Delete please

opportunity

solved

lilolme

The BHNC die state booklet states that there are none known with the die chip.
This is the booklets example for 104.3

https://coins.ha.com/itm/a/1291-3379.s
.

opportunity

@lilolme said:
The BHNC die state booklet states that there are none known with the die chip.

.

That's right, the die chip is a myth.

jacrispies

O-104a

Correct above, the die chip in Overton does not exist. The crack from RI in AMERICA to the tip of the right wing is the beginning of the "a" die state.

pursuitofliberty

O-104

There is no 104a recognized anymore. It's a 104.3 Die State

opportunity

@pursuitofliberty said:
There is no 104a recognized anymore. It's a 104.3 Die State

I was aware of this myself as per the BHNC publication, but I wasn't sure if PCGS was still attributing O-104a's or not.

The friend in question was bewildered that they attributed it as a plain O-104, which I think is what lead them to contact me to ask if I thought they should send it back in again.

My most recent thoughts on the "A" state are that any trace of the RI crack should have qualified it as the A, assuming it still exists in practice, ie- the grading companies (in theory).

I believe the one I posted is an A or at least formerly would have been.

If anyone else has any thoughts, I'd like to hear them.

pursuitofliberty

O-104

@opportunity said:

@pursuitofliberty said:
There is no 104a recognized anymore. It's a 104.3 Die State

I was aware of this myself as per the BHNC publication, but I wasn't sure if PCGS was still attributing O-104a's or not.

The friend in question was bewildered that they attributed it as a plain O-104, which I think is what lead them to contact me to ask if I thought they should send it back in again.

My most recent thoughts on the "A" state are that any trace of the RI crack should have qualified it as the A, assuming it still exists in practice, ie- the grading companies (in theory).

I believe the one I posted is an A or at least formerly would have been.

If anyone else has any thoughts, I'd like to hear them.

If we use the Third Edition of Overton as a basis (I do) for the most basic states, then the crack through RI and 50 C clearly starts as part of the 104, and not with the 104a.

The 104a description then says "... that the cracks through RI to tip of right wing and 50 C are heavier and a die chip at the edge below center pair of leaves."

When any new condition exists it creates that new state, but once the state exists, a new state only starts with a new definable feature. So in this case, the only definable new characteristic is the chip, which does not exist.

The argument could be made about the cracks being "heavier", but what defines a heavier crack, and how would you discern between the 104 and 104a crack if they are essentially the same? I do not see this as technically warranting a new state unless those cracks had changed much more fundamentally.

Still a tough coin (all 20's are difficult, but the 104 is not easy), and FWIW, tell your friend that the 104.3 is a R5 variety.

My 2c ...

jayPem

I don't have the 1820 marriages memorized, nor is my Overton handy..
In which marriage did the obverse aquire the large crack?

jacrispies

O-104a

@pursuitofliberty AMBPR still shows the "a" die state listed with specific notation that the die chip doesn't exist. I am under the impression that if the "a" die state was delisted, it would be removed entirely and noted as AMBPR as such.

opportunity

@jacrispies said:
@pursuitofliberty AMBPR still shows the "a" die state listed with specific notation that the die chip doesn't exist. I am under the impression that if the "a" die state was delisted, it would be removed entirely and noted as AMBPR as such.

I'm basically with you on this, now that I see it is still there. Unless there's an unspoken mandate at PCGS to not attribute them anymore, I now believe this one should have been designated as an 'a' now that I've seen the updated Trueview of the coin. I told them that I'd for sure send it back in with notes along with it, insisting that it should have the 'a' designation. Is there anyone who disagrees that this would be an 'a', whether it's technically still recognized or not?

pursuitofliberty

O-104

@opportunity @jacrispies

I would absolutely write to Steve Herrman first. I also believe that PCGS is NOT designating them any more, nor, in my humble opinion based on the context of what has been laid out before me of when new states exist, should they.

The AMBPR still carries the sales of supposed 'a' states in an effort to help people understand that the latest state, regardless of it's designator, is entirely more difficult, and also to bring continuity to the pricing from the past.

again, this is only my 2c ...

opportunity

I'm curious, for those of you who voted O-104, did you vote this because you believe the O-104a is no longer in the picture, or because you don't believe it would have qualified as the "a" under the previous "rules"?

I'll be the first to admit that the 20 104a has always stumped me somewhat, insofar as the diagnostics described by Overton as well as the very high premiums for the 104.3 DS