@Sberry002 said:
****from a 2007 conversation on this site.**
**
@shylock said:
I guess I'll never see a visual reconstruction of this overdate. My mind works in a pragmatic way -- as TheRegulator alluded to,
in a two-dimensional manner -- when it comes to coins and variety strikes.
As per TheRegulator's post, I can understand the concept of "toggling" the 7 punch, an angled date punch that may make the
7 "fit" on the 1888/7. But the nub on the lower left of this overdate looks "untoggled" to me, a two- dimensional almost dead on
impression.
As per Lakes post,
I think it's really a 1888/1888/1887. That would cause the 7 to be even weaker than usual. If you look at the last 8, the middle of the digit has a bulging waist that would most likely have been caused by another 8. You can see remnants of overstrikes on the first 2 8's as well.
The size of the 7 doesn't matter. With the polishing of the die, the base is going to get smaller than a normal 7. Just like you can tell the die progression of a coin by seeing elements get smaller or get polished into the field, the same can occur with a digit you're trying to get rid of. It gets smaller before it disappears.
Finally, if you look closely at the last 7, the highest point is NOT the left edge. It's the mid-portion of the top left element of the 7. THAT is the last portion that will disappear with polishing and it's that portion that lines up best with the overlay.
Lakes has been my variety mentor since I first met him during an EBay sale years ago. He made me understand the upside down/inverted theory of clashed dies, which blew my mind up until then. His explanation is similar to DWLange's on the NGC board.
Imagine drawing a small circle in the dirt with the point of a stick. Then, push the stick right into the center of the circle. Much of the dirt displaced by the second action will fill the circle, while some dirt will form a ridge around the punch hole.
When an overdated die is basined (for its initial use), this ridge will be removed by the friction of the basining wheel, obliterating most of what remains of the original circle and leaving just the peripheral image. Subsequent polishings of the die to remove clashmarks, signs of erosion, etc. will only further weaken the original punching.
Bear in mind that any overdating of a die has to be done before it is hardened for its initial use. Once hardened, the die is never re-annealed, or softened. There is just one example of a previously used die being overdated at a later time, and that was during the Mint's earliest years.
This overdate will forever be a theoretical one, never explained completely to my satisfaction, but which I now believe is true.
I'm going to go back to my original NGC post where the only reason I believed this was an overdate was because I couldn't
come up with a logical reason for what caused the nub on the 8.
In other words, it's an overdate because I can't explain why it isn't
The pro-overdate theory requires a leap of faith about the date punch process.
The anti-overdate theory requires an explanation of what exists on this coin.
I'm a bit confused by the first but can't explain the latter.
1888 last 8 over 7 This cull coin explains what exists on 1888 /7 The die that made this coin had a CUD and Rim damage from being run with the dies too close to the collar at 9 o'clock.
Could you circle the invisible cud? I don't have anything strong enough to enhance my vision.
This is the only image of an 1888 / 7 I can find that shows the remnants of 88 in the 2nd and 3rd 8s.
The alignment with this broken date coin puts the lower initial damage directly underneath the CUD of 1888 last 8 over 7.
Damage to the deepest part of the incused 3rd 8 that would have been missed by the repair.
No matter if you are right or wrong, keep thinking and posting. It is the sign of an intelligent mind. Only you can change your opinion and it will come. Otherwise, your persistance in the face of total disagreement might expose something or at the least make the expert members here continue to educate the rest of us.
@jmlanzaf and other experts, is this true: "Bear in mind that any overdating of a die has to be done before it is hardened for its initial use.Once hardened, the die is never re-annealed, or softened."
Are dies re-annealed when they are being made with a hub?
@Married2Coins said: @jmlanzaf and other experts, is this true: "Bear in mind that any overdating of a die has to be done before it is hardened for its initial use.Once hardened, the die is never re-annealed, or softened."
Are dies re-annealed when they are being made with a hub?
I'm not an expert but I don't believe that any major re-work can be done without annealing. The die is simply too hard to rework otherwise.
@Married2Coins said:
Thanks. I thought it took more than one press to make a working die so they had to be softened between the blows.
This is true. In fact, Class II doubled dies can result from the annealing process. From Wexler:
“…the Mint has said, and independent research has confirmed, that during the annealing process when the die was heated to soften it, the die would expand from the heat. As it cooled it was supposed to return to its original diameter. This did not always happen.
When the working dies did not return to its original diameter, the images around the rim of the die would not be perfectly aligned with the images on the hub. When the next impression was made, doubling would occur.”
IMO, you definetly have another coin that will surly go down in the history of CU along with hundreds of others posted in the past. The best thing I can say about your coin (one all members should agree with) is that it is 100% unique.
Question for members:
Would it be foolish of me to believe that most (if not all) of the experts on historically pertinent coins read this forum? Or, that one expert would notify another if a significant coin were to appear in a thread?
There’s no “place in history” for it
There is a place in a public landfill that’s waiting for it
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Believe it that I believe it.
I believe it as much as you believe it “deserves a place in history“
Sometimes damaged coins can be educational, but you’ve proven this is not the case in this example
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Comments
Could you circle the invisible cud? I don't have anything strong enough to enhance my vision.
That's not your coin
No matter if you are right or wrong, keep thinking and posting. It is the sign of an intelligent mind. Only you can change your opinion and it will come. Otherwise, your persistance in the face of total disagreement might expose something or at the least make the expert members here continue to educate the rest of us.
@jmlanzaf and other experts, is this true: "Bear in mind that any overdating of a die has to be done before it is hardened for its initial use.Once hardened, the die is never re-annealed, or softened."
Are dies re-annealed when they are being made with a hub?
The history of the US Mint.
Technically it is also mine.
I'm not an expert but I don't believe that any major re-work can be done without annealing. The die is simply too hard to rework otherwise.
Thanks. I thought it took more than one press to make a working die so they had to be softened between the blows.
This is true. In fact, Class II doubled dies can result from the annealing process. From Wexler:
“…the Mint has said, and independent research has confirmed, that during the annealing process when the die was heated to soften it, the die would expand from the heat. As it cooled it was supposed to return to its original diameter. This did not always happen.
When the working dies did not return to its original diameter, the images around the rim of the die would not be perfectly aligned with the images on the hub. When the next impression was made, doubling would occur.”
My opinion is that the number of reasons to not believe this coin is what it is, only adds to its place in history.
https://scientific-certifications-1888-i.shorthandstories.com/the-history-of-1888-snow-10/index.html
IMO, you definetly have another coin that will surly go down in the history of CU along with hundreds of others posted in the past. The best thing I can say about your coin (one all members should agree with) is that it is 100% unique.
Question for members:
Would it be foolish of me to believe that most (if not all) of the experts on historically pertinent coins read this forum? Or, that one expert would notify another if a significant coin were to appear in a thread?
There’s no “place in history” for it
There is a place in a public landfill that’s waiting for it
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Some people hold tight to that dream.... ! And it won't matter whatever anyone tells them!
It took me a minute but I finally figured it out..
I don't believe that you believe that.
I don't think anyone else does either.
Believe it that I believe it.
I believe it as much as you believe it “deserves a place in history“
Sometimes damaged coins can be educational, but you’ve proven this is not the case in this example
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
>
Why?
Mainly because he doesn't give technical reasoning for his conclusions.
and because I called the public landfill, and they didn't know what I was talking about.....