LS HD Specialist questions:
Trime
Posts: 1,863 ✭✭✭
I purchased the Ex Kaufman 1867 PR66 NGC specimen Lot 6033 at the Heritage Santa Clara collection yesterday and was puzzling about several aspects of the coin ( which I have not seen in hand). The following is the description:
"1867 H10C PR66 NGC. Ex: P. Kaufman. V-2. The Philadelphia Mint prepared only two sets of dies for Half Dime production in 1867, both of which were used to deliver business strikes and proofs. The placement of the date in the exergual area below Liberty's rock is the distinguishing feature between the two varieties. On the present Gem, the pendant on Liberty's gown lines up with the right side of the 6 in the date. The 1867 is one of the key issues in the Seated Half Dime series. The business strike mintage of 8,000 pieces is the lowest of any regular issue U.S. Half Dime, with the result that survivors of the 625-piece proof delivery are always in demand among specialists.
This is a gorgeous, premium quality Gem with fully original toning that is virtually a trademark of the proof Seated coinage in the Kaufman Collection. Of course, this coin is also noteworthy for the sharply struck devices and smooth, shimmering surfaces that are evident on both sides. The otherwise antique-copper toning yields to a cornucopia of gold, crimson, and cobalt-blue undertones at direct angles. Certainly among the most attractive proof 1867 Half Dimes that we have ever offered, and probably worthy of similar ranking among all survivors of this key issue. Population: 21 in 66, 1 finer (7/02). From the Philip Kaufman Collection. "
Maybe someone can link the magnified version from the Heritage web site
Business strike vs Proof. I have read the discusions in Vol 4 pp 194-5 of the Gobrecht Journal of the diagnostics regarding the attribution characteristics of the 2 varieties for business and proofs including the pendant and date placement and the ribbon ends touching the wreath and aware of the low second A in America placement. What puzzles me is the statement that the Business strikes and proofs were both made from the 2 sets of dies ((V-1 and 2 and N-1 and 2) yet it is explained that all but one reported business strike have a die crack through the second s in states. How could both obv dies have a crack in the same place? Further the V-1 business strike is noted by Blyth to have weakness in the upper left wreath. This is obviously present in the purchased proof specimen above (which is described as V-2). It seems like excessive die polishing at the same location for both var 1 and 2 of both business and proof is a strange coincidence.
Lastly , while I know that these level details are not of interest to many of the members of the forum, I wonder if there is a web site that discusses issues of LS variety ?( I am not aware that LSCC has a site; wish it did!) or are there LS afficionados from this forum that are interested in such discusions.
"1867 H10C PR66 NGC. Ex: P. Kaufman. V-2. The Philadelphia Mint prepared only two sets of dies for Half Dime production in 1867, both of which were used to deliver business strikes and proofs. The placement of the date in the exergual area below Liberty's rock is the distinguishing feature between the two varieties. On the present Gem, the pendant on Liberty's gown lines up with the right side of the 6 in the date. The 1867 is one of the key issues in the Seated Half Dime series. The business strike mintage of 8,000 pieces is the lowest of any regular issue U.S. Half Dime, with the result that survivors of the 625-piece proof delivery are always in demand among specialists.
This is a gorgeous, premium quality Gem with fully original toning that is virtually a trademark of the proof Seated coinage in the Kaufman Collection. Of course, this coin is also noteworthy for the sharply struck devices and smooth, shimmering surfaces that are evident on both sides. The otherwise antique-copper toning yields to a cornucopia of gold, crimson, and cobalt-blue undertones at direct angles. Certainly among the most attractive proof 1867 Half Dimes that we have ever offered, and probably worthy of similar ranking among all survivors of this key issue. Population: 21 in 66, 1 finer (7/02). From the Philip Kaufman Collection. "
Maybe someone can link the magnified version from the Heritage web site
Business strike vs Proof. I have read the discusions in Vol 4 pp 194-5 of the Gobrecht Journal of the diagnostics regarding the attribution characteristics of the 2 varieties for business and proofs including the pendant and date placement and the ribbon ends touching the wreath and aware of the low second A in America placement. What puzzles me is the statement that the Business strikes and proofs were both made from the 2 sets of dies ((V-1 and 2 and N-1 and 2) yet it is explained that all but one reported business strike have a die crack through the second s in states. How could both obv dies have a crack in the same place? Further the V-1 business strike is noted by Blyth to have weakness in the upper left wreath. This is obviously present in the purchased proof specimen above (which is described as V-2). It seems like excessive die polishing at the same location for both var 1 and 2 of both business and proof is a strange coincidence.
Lastly , while I know that these level details are not of interest to many of the members of the forum, I wonder if there is a web site that discusses issues of LS variety ?( I am not aware that LSCC has a site; wish it did!) or are there LS afficionados from this forum that are interested in such discusions.
Trime
0
Comments
The person I am referring to may write a book on the half dimes to replace the Valentine book (which is outdated), and the Blythe book, (which can most generously be described as a weak effort on Al's part).
Edited: Did you read the article written by Larry Briggs on page 87 of Collective Volume 4?
Pay attention to what Larry says concerning the V-1 as a proof. I value his opinion more than Al Blythe's.
Ray
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I have done a little thinking and reviewing and I note on the other tw0 1867PR in my HD collection that both are Var2. Both have the fang marks on the neck as described by Briggs on P 87of Vol 4 of the Gobrecht Journal as identifying the proof V2.
I can not tell from Heritage scan if this is present on the PR66 to come but I suspect so as the pendant is for certain to rt of middle of the 6 in the date. The reverses however are interesting because my PR64 specimen has the weak left upper wreath as does the PR66; in contrast my PR65Cam is struck full front and back. There are no die cracks through the S on either. I am suspicious of the idea that both variety 1 and 2 in the business strike have the same die crack but different pendant placement. I will followup my quieries with the name suggested by Lathmach in his PM to me and may in due course send a letter to the LSCC for inclusion in the GJ.