1888/7 Final Debate - Is It an overdate ? Yes - Last word on the subject.
DMWJR
Posts: 6,042 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have read every thread I could read on this board, NGC, as well as doing my own research. I've never objected to it actually being an overdate. My objection has always been around the pricing - grade for grade the most expensive coin in the series.
I will let the pictures speak for themselves. I took a regular 1887, overlayed it with the most recently posted overdate, and it fits in my opinion. I overlayed the entire date, so all four digits would be in alignment. The first three are perfect, and the last is a perfectly matched overdate. The striking depth of the 7, or the polishing of the date area may be responsible for some minute sizing of the lower part of the exposed 7.
I have spoken.
What say you naysayers out there?
Doug
1
Comments
If the base of the 7 is so prominent...then where is the tail inside the 8 spaces?
But hey - whatever floats collector’s boats is fine by me...
I can't explain other copies that show the last digit more heavily punched than the first three. How can this be reconciled with the evenly punched example in the first set of photos?
I would ask the same question about the tip of the 7 on an 1858/7. Where's the rest of the 7?
I'm not in the market in the price range. The last buck and a half I had for IHC's went for a knockout MS66 1877. Could you. imagine what someone would try to charge for an MS66 1888/7?
I concur with this observation but I'm glad it does as I sold a Good 04 that I cherried for a buck for $1400. I have seen EDS coins that were pretty convincing but I would never pay that premium for a typical example.
In the final analysis, I would agree it is an overdate....why there is no indication within the 8 is curious.... I must assume the removal of the 7 was better in that area.... The above example - third picture, seems to show a trace of the top/left point of the seven... Why the bottom portion was left virtually intact is a mystery... maybe quitting time at the mint on a Friday?? Lots of mistakes in businesses happen at that time.
Cheers, RickO
Yes, but sometimes you have to do it yourself to be a true believer, lol!
It isn't necessary for there to be anything inside the loops of the last 8 to validate this as an overdate.
Look at the picture below of the 1894 Snow-1 RPD. The underlying 9 shows all around the right side of the primary digit, but there is nothing in the loop.
When the die was punched with the new last digit, there was movement of steel that helped obliterate the previous digit.
I forget the exact metallurgical reasoning, but as a die is used minor differences in the metal that filled in the previous design can actually cause the removed elements to become more prominent. For this reason, sometimes a late die state of a variety will be much easier to see than an early die state, which is counterintuitive. (There is a CWT that I collect by die state that shows this well, I will try to add pictures to the thread later).
The rim cud that is seen on all known examples could mean the die was retired early, so you would not see that progression in the visibility of the overdate.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
My, oh my, have the qualifying descriptions vary between coin denominations. I have been hung out to dry on a couple of 1849/6 H10's because there was not enough details in underlying digit visible to make the determination (LDS). BUT...I believe that the 1888/7 IS an overdate...the folks ATS would probably not share that sentiment.
There are other PUP's (rim cud's, die cracks, etc...) which can contribute to the varieties...once again those ATS do not see it that way on some varieties.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
@oih82w8
Don't feel bad, PCGS is doing the same thing with the 1858/7 Strong vs. Weak.
The pic from the OP's 2nd post looks like a different die, is it confirmed these all came from one?
Sorry, still don’t buy it
I have wondered this also. If you look at the six or so on CoinFacts, half of them have digits that are even in height. The other half show the first three as shallow, with the last 8 being bold, as if only the 8 was repunched.