Home U.S. Coin Forum

1823 O.101 "Broken 3" Is Quite Possible The Most Commonly Misattributed Overton Variety Ev

Oops #1
Oops #2

Everybody makes mistakes I suppose, and this mistake is not limited to PCGS - I see this misattribution very often, everywhere. Shows, shops, eBay, etc., both raw and in holders. I can safely say I've seen this misattribution in all TPG holders at least once. I'd be curious to know how much this mistake affects the market value of the true O.101 "Broken 3". My guess is quite dramatically, as I suspect the population would diminish by a large number if the mistakes were 'weeded out' (an impossible task, unfortunately).

For anyone who hasn't the slightest idea what the heck I'm talking about, the above coins are 1823 O.110, the so-called "Perfect 3" variety, not O.101 "Broken 3" as labeled.

So, to put an end to the confusion once and for all, here are some ways to easily distinguish O.101 from O.110...

1) Date position. The 8 is set much lower relative to 1 on O.101 than O.110 - The top of 8 and 1 are level on O.110. Also note how 3 leans dramatically to the right away from 2 on O.101, whereas on O.110 the 3 leans towards 2. (top image is O.101, bottom is O.101)

imageimage

2) AM relative to scroll. On O.101, the right end of the scroll is centered under the left leg of M in AMERICA. O.110 shows the right end of the scroll centered between A and M. (left image is O.101, right is O.110)

imageimage

3) A-A relationship. The distance between the last A in AMERICA and the highest arrow tip is slightly greater on O.101. A-A nearly touch on O.110. (O.101 right, O.110 left)

imageimage

IMAGES COURTESY OF PCGS CoinFacts

If anyone uses any other method(s) to seperate these two varieties, please share! image

Thanks for Reading,
Brian
Lurking and learning since 2010. Full-time professional numismatist.

Comments

  • TreashuntTreashunt Posts: 6,747 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Brian

    good analysis.

    Or you could just look and see that the 3 on the broken 3 has no center to the 3.

    The 110 has a center to the figure
    Frank

    BHNC #203

  • astroratastrorat Posts: 9,221 ✭✭✭✭✭
    While I can't comment on how the TPGs attribute CBHs (as all four "top" companies make attribution mistakes), you would really have to try and mix up those two die marriages (1823 O-101 and O-110) if you had even a small amount of experience attributing CBHs. The obverses and reverses are easily distinguished.

    I might offer another explanation. It is easy to transpose numbers when entering into a computer when you are in a hurry. Perhaps when typing, "101" becomes "110" and vice-versa when the graders are under pressure.

    Nice analysis, BTW.

    Also ... you can use the relative position of the 5 in 50 C on the reverse. It's position relative to the talons and arrow feather above can often distinguish between two die marriages. (Sorry, no time to track down images).
    Numismatist Ordinaire
    See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
  • amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 11,269 ✭✭✭✭✭
    To expand on Astrorat's comment most are probably a submission error. The PCGS number for a broken 3 is 6132. This means you do not have to submit and pay for variety attribution...you simply submit the coin under the number 6132. I have wondered if the submissions are verified as to variety. Most of the error slabs you see with the wrong date or mintmark come about in this was in my opinion. I actually have a misattributed 1823 in a Broken 3 holder myself!
  • astroratastrorat Posts: 9,221 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>To expand on Astrorat's comment most are probably a submission error. The PCGS number for a broken 3 is 6132. This means you do not have to submit and pay for variety attribution...you simply submit the coin under the number 6132. I have wondered if the submissions are verified as to variety. Most of the error slabs you see with the wrong date or mintmark come about in this was in my opinion. I actually have a misattributed 1823 in a Broken 3 holder myself! >>

    Good point ... I just assumed submissions are verified as to not verify them would seem to be an open invitation for having the TPG on the hook for a misattribution.

    Then again, verifying an attribution is less work that determining an attribution. It may be that the verifier relies (unintentionally) on the accuracy of the submission information.
    Numismatist Ordinaire
    See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't see how those 2 varieties (101 & 110) could be hard to see. I wish some of the Bust Dimes were that easy to attribute.
  • BustHalfBrianBustHalfBrian Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Brian

    good analysis.

    Or you could just look and see that the 3 on the broken 3 has no center to the 3.

    The 110 has a center to the figure >>



    And yet this mistake is so common.

    I tend to agree with you. It is easy for you and I to tell the two apart, but for someone who isn't schooled in Bust halves, the 3 looks irregular and there is slight seperation above the center spike. I will create an illustration later explaining this and where I think the confusion lies.
    Lurking and learning since 2010. Full-time professional numismatist.
  • stealerstealer Posts: 3,968 ✭✭✭✭
    They both look broken to me image
  • Thank you Brian and others foe another great education on some very interesting coins.
  • mozinmozin Posts: 8,755 ✭✭✭
    Nice job Brian. All I use is the Broken 3 has the 3 obviously rotated CW. Only the O-101a Patched 3 shares this obverse. Edited because I forgot to include the O-102 Patched 3 also shares the same obverse.
    I collect Capped Bust series by variety in PCGS AU/MS grades.
  • johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 27,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    good eye image
  • jdillanejdillane Posts: 2,362 ✭✭✭
    I've seen many incorrectly attributed. This one is quite simple to attribute as Mozin points out as only the broken three and the patched three have the 3 canted to the right.
  • StuartStuart Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭✭✭
    BustHalfBrian,

    Thanks very much for posting the 1823 (Broken 3) Bust Half Dollar Images in this thread.

    As a result I discovered that My Former 1823 Capped Bust Half Dollar is now the PCGS Coin Facts plate coin previously posted in the referenced thread. I also see that it has since been upgraded to PCGS MS-63+ (from PCGS MS-63). image -- I had originally purchased this coin raw in the early 1980's and subsequently submitted it for grading to PCGS as a raw coin. image

    Phil's photos are excellent (top photos), and display the coin in its full beauty. 1823 (Broken 3) Capped Bust Half Dollar - Coin Facts Plate Coin

    PCGS Coin Facts Plate Coin - Photo Credit Phil Arnold
    image

    My Original Photos
    image

    imageimage

    Stuart

    Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal

    "Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
  • coin22lovercoin22lover Posts: 3,452 ✭✭✭
    Another explanation could be "wishful thinking" syndrome.
  • BustHalfBrianBustHalfBrian Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭
    Add another to the list

    ... But at least the seller is honest about it image
    Lurking and learning since 2010. Full-time professional numismatist.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file