1822/1 Bust 50c

logger7

I had this for a while but missed the overdate. Finally sent it in for grading where the 1822/1 overdate came up. Why are these so hard to see?

Pnies20

It’s not a true overdate but some debris caught in the die of the second 2.

pursuitofliberty

So, a little more to @Pnies20 's explanation

.

The 22/1's were for years recognized as an overdate Variety, and is still shown as such at PCGS and NGC (and to my knowledge all other services), and still carried as such in almost all publications including the Redbook (again to my knowledge).

However, as related by Edgar E. Souders in Bust Half Fever, the overdate was debunked by Dr. Ivan Leaman as debris in the dies on both the 22/1 O-101 and O-102 Die Marriages (the only two for the variety).

Further, Edgar wrote that he believed, ... that the debris is the emanation of a defective partial punch field along with some die wear. This is logical as a "2" punch was likely one of the most difficult to manufacture due to the "2" numeral's odd shape.

And also, But what about the remnant or line near the inner curl of the "2"? This too, is punch field debris. a common graver slip. or extreme die wear.

.

So, that fact you hadn't noticed it might mean you already knew it wasn't what it purported to be.

jacrispies

Great explanations above! Not a bad looking coin, I would call it XF Details. Very sharp!

logger7

@pursuitofliberty said:
So, a little more to @Pnies20 's explanation

.

The 22/1's were for years recognized as an overdate Variety, and is still shown as such at PCGS and NGC (and to my knowledge all other services), and still carried as such in almost all publications including the Redbook (again to my knowledge).

However, as related by Edgar E. Souders in Bust Half Fever, the overdate was debunked by Dr. Ivan Leaman as debris in the dies on both the 22/1 O-101 and O-102 Die Marriages (the only two for the variety).

Further, Edgar wrote that he believed, ... that the debris is the emanation of a defective partial punch field along with some die wear. This is logical as a "2" punch was likely one of the most difficult to manufacture due to the "2" numeral's odd shape.

And also, But what about the remnant or line near the inner curl of the "2"? This too, is punch field debris. a common graver slip. or extreme die wear.

.

So, that fact you hadn't noticed it might mean you already knew it wasn't what it purported to be.

And Redbook calls it "so-called" 1822/1. The o-102 is much tougher.

pursuitofliberty

@logger7 Thanks for the info' on the Redbook. I suppose that is somewhat new. I'm afraid to admit the latest copy I have. It isn't from this century.

Damn, that get's me thinking. How many of them have I given away in that time?

And yes, the O-102 is the much more difficult Die Marriage.

johnny9434

Now I gotta go look at mine now for a refresh 🙄

Steven59

["that the debris is the emanation of a defective partial punch field along with some die wear. This is logical as a "2" punch was likely one of the most difficult to manufacture due to the "2" numeral's odd shape."]

Not much to tell by except for the thickness of the last 2.

Herb_T