Question for Half Dime Aficionados

MWallace

I have noticed that many 1856 Half Dimes have missing and/or weak denticals. It this common among 1856's? Is it a negative?

braddick

Not my series, yet I'd speculate any coin with weak denticles- unless it is an error- is a negative.

MWallace

@braddick said:
Not my series, yet I'd speculate any coin with weak denticles- unless it is an error- is a negative.

That's why I haven't pulled the trigger yet. However, if it's a common occurrence for an 1856, I will continue to consider it.

MFeld

That isn't unusual for the date. I viewed images of a number of MS65 and MS66 examples, to be sure my memory was correct.

MWallace

@MFeld said:
That isn't unusual for the date. I viewed images of a number of MS65 and MS66 examples, to be sure my memory was correct.

Thank you. I was seeing so many like that, that I thought it might not be uncommon for the date.

yosclimber

Yes, almost all of the 1856 half dimes have weak dentils.

Here is what @MrHalfDime wrote on the subject back in 2006:

When I first opened the image you posted of the half dime with weak/non-existent dentils, it opened with only the top 2/3 of the image visible on the screen, requiring me to scroll down to see the rest of the obverse. My first reaction was "It must be an 1856". The hubs for 1856 were so worn from repeated use, there were virtually no dentils remaining, so all coins struck from the working dies looked similar to the one you pictured.

Indeed, a rare 1856 half dime would be one with full dentils throughout 360°. In nearly twenty-five years of looking, I have found just 3 1856 half dimes with full dentils.

In the following year, 1857, the die shop 'retouched' the master dies to improve the dentils and other features with little success, leading to a complete design change in 1859. The 1856 half dimes are essentially ignored, as it is a high mintage year with little of interest happening in terms of 'varieties'.

Here is one of his 3 coins with full dentils.

MWallace

@yosclimber said:
Yes, almost all of the 1856 half dimes have weak dentils.

Thank you. Good info.

CaptHenway

You know, I have never been comfortable with that explanation that BOTH the obverse and the reverse hubs suddenly deteriorated drastically in just the area of the denticles.

Here is a new and totally unresearched theory: Something happened to the upsetting mill in 1856 and the blanks were not upset properly. Not enough metal was moved inwards to where the denticles are, and the coins struck from these planchets show weak denticles on both sides.

A similar, but not so drastic, effect can be seen on many O-mint Morgan dollars. If you study the upset rims of off-center coins you can see that the highest point of the upset rim's "ridge" lies close to the outer edge of the coin. Many normal O-mint dollars show the denticles rather flat and splayed out.

TD

MWallace

@CaptHenway said:
You know, I have never been comfortable with that explanation that BOTH the obverse and the reverse hubs suddenly deteriorated drastically in just the area of the denticles.

Here is a new and totally unresearched theory: Something happened to the upsetting mill in 1856 and the blanks were not upset properly. Not enough metal was moved inwards to where the denticles are, and the coins struck from these planchets show weak denticles on both sides.

A similar, but not so drastic, effect can be seen on many O-mint Morgan dollars. If you study the upset rims of off-center coins you can see that the highest point of the upset rim's "ridge" lies close to the outer edge of the coin. Many normal O-mint dollars show the denticles rather flat and splayed out.

TD

Having collected error coins for so long and learning about the minting process, that makes sense to me.

CaptHenway

The few 1856 Half Dimes known with normal denticles might have been struck on Type Two planchets left over from the previous year and carried on the books as bullion.

yosclimber

Thanks for sharing - it seems like a more plausible theory to me, too.

P.S. One of the main reasons I use the pendant position to measure date position on half dimes
(instead of the "denticle ruler" used for dimes)
is because of the often missing dentils on Philadelphia 1856, 1857, 1858.
The other reason is that dentil shape does not seem to be very consistent, even from a single die.

HalfDimeDude

Ive seen 57 and 58 as well with the denticals issues... this sort of issue does not stop me from buying a nice specimen .


This specimen shows complete teeth and those that have been sort of mushed togther...as the captain explains about the upsetting mill .
@yosclimber I like your take on the stars on this specimen....definitely some recutting going on.

HalfDimeDude

This 1829 denticles are missing on some areas of the specimen ....however take a look would you pass on this one? Ah no either did I. This is another coin that I would never part ways.

ricko

@CaptHenway .... Thanks, that is a very plausible explanation and I find it more acceptable than the generally given one. Cheers, RickO

yosclimber

For @CaptHenway :
Another simple reason that the "worn hub" theory is likely wrong:
Weak dentils are on most of the 1856 Philadelphia half dimes.
The 1856-O half dimes are perfectly normal.
So are the 1856 V-2 proofs. (But they are struck under higher pressure).

So it could be the Philadelphia planchets.
Or maybe the hubbing process used for the Philadelphia dies (but not the New Orleans dies). This might happen if the New Orleans dies were created early in the year, before the non-proof Philadelphia dies, and then the hubbing process changed.
Or maybe the striking process in Philadelphia.