Sharp eyes needed - are these reverses from the same die?? Answer posted.

Lakesammman

What do you think - same die or different die?? Why?

FC57Coins

The "O's" are different - look at the tops and bottoms of them, and the "N's" have different serifs on them, so I'd say the dies are different.

Frank

littlewicher

Different, look at the seriffs on the Ns; the top pictures has thick seriffs, while the bottom ones are thinner.

Russ

I think different dies. I'm seeing some flattening of the lettering in the second that's not on the first. The spacing also seems to be different.

Russ, NCNE

DHeath

Serif on "N" of #2 is much thinner, as are most of the letters.

NumisEd

Waaaay different. Evertything Frank said, plus look at the thickness of the horizontal "E" members. Also, take a look at the position of the leaf devices relative to the letters "C" and "T" in CENT.

Lakesammman

Glad you all agree - I wanted to make sure my eyes weren't playing tricks on me! Thanks - any other opinions??

coppercoins

Yeah, I have an opinion...I believe the top coin is a mild class 4 offset hub doubled die. Probably not worth much of a premium, but it appears to be there, nonetheless. My reasoning is this: Given that the two are likely from the same year, they would have been generationally struck from the same master die. The serifs on the letters are somewhat different, but what is also interesting is that the horizontal shape of all of the letters is slightly thicker on the top coin. Additionally, the separation between hubbings is somewhat visible as a shadow in the middle of each of the upper right serifs in the Ns. The serifs are supposed to be more pointed, and would be, if you weren't looking at a doubled serif - in my opinion a doubled die.

NumisEd

Coppercoins......these are not from the same master die....or hub....even the logotype of the letters are different. They may be from the same year, but they are clearly unrelated dies. Look very closely. I assume that you are just kidding. Ed

Lakesammman

Coppercoins - interesting hypothesis...will have to chew on that one....so far I'm leaning to a new letter style/redesign of the reverse, likely a "weakening" of the reverse (less bold letters) in order to improve the striking quality of the obverse. Much has been made of the obverse change from 1856 to 1857. I believe the same occured on the reverse. The top coin picture should be called reverse of 1856, the lower reverse of 1857 or 8. In general, it's a clue as to the striking period, original vs. restrike. If the later style appears on a 1856, odds are it's a restrike from 1857 or 1858.

DAM

Lakesammman,

Maybe I'm coming from left field, but they sure look like the same reverse to me. The letters seem to be aligned the same on both coins. which leads me to believe they are the same.

Couldn't the larger letters have been retooled? When I've had a question like this I would make an image of the coins on a copying machine, enlarging the image, coping them onto a transparent sheet. Then, lay one on top of the other to determine if they are aligned the same.

It appears from your image both exhibit Os leaning slightly right and what appears to be the same separation between the other letters. Just what I see, IMO.

Lakesammman

Well, I couldn't believe they were from the same die but they probably are. The upper pic is a 1856 S3 MS65 FE reverse "ONE CENT", the lower from a 1856 S3 P64 FE cent. Rick Snow thinks the only difference is that the die was polished between production of the 2. I've carefully measured all the reverse features with a loupe scale down to .1mm. All the features are proportionally smaller, all the letters, serifs, etc all .1mm smaller. The letters look thinner as a result. Also, the leaf stems on either side of the word "cent" have been polished, the tips therefore looking like they are in a different position. The left leaf on the proof has actually been partially polished into the field along it's left base. This explains why the leafs look lower on the bottom picture.

So, in summary, they are likely the same die. Unfortunately there are no useful die scratches or cracks to absolutely prove this. The polish marks that are present are so fine that they easily could have changed between "runs" when the die was polished. This subsequent lower reverse relief may in part account for the fully struck breast feathers on the proof obverse, an area notoriously weak on MS specimans.

shylock

Fascinating. I never realized the huge visual affect die polishing could have on the diagnostics of a coin and would have jumped on the 'new reverse die discovery' bandwagen on this one. Very interesting and great followup with the measurement data -- math and numismatics are strange bedfellows. Score another one for Rick Snow's experience in this series.

shylock

PS: I continue to be amazed by the wealth of variety that exists in a series that lasted 3 years!

coppercoins

I just ran a computer overlay on the two photos, and adjusted them so that the top-left of the O in ONE and the bottom right of the T in CENT matched up to the pixel. When flipping between the two layers, the differences between the devices becomes obvious even more so than before. The top serif on the N in CENT is the giveaway, there is no way these coins were made with the same die. One has a pointed serif and the other has a squared serif. No amount of die polishing can change the basic shape of a serif. Not only that, but the relationship between the letters is slightly different all around, as is the exact positioning of the letters in comparison to the wreath details visible.

I did allow for slight tilting of the camera, and transformed the darker (thinner) reverse so it was a little taller so the letters would match better, and it still wasn't a fit. My opinion, and I stand by it with a bit of quick study, stands as before. They are different dies. If you have Photoshop I can send a copy of the document with the two layers positioned in alignment with one another, and you will easily agree.

Lakesammman

Coppercoins:

Thanks for the observations - Shylock, Snow and I are going to compare the coins side by side with several of the Heritage coins and see if we can come to a consensus. Will post the results after the FUN show - thanks for your input - it's a very good thought! I hope your correct. The look/strike of the proof is so different than the MS speciman that I suspect it was either a late special "speciman" run (with the same die) or a restrike in 1857 (or later, with a different die). Hopefully we can sort it out next week. Rick has such sharp eyes and so much experience, I hope he is able to find a die marker that will prove it one way or the other.

The problem with supposing it is a different design is that there would have to be a different hub - something I am unaware of for the FE years.

shylock

Like Coppercoins I went to Photoshop the first time Lakesammman showed me this reverse. The scale of the die in question is slightly smaller in this comparison but you still see the drastic difference in the E of CENTS, especially the gap between the upper and lower horizontal strokes. The second E from the new coin has been flipped horizontally, not upside down:



But without a die marker as Lakesammman mentions, the only evidence to refute die polishing is finding a denomination trait on the new coin that hasn't been reduced in size proportionately. Or better yet, a trait that's larger than the standard S-3 reverse -- that would be hard to explain. I can't find one.

coppercoins

Shylock - Different methods of polishing can foreshorten and blunt serifs, thin letters, and other things making them appear different sizes and shapes. I threw all of this out the window in my comparison because, while I could easily tell you anything you wanted to know about the design of the Lincoln cent, I have no experience with this series. I went for the cut-throat proof, so to speak. There is no way a serif can completely change shape due to polishing. Overlay the "N" in CENT and look especially at the upper right serif. You will see what I mean. One is pointed, the other squared.

IrishMike

This is a new area for me, but die pressure, die wear and die polishing could all affect how sharply the letters are struck, could they not?

Lakesammman

Here are the two side-by-side (well, top MS and bottom proof). If you want closeups of some of the features, let me know.

The "smiles" on the proof obverse are planchet flaws, die polish lines passing through them uninterrupted.

NumisEd

Okay Lakesammman, Here's the TRUE test to see if these are the same die or not. Early US type specialists use this technique as an attribution tool: compare the relative location of key wreath details between the 2 coins. Take any pointed feature on the wreath and see where it lies in reference to the dentils of the border.

Perhaps you could post yet more scans: close-up shots of all wreath details that are close to the border (esp. pointed wreath features). By the way, nice images. Thanks.

I am not one to argue with the likes of you guys, especially Rick Snow. This isn't even my specialty. However, I will stick by my initial response: These are NOT the same die. I see some important differences using the "dentil test", but I need a higher resolution close-up scan.

Lakesammman

NumisEd - interesting thought, thanks. Seems that would apply more with the early coins where many elements were cut by hand. By 1856, there was a master die that made the working hub/dies with less variation in the working dies as a result. The only real differences related to how strongly impressed the working dies/hubs were and how worn they became by use/polishing. There would be variation between master hubs - does anyone know how many there were in the years 1856-8??

When I compare the high res. photos, the wreath elements are consistent between the 2 coins with regard to the denticles (when allowing for the slight size differences related to die wear/polishing).

Thanks for the suggestion - it was an excellant thought.