks like a 1936 over a 1929 if I have ever seen one.........and I haven't! (first time for me and it's obvious)

Plain as day to my eyes.

MsMorrisine · June 4, 2010 2:05PM

I see it too, and have no CPG to reference....

I must say... as a newbie... that comparing this to the other pictures.... how are you sure this one is not manufactured post-minting?

I don't like that halo around the 3 and 6 and the different coloring of the date and the rest of the coin, plus the different color of the halo and the adjacent field.

machoponcho · June 4, 2010 2:27PM

fcloud has clarified in post #4 that the OP picture is an overlay, but it seems that point needs to be repeated.

This the first I've heard of this neat variety.

Meltdown · June 4, 2010 2:47PM

<< fcloud has clarified in post #4 that the OP picture is an overlay, but it seems that point needs to be repeated.

This the first I've heard of this neat variety. >>

dO'H Thanks for pointing that out...

MsMorrisine · June 4, 2010 2:51PM

wah!

photoshopped!

ok. I'm waiting for the coming pics.

it's an interesting variety and the first I've heard of it, too.

fcloud · June 5, 2010 2:06AM

for the day crowd

fcloud · June 5, 2010 3:10AM

Here is an image of the coin in the holder

Stew · June 5, 2010 3:29AM

fcloud,
Very cool find, Congratulations

DIMEMAN · June 5, 2010 4:17AM

I don't see how anybody can look at this pic and not see the overdate!!!! It's as clear as the 42/1!!! EASY!!!!

TomB · June 5, 2010 4:35AM

<< I don't see how anybody can look at this pic and not see the overdate!!!! It's as clear as the 42/1!!! EASY!!!! >>

I strongly disagree. Folks, I'm not a newbie and I don't have a bad eye for coins so you simply can't dismiss it when someone like myself casts doubt on this being an overdate. Look a the primary images of the date area in the so-called "weak" and "strong" coins-

Weak-

Strong-

Who thinks this is an unambiguous overdate of 1936/1929? Where is the evidence of the 9 underdigit? The two marks that appear to be what is the claim of the 2 underdigit could be chisel marks or other die imperfections that are in a fortuitous place for someone who wants to see a 2 underneath the 3. If these die imperfections are true evidence of an underdigit, then what do we make of the mark coming out of the left side of the 1, the mark coming out of the tail of the 9 and the other mark coming out of the upper loop of the right side of the 9? Are they nothing? Why? They are just as strong as the marks near the 3. Lastly, look at the first overlay presented. While the 36 can be laid out on top of the 29 it is only done so with the 19 of each date having been offset relative to one another. How do you reconcile the offset 19 in the dates? There are far too many holes in this claimed overdate, in my opinion, to make it obvious.

DIMEMAN · June 5, 2010 4:47AM

"Where is the 9 under 6"

Tom, this was polished off as most was. What was hard to get at was left. This not unlike other overdates where is was attempted to make it look normal.

THIS IS AN OVERDATE!! There is no other way to explain the remnents(sp) of the 2 under the 6.

TomB · June 5, 2010 4:49AM

<< "Where is the 9 under 6"

Tom, this was polished off as most was. What was hard to get at was left. This not unlike other overdates where is was attempted to make it look normal.

THIS IS AN OVERDATE!! There is no other way to explain the remnents(sp) of the 2 under the 6. >>

How are the die imperfections under the 3, which I assume you mean instead of 6 as written, different than the die imperfections that you are happy to ignore coming out of the 1 and near the 9? What are they? Why are they ignored yet the other die imperfections that are convenient given credence?

MsMorrisine · June 5, 2010 4:59AM

DIMEMAN · June 5, 2010 5:05AM

The remnents left of the 9 are from the previous 9. The die marker or chip is what is in front of the 1. Lots of overdates have this.

Besides if we are being fooled, so were Stanton and Fivaz(sp). And PCGS said yes. They do not honor all varieties. There are several Mercs in the CPG that are not reconigzed by PCGS.

And MOSTLY there is no other explanation for the 2 under the 3. Those are not die chips or lines. The are a definite 2.

Aegis3 · June 5, 2010 5:11AM

Put me in the TomB camp; I think the overlay disproves the overdate hypothesis; other than the bottom of the "underdated 2," all other die lines in the date area do not at all match up for it being an overdate. I think the "underdated 9" is what can seal it. Without the overlay, it may look like the bottom of a 9; with it, it is clear that it does not in fact match up. The bottom of the "2" can thus just be readily explained by being some coincidental die lines also.

It is also clear that the shape of the "underdated 2" and of the "2" on the 1929-S are different. On the 1929-S, the left side of the base curves up to meat the curl of the 2, while on the underdate it is a sharp junction.

DIMEMAN · June 5, 2010 5:15AM

WRONG!! The 2 under the 3 is NOT die lines. And digits do not always line up on over dates. Look at some of the over dates of the 1892 dimes.

TomB · June 5, 2010 5:22AM

<< The remnents left of the 9 are from the previous 9. The die marker or chip is what is in front of the 1. Lots of overdates have this.

Besides if we are being fooled, so were Stanton and Fivaz(sp). And PCGS said yes. They do not honor all varieties. There are several Mercs in the CPG that are not reconigzed by PCGS.

And MOSTLY there is no other explanation for the 2 under the 3. Those are not die chips or lines. The are a definite 2. >>

So, let me get this straight, one of the claims is that the die imperfection left of the tail of the 9 in the 1936 coins is the remnant of the 9 from the 1929 coin? Okay, if so and if the spacing of the numbers in the date and their relative position from the bust and the rim was consistent from 1929 to 1936, then I don't see how this is possible. After all, if that die imperfection left of the tail of the 9 in the 1936 coins is where the 9 would have been in the 1929 coin then that would push the 1 from the 1929 into the lower portion of the bust of Ms. Liberty, wouldn't it? If the 1 in the 1929 date somehow stayed a similar distance away from the bust to be consistent with the 1936 coins then it would appear that the 1 and 9 of the 1929 coins would practically run up against one another. I have never noticed this on 1929 Mercs, have you seen this? Additionally, if the die imperfection left of the tail of the 9 in the 1936 coins is truly the remnant of the 9 in the 1929 coin then in order for the die imperfections near the 3 of the 1936 coins to be from the 2 of the 1929 coin it would mean that there was likely an awfully big space between the first 9 and the 2 of the 1929 coins. Again, I do not specialize in this series, but I do not recall ever seeing such a big space between the first 9 and the 2 of the 1929 coins.

Look, it's nice that Fivaz and Stanton give the coin a number and it's nice that PCGS recognizes the coin just like they recognize the die scratch on the Jefferson/Bion nickels and gave it a nice variety name of "Speared Bison", but it doesn't mean that either coin has any distinctive features other than chisel marks or die scratches. Please note that this is not my series and I am only going by the images provided so additional insight would be greatly appreciated.

DIMEMAN · June 5, 2010 5:56AM

This is not the same thing as a die scratch on a nickel and calling it whatever. This is a 2 under a 3. NOT a die scratch NOT a die chip.

I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore. No need.

It's real.

It's supported by Stanton, Fivaz, PCGS and many collectors.

Anyone that disagrees has that right.

10/4 over and out on this subject.

fcloud · June 5, 2010 6:42AM

This coin expounds controversy every time I post it. I love the controversy over this coin, and will probably bring this up again.

Just to make sure everyone is on the same footing.

1- The photo of the under 1929 dime is at the same setting at the image of the 1936-S
2- Photos at the same resolution, exposure, and size of every year from 1920 to 1929 along with images of the 1936 with those same setting have been sent to CONECA.
3- If you believe it could be an over date, or if you believe it is just a bunch of die gouges; I believe it is cool either way.
4- The dates are different size from the 1920 and the 1930.
5- PCGS does seem to agree with Fivaz/Stanton.
6- You simply can't pick out all the idiosyncrasies of the coin from these images.
a. There is doubling on other parts of the coin including the date, so it is a DDO, too
b. There is doubling at the top of the head which seems to indicate a rounded top cap and an angular one.
7- If you find one please post an image of it.

If it behooves you to criticize that is your opinion and you probably have lots of collectors which agree with you. If you believe it could be, you also have a lot of collectors who agree. I took action to find out and hopefully something can be figured out by CONECA.

Here is my findings/observations.

When the dates are aligned as seen in the image. The gouge on the left of the 9 from 1936 aligns with part of the 9 from 1929. The straight of the two aligns with the gouge as shown with the base of the two from the 3 in the 1936 date. The pointed slant coming from the tip of the three is consistent with th upward part of the two. On the early die state coin there are die scratches abound which would be consistent with someone trying to remove a date from the die. You can see some of those scratches in the second image. The graded coin with the late die state is one which I agree you can't use to make a determination because of all the die wear; however, the early die state can be used for diagnostics.

These things are rare (look through you 1936-S dimes and post the FS-110 dimes you find).

MsMorrisine · June 5, 2010 7:05AM

be nice to find a date/die where the the gouge at the 9 aligns as well as the 2 does.

but that certainly looks like a 3 over a 2 to me. it appears on a similar level of detail/lack of detail as some RPMs I've seen on here.
(but I'm new, aren't I?)

zap1111 · June 5, 2010 7:52AM

You learn something new everyday on this forum. This is very cool. Thanks
zap

Aegis3 · June 5, 2010 11:38AM

fcloud, look at the slope of the 1st 9 of the 1929 and the slope of the "underdated 9" of the 1936 In addition to them apparently not being in the same position relative to the bust, the slopes are different. Also, look at the shape of the "2's" where the base meets the curve. In the 1929, it is, for lack of a better word, "truncated," whereas it has a "normal extention" in the "underdated 2" of the 1936 coin. And this is why I'm not convinced this is an overdate.

Now, having said this, date styles have been known to be changed in the master hubs, a 1920 "2" and a 1929 "2" are not necessarily the same. The same with the "9's." You might want to compare it with other 1920's dates to see if you can match the slope of the 9 and the base of the 2, for example. And, as noted in the first sentence of the paragraph, qucikly checking the Heritage archives does seem to show different "2" and perhaps "9" styles in the 1920s Mercury dimes.

Finally, do you have any photos showing the additional doubling on the 1936 coin? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Dimeman, it can be difficult comparing Mercury and Barber dimes. For Mercuries, the date was included in the hub, whereas this was not the case for Barbers. Thus, for Mercs, for a given date, the date should always be in the same position and have the same spacing.[1]

*****
[1] Noting of course, that there may be large dates small date varieties in certain cases. But these of course are due to different hubs for series introduced in the 20th century, not different date punches.

fcloud · June 5, 2010 12:18PM

The first image shows the top of the cap I discussed earlier about rounded and angular doubling.
The second image show the doubling on 1936: look at the tops of all the numbers.
The last image shows the wingtips in which have doubling

fcloud · June 5, 2010 12:27PM

Here is the top of the cap from a 1936 Philedelphia mint (no mint mark) coin.
Smooth rounded and no doubling.

fcloud · June 5, 2010 12:33PM

Images posted above.

Keep in mind the Winged Liberty dimes went through many changes. As I stated earlier the dates in the 1920s are different than the dates of the 1930s. There have also been some changes on the dies over the years. 1923 has a 3 like no other three in the series. The feathers had changes at various points of the series. There were a lot of odd things that happened to this series, so I wouldn't rule this out. It could be and it may not be, but to rule it flat out is simply something I wouldn't do. Also, Jon (Dimeman) and I have had the advantage of seeing the early strike first hand.

<< fcloud, look at the slope of the 1st 9 of the 1929 and the slope of the "underdated 9" of the 1936 In addition to them apparently not being in the same position relative to the bust, the slopes are different. Also, look at the shape of the "2's" where the base meets the curve. In the 1929, it is, for lack of a better word, "truncated," whereas it has a "normal extention" in the "underdated 2" of the 1936 coin. And this is why I'm not convinced this is an overdate.

Now, having said this, date styles have been known to be changed in the master hubs, a 1920 "2" and a 1929 "2" are not necessarily the same. The same with the "9's." You might want to compare it with other 1920's dates to see if you can match the slope of the 9 and the base of the 2, for example. And, as noted in the first sentence of the paragraph, qucikly checking the Heritage archives does seem to show different "2" and perhaps "9" styles in the 1920s Mercury dimes.

Finally, do you have any photos showing the additional doubling on the 1936 coin? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Dimeman, it can be difficult comparing Mercury and Barber dimes. For Mercuries, the date was included in the hub, whereas this was not the case for Barbers. Thus, for Mercs, for a given date, the date should always be in the same position and have the same spacing.[1]

*****
[1] Noting of course, that there may be large dates small date varieties in certain cases. But these of course are due to different hubs for series introduced in the 20th century, not different date punches. >>

Pick on this for me...

Comments

Leave a Comment