The third coin added to Early $10 set - FUN sale Purchase

gschwernk

1803 $10 EXTRA STAR REVERSE AU58 CERTIFICATION #80576316, PCGS #88565

The rest of my collection can be viewed on my website:

https://sc-coins.com/

Nysoto

Nice example of an intriguing variety.

A lot of previous theories on the extra star, none are proveable.

Here is another theory for the first time - and I will critique my own theory.

From this variety 1803 BD-5 $10 (die marriage), onward through BD-6 and 1804 BD-1 AND 1804 BD-2 struck in 1834, AND all subsequent draped bust half dollar reverses struck in 1805-1807 (except 1805 O-112, which used a mid-1803 reverse die), all of these reverse working dies had identical 153 dentils, the dentils were identical because all working dies were sunk from the same reverse working hub that experimented in hubbed dentils - the only time this was done on eagles/half dollars until the steam press.

The theory is that Robert Scot marked the 1803 BD-5 with a tiny extra star to identify the starting point for his experiment.

The rebuttal is that Scot did not generally put hidden symbols or marks on dies, he could have identified this reverse on sight, with a little attribution work, but the extra star would make attribution faster.

gschwernk

@Nysoto said:
Nice example of an intriguing variety.

A lot of previous theories on the extra star, none are proveable.

Here is another theory for the first time - and I will critique my own theory.

From this variety 1803 BD-5 $10 (die marriage), onward through BD-6 and 1804 BD-1 AND 1804 BD-2 struck in 1834, AND all subsequent draped bust half dollar reverses struck in 1805-1807 (except 1805 O-112, which used a mid-1803 reverse die), all of these reverse working dies had identical 153 dentils, the dentils were identical because all working dies were sunk from the same reverse working hub that experimented in hubbed dentils - the only time this was done on eagles/half dollars until the steam press.

The theory is that Robert Scot marked the 1803 BD-5 with a tiny extra star to identify the starting point for his experiment.

The rebuttal is that Scot did not generally put hidden symbols or marks on dies, he could have identified this reverse on sight, with a little attribution work, but the extra star would make attribution faster.

Interesting! Seems hard to prove one way or other without more info. I have just started the BD book but I don't think it sheds light on the extra star.

ricko

That star is very faint, is it really an intentional addition? Just looked for further information and did not find any. No data in the Mega Red either. Cheers, RickO