Researching overdates, I am Curious on opinions on the following theory.

Sberry002

The Cherrypickers’ Guide to Rare Die Varieties of United States Coins (sixth edition) lists five strong-over-weak 1883/2 Shield 5-cent coin overdates. In addressing these coins, Bernus Turner suggests that the entire face of the working die was ground down to such an extent that only a trace of the original date was left. The nearly featureless die was then annealed (heat-softened) and rehubbed with the Shield design. After that the later date was punched in over the earlier one. He further suggests that the abraded die face was left slightly convex in order to make hubbing easier and avoid radial bulging of the die neck. In his opinion, these efforts were primarily undertaken to salvage worn, damaged, and slightly cracked working dies.

Since none of the Shield 5-cent coin overdates are associated with a doubled die, this implies that the working hub was placed perfectly over the remnants of the original design during the later hubbing.

Manifest_Destiny

@Sberry002 said:
The Cherrypickers’ Guide to Rare Die Varieties of United States Coins (sixth edition) lists five strong-over-weak 1883/2 Shield 5-cent coin overdates. In addressing these coins, Bernus Turner suggests that the entire face of the working die was ground down to such an extent that only a trace of the original date was left. The nearly featureless die was then annealed (heat-softened) and rehubbed with the Shield design. After that the later date was punched in over the earlier one. He further suggests that the abraded die face was left slightly convex in order to make hubbing easier and avoid radial bulging of the die neck. In his opinion, these efforts were primarily undertaken to salvage worn, damaged, and slightly cracked working dies.

Since none of the Shield 5-cent coin overdates are associated with a doubled die, this implies that the working hub was placed perfectly over the remnants of the original design during the later hubbing.

Not buying the part in bold. It makes no sense and I don't believe it was ever done in the history of the mint for any die/denomination.

CaptHenway

Nonsense! The only time anything like this was done was the 1878 7 over 8 Tail Feathers dies, and look at how much doubling those show!

jmlanzaf

Why is such a complicated theory required? Is there something about the rest of the coin that precludes a simple repunched date?

Sberry002

@CaptHenway said:
Nonsense! The only time anything like this was done was the 1878 7 over 8 Tail Feathers dies, and look at how much doubling those show!

Is it nonsense because it increases the odds of doubling?

CaptHenway

@Sberry002 said:

@CaptHenway said:
Nonsense! The only time anything like this was done was the 1878 7 over 8 Tail Feathers dies, and look at how much doubling those show!

Is it nonsense because it increases the odds of doubling?

It is nonsense because it was a lot of unnecessary work. If you wanted to change the date you just punched a new date over the old one. No need to significantly erase the entire design.

Also, many overdates show the underdate deeper in the die than the replacement date, so that you see outlines of the original date ATOP the replacement date on the coin. Take a look at these 1849/1846 Half DImes:

See the artifacts from the "46" atop the "49?"

Sberry002

The research I started with is from an article by Mike Diamond.

https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/overdate-error-coins-numismatics-winged-liberty-head-dime.html

It would seem normal for there to have been multiple approaches to reworking working dies over time. Quality vs Quantity vs production requirements...

Bernus Turner is only suggesting these efforts were primarily undertaken to salvage worn, damaged, and slightly cracked working dies. I assume that different coin designs would create different challenges for this theory. But I am curious about those with denticles like the Indian head cent.

If you cleared enough material so that the date was mostly gone, which is approximately .003", you would be left with approximately .0035" of the Indian at its high points, and .0045" of the denticles. If you tried to align the working hub to the abraded working die, the denticles would create one of two situations. either a perfect alignment or a forced rotating of 1 or less denticles.

If this were true in theory, there would be some Indian head Cents with both RPD's with DDO.

Manifest_Destiny

It's too complicated and therefore unlikely based on common sense.

Sberry002

@Manifest_Destiny said:
It's too complicated and therefore unlikely based on common sense.

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience". Albert Einstein

IkesT

@Sberry002 said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
It's too complicated and therefore unlikely based on common sense.

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience". Albert Einstein

Spoken like a true prong protégé.

jmlanzaf

@Manifest_Destiny said:
It's too complicated and therefore unlikely based on common sense.

Occam is dead.

Manifest_Destiny

@jmlanzaf said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
It's too complicated and therefore unlikely based on common sense.

Occam is dead.

BStrauss3

@jmlanzaf said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
It's too complicated and therefore unlikely based on common sense.

Occam is dead.

Hanlon is still going...