The Revised 1849/6 Half Dime Varieties - 9/16 UPDATE
ms70
Posts: 13,956 ✭✭✭✭✭
The Liberty Seated Half Dimes Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes (1837-1873) has now been updated to reflect the revised 1849/6 Varieties and there are 3 of them.... FS-301, FS-302, and "Over wide placed 6" which has no FS designation.
I'm having trouble differentiating between FS-302 (PCGS# 145432) and the "1849/6 H10C Over Wide Placed 6"
(PCGS# 4342). What am I missing here?
FS-302: https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1849-6-h10c-overdate-fs-302-001-55/145432
Over Wide Placed 6 https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1849-6-h10c-over-wide-placed/4342
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
2
Comments
These designations overlap:
1. FS-302 = V-2 , and the FS-302 photo you show above is correctly attributed (what I call "9 / far 6", reverse cracks Right ribbon, split UN, split ST, split ME)
2. FS-301 = V-4, what I call "9 / near 6". Different reverse cracks, most easily seen at Left ribbon.
3. "Over Wide Placed 6" = V-2 ("9 / far 6"). I first saw this designation in the Red Book, as "Widely Placed 6".
I believe this 3rd one is not needed.
About CoinFacts photos - some of them are misattributed.
So I would not lean on them very much.
Hopefully they will get cleaned up over time, with the new designations.
The above photo with beautiful pink toning (Cert #36069311) for "Over Wide Placed 6" from CoinFacts is a V-1 (184 touch base, date furthest left). This also happens to be an overdate.
There are 2 other photos in this category on CoinFacts at present:
Notice how the 49 under digits are barely visible in the fields but more visible as raised lumps on 49 on this very high grade (MS-65) coin. (Right-click on the photo to see full resolution).
The PCGS Coin Number categories (as currently displayed in CoinFacts) appear to be nested in this way:
1.A. #4341 Main category - no particular variety
1.B. #4342 "1849/6 H10C Over Wide Placed 6"
1.C. #4343 "1849/6 H10C"
1.C.1. #145432 "1849/6 H10C Overdate FS-302 (001.55)"
1.C.2. #38738 "1849/6 H10C RPD FS-301 (001.5)"
This is actually progress, because the obsolete "9/8" is gone.
Ideally this should be changed to something like:
1.A. #4341 Main category - All V- numbers not included below (V-1, V-3, V-8, V-8A)
1.B. #4342 or 14532 "9 / Far 6" - FS-302 - V-2 and V-6 (Late die state obverse and different reverse)
1.C. #4343 or 38738 "9 / Near 6" - FS-301 - V-4 and V-5 (Late die state obverse and different reverse)
@BrettPCGS
An alternative grouping which would be easier to handle across lower grades would be:
1.A. #4341 Main. Everything except V-2 and V-4 (V-1, V-3, V-5, V-6, V-8, V-8A)
1.B. #4342 or 14532 "9 / Far 6" - FS-302 - V-2
1.C. #4343 or 38738 "9 / Near 6" - FS-301 - V-4
The practical collector can attribute V-2 and V-4 from the reverse crack pattern, even in very low grades.
The overdates themselves are usually only visible on very high grade and early die state coins, or sometimes on lower grade coins by particular lumps on top of the 49 and a curve visible within the upper loop of the 9.
Notes: V-1 is also a 9/6 overdate that is less well known. And V-8 and V-8A have repunched 1 and 9, so they may be of interest to people who like RPDs.
As I have mentioned in other threads, there is a fundamental question that has to be answered on 1849 overdate half dime attribution for the purpose of slab labels and registry sets:
1. Should it be based on the die pair (V- number)? This is the most stable and reproducible. It uses the die pair, and ignores die state (except when useful to identify a die).
2. Should it be based on visible under digits? This lines up with what was printed in the Red Book (9/6, etc.). But it depends on die state and grade. There will be many borderline cases where some people can see the under digits / lumps and other people are not sure. It suggests that only the obverse die matters. Looking for overdates and RPDs is really an approach developed for modern coins. With half dimes, there are often die cracks that are much more visible and make attribution to die pairs more definite.
Ultimately the best answer depends on collector preferences.
1. I prefer using die pair, because is reproducible and is the most informative. It will prevent collector frustration with getting inconsistent attribution from PCGS.
2. PCGS is probably trying to help follow collector trends with labels that identify more valuable coins. Collectors probably prefer visible under digits for high grade coins, but this information is also available in photos and in prices realized. Attempting to bypass this with labels seems unnecessary. A compromise might be to use an additional "EDS" (Early Die State) label text when the under digits are visible to the grader. EDS would be an indication of higher value if collectors like to see the under digits. It's a bit inconsistent, though, since under digits are sometimes visible on high grade V-6 and V-5 coins, even though V-6 and V-5 are actually later die states of the obverses on V-2 and V-4.
If people are not familiar with attributing 1849 half dimes, please see my (free PDF) attribution guide for detailed photos, rosters, rarity, etc.:
https://sites.google.com/view/clintcummins/half-dime-attribution-guide
Just saw this on the way to bed. Will look at tomorrow, and find my prior post about the plans to switch to FS-301a and FS-302a.
Your June 19 post on the "amended" FS-301a and FS-302a is here:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12355137/#Comment_12355137
To anyone who is unfamiliar, this was a long desired and awaited development, where these 2 overdates will have "amended" descriptions as 9/6, instead of one tagged as 9/6 and the other as 9/8.
Probably it will be helpful in the next phase to have some additional text to distinguish them (in addition to 301a and 302a).
Here are some atypical visible under digit photos, with the labels I like:
V-2 FS-302a "9 / Far 6"
V-4 FS-301a "9 / Near 6"
For more under digit photos and discussion, see the original thread from February 2018:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/11916695/#Comment_11916695
The registry has the three listed like this, in this order, indicating aquiring all of them is necessary in working toward completing your set. As mentioned above, it seems the latter two are the same obverse in different die states.
1849/6 RPD FS-301....................38738.........1849/6
1849/6 Overdate FS-302...........145432.......1849/6
1849/6 Over Wide Placed 6......4342............1849/6
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
nice pick up
Obviously these are the same dies. The second one reflects the recognized (by us) Late Die State that somebody on here was trying to get certified as the overdate. It would be good if PCGS would recognize the two different die states with different registry numbers.
That said, I believe that if you pay for variety attribution you get either A (FS-301) or B (FS-302), and if you do not pay for attribution you get the generic C, which would be flat-out WRONG if the coin is the Near 6.
TD
(Edited to add: I goofed. These are not the same die. See correction by yosclimber below.)
Thank you gentlemen! So I'm not losing my mind after all...... In the end the registry, like the Capt said, should have separate registry numbers for the FS-302 die states, or what I would prefer which would be just FS-301 and FS-302 and forget about a separate recognition for the FS-302 die state. Either way is fine. The generic entry is no good. It's confusing an issue that took so long to clear up, at least only as far as the registry is concerned.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
And ultimately it means I would have to fill two registry entries with the exact same variety FS-302 based on a die state designation if I understand this correctly.
@BrettPCGS
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I've got a gorgeous former 1849/8 (slab marked that way) that is now listed as a 1849/6 in my registry listing.
In MS64, I'd sorta like to get it relabled, but at the same time, I like that it's shown as the old description.
Is there any preceived drawback to leaving the plastic with the old description intact?
Actually they are not the same dies. (I'm sure you will agree after taking a second look).
The upper photo in the first post is V-2, and the lower photo is V-1.
There are 3 different 1849 obverse dies which have a 9/6 overdate:
Hopefully this comparison array will be helpful.
Perhaps it would be simplest if PCGS recognized all three 9/6 dies for the registry set.
I believe V-1 does not have an FS- number yet, but that is not necessary.
It would prevent the situation where a person has a V-1 and can see the under digit lumps,
but does not get a 9/6 designation.
All 3 are easily attributable (hint: use the reverse crack pattern for V-2 and V-4) and available (so they are collectible).
It would require a new PCGS Coin Number for the V-1.
Dang, you are absolutely right! All I looked at was the curve of the 6 to the right of the bottom half of the 9. Serves me right for looking at pictures on my cell phone!
Please send me that picture of the V-1 and I will send it to Bill Fivaz and Q. David Bowers to see if I can get it an FS number before the next edition is printed. Or better yet send me the single picture (for them to use) plus the composite for convincement purposes!
TD
I just sent these 2 photos to your email.
Thanks for all your help with this!
WOW! Yosclimber that is an amazing observation that escaped me!
Absolutely! I would personally think three distinct varieties each with FS numbers and PCGS adjusting the registry to recognize this would be a great and final resolution!
Fingers crossed!
Thank you TD & Clint! You guys are the best!
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I don't see why there would be, but if it were to be put up for sale I would either get it reholdered correctly or make sure the correct variety was made abundantly clear.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The die is the die; it won't change into a different die just because of use.
Seems best to note the die pair and the amount of metal abrasion or visibility of a feature. Recommend not giving it a bunch of sub-die designations - this is one thing that has ruined the growth of Morgan dollar variety collecting.
I am still curious about "recalling", or whatever it is called, the old designations for correction.
I have a V-1 that was reclassified as 4342 "Over Wide Placed 6" according to PCGS CoinFacts https://www.pcgs.com/cert/35185731 (I did not pay for the Cherry Picker variety attribution). I also have a previously attributed 1849/8 145432 "Overdate FS-302 (001.55)" (I did pay for the Cherry Picker variety attribution), the PCGS coin number is the same (145432 / variety of 4343), just redesignated as 1849/6 within the system, but not on the present insert. https://www.pcgs.com/cert/81763924
I later learned that if the major variety is listed in the Red Book, then there is no fee for attribution. If the collector wants the Cherry Picker variety (or other minor variety) attributed, then the fee applies.
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,...
In Yosclimber's latter post he shows it's not just a worn die, but it's actually a third die with this overdate.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Well, the V-1 is over a wide placed 6, just like the V-2. That’s why I thought they were from the same die looking at the small pictures.
So here are my personal two examples and they are currently attributed by PCGS as marked (as per their cert#'s)
I've been studying these against the information and images in this thread. I think the attributions on my examples are reversed. Am I correct or no?
Note the 849 are much further away from the rock on the top coin.
Top coin cert#: 31917177 - FS-302
Bottom coin cert#: 31609956 - Over Wide Placed 6
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Those are beautiful coins @ms70 and I appreciate the discussion within the subject but I apologize for not knowledgable enough to opine
These both have the V-2 obverse.
The lower coin has an outstanding visible "far 6" in the field, and it's partly visible in the upper coin.
If you post reverse photos I can tell you if the coins are V-2 or V-6.
Most likely the second one is not a V-6, because so much of the "far 6" is visible.
Top coin cert#: 31917177 - FS-302 / PCGS# 145432
Bottom coin cert#: 31609956 - Over Wide Placed 6 / PCGS# 4342
Ultimately I'm confused as to if the PCGS#'s are correct for each.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I have a few > @yosclimber said:
Agreed. Both V-2 obverse, the bottom one an excellent example of the Very Early Die State comparable to the Crain Specimen's die state.
Could somebody please post a screencap of the current PCGS options for all 1849 Half Dimes?
oih82w8's second coin here, which if you click on the link does say "145432 / variety of 4343" is actually a variety of 4342, the generic number (without FS attribution) for the wide 6 die. 4343 is the generic number for the close 6 die. Is 4342 still an option?
Here is the screencap from the PCGS Registry for:
"Liberty Seated Half Dimes Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes (1837-1873)"
Top entry for the straight up 1849 has a different appearance since there is a coin entered in it. The other three are empty so they look the same.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@CaptHenway 4342 is still active.
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,...
Thank you. That is inadequate. What happened to 4343, the generic number for the 1849/6 Near 6?
A V-1 can be certified as a #4342. Maybe that is why they left it in.
@CaptHenway 4343 is still active as well;
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,...
After pondering the above registry chart, the solution appears to be as simple as removing 4342 from this particular Registry since, as CaptHenway said, it's a generic entry. This particular Registry calls for the specific FS designated varieties so 4342 would be a duplicate, non-FS attributed 145432.
That means to fill the registry requirement for this set, you would have to purchase a duplicate FS-302 (145432) and
NOT have it attributed with an FS number so the holder would read 4342, which makes no sense. Maybe this was just an error when restructuring the registry for these coins?
@BrettPCGS are you following our conversation?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I am going to go have more coffee. My brain hurts!
4343 is the old 1849/8. I have one on my desk. Actually it is the top coin I have in the above samples,
Cert# 31917177 which now shows in the cert verification as 145432.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
V-1 (downward sloping date) is definitely different than the other 1849/6 H10C Overdates, as imaged by Clint ( @yosclimber ) and probably should receive its own designation rather than "generic".
I gotta go to work, but this conversation is "earmarked".
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,...
Ultimately I think the generic PCGS numbers need to be removed from registries that ask for specific FS attributed varieties. It makes no sense because you have to buy a duplicate coin with a generic label to fulfill the registry slot.
Adding varieties is great, but in a registry that asks for specific FS numbers the generic numbers need to go. I think this all might have been a mistake when adjusting the composite for the 1849/6 coins in that particular set.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Has this thread popped up on @HeatherBoyd radar? Perhaps she could lead @BrettPCGS this direction?
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,...
Somewhere above I put the @BrettPCGS tag hoping that he would follow.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Just finished up sending pictures of other things for an article in COINage. Will start agitating on these later today.
Awesome. Keep us posted!
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Check the PCGS listings now.
TD
4343 should be back, corrected. Can somebody do a new screenshot?
The 38738 listing should also be corrected.
TD
Yes, it's correct now (4343 = V-4 = "9 / Near 6") - glad to see this!
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1849-6-h10c/4343
Unfortunately, when I click on the "View More Images" link (below the MS-68),
it shows coins from 4343 and 145432 (FS-302), which is wrong.
It should show coins from 4343 and 38738 (FS-301).
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1849-6-h10c/images/4343
Yes, it's good now, too. (It is V-4 with the FS-301 label).
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1849-6-h10c-overdate-fs-301-001-5/38738
In case anyone is confused about these 8 ID numbers assigned to 2 obverse dies:
V-2 = FS-302 = "9 / Far 6" = 4342 = 14532
V-4 = FS-301 = "9 / Near 6" = 4343 = 38738
The problem of labelling the pages is nearly solved - very good!
The problem of having photos of coins in categories where they don't belong is a slightly different problem,
but hopefully it can also be fixed.
4342 page. 3 of 6 coins are attributed correctly.
The MS-65+ 36069311 is a V-1 (should not be on this page in my view, but see below)
The first MS-65 34953009 is a V-6 (same obverse as V-2, so correct - it's "9 / Far 6")
The second MS-65 06666579 is a V-2 (correct)
The first MS-63 35185731 is a V-1 (should not be on page)
The second MS-63 34972581 is a V-2 (correct)
The MS-62 09590608 is a V-1 (should not be on page)
14532 page. (FS-302). 3 of 3 coins are attributed correctly.
4343 page. 2 of the 3 coins are attributed correctly.
The MS-68 and MS-67 are V-4 (correct).
The MS-67+ is V-2 (should not be on this page).
38738 page. (FS-301). 1 of 1 coins is attributed correctly.
Note: If PCGS wants to call both the V-2 and V-1 "9 / Widely Placed 6", this might be acceptable.
The V-1 under digit 6 is certainly closer to "far" than "near".
However, they are not the same obverse die, as we discussed above.
And the V-1 under digits usually display only as lumps on top of the regular digits,
while the V-2 under digit 6 will display in early die states and high grades as fairly bold in the field down/right of the 9.
Progress!
I'll try not to confuse anyone here.....
This is the Registry screen shot for:
"Liberty Seated Half Dimes with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1837-1873)"
This is the Registry screen shot for:
"Liberty Seated Half Dimes Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes (1837-1873)"
The problem is for the latter, the COMPLETE Variety Set. The 1849/6 Over Wide Placed 6 #4342 should NOT exist in this set along with 1849/6 OVD FS-302 #145432, as they are the same coin, both the FS-302 variety.
Another discrepancy, why is FS-301 called an "RPD" and the FS-302 called an "OVERDATE"? Should they not both be called overdates with the appropriate OVD abbreviation?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I get the impression that "4343" is intended to be a generic PCGS# for ANY 1949/6 overdate. Above is the Coinfacts screenshot.
The MS68 and MS67 are FS-301 while the MS67+ is an FS-302. That is confusing to us, let alone a novice collector.
Unless I'm off base here and losing my mind, I don't see how two completely different varieties can have individual PCGS numbers AND share a common PCGS number.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Deleted to prevent confusion.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I was told that this was being changed. Give them a day to post them.
Whew! Thanks! Taking that into consideration I'll delete that post as to not cause confusion with others.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Yosclimber, you did a lot of work in that above post!
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Yeah - as usual, I started small - it was just going to be the 4343 screen shot.
But it seems there is always more I want to say....
Here's a new 2 page intro I'm preparing for the 1849 guide.
More key photos, less "wall of text"!
Keep an eye on the list of major varieties and post a screenshot when it changes.