Need help identifying Half Dime Doubling

tporreca

I just picked up this 1832 Half Dime. It is actually bright white, I cannot get the scans to show true, but that is another discussion. It has distinct doubling on the reverse of the "OF AMERICA", most notable on the "F". The CherryPickers guide only goes to nickels. Is there a reference which shows Half Dimes? It might be a strike doubling, you'll note where the rim breaks up between the F and A (same thing on the 180 side).

FC57Coins

Wow - that's pretty neat - thanks for sharing it - I'll be very interested to find out what experts know on this one!

Frank

jadecoin

Hi tiporreca,

You have an example of 1832 LM-12 (Valentine-2), which is a very common (R.2) variety. This is why we love early American type coins! Dramatic errors and die anomalies abound. One of my favorite coins is the 1801 cent (S-220) that shows 1/000 on reverse fraction. Eventually, someone at the mint caught the error and they feebly attempted to correct the error and we have S-221, which clearly shows the remnants of a "0" under the "1" in 1/100. There are countless errors that are similarly dramatic.

Another one is the 1806 over inverted 6 (O-111) bust half dollar. Imagine this: the die sinker inadvertently punched the "6" in the date upside down! This means that, if they had not of caught the error, we would have an 1809 draped bust half today! The error was caught, the "9" was partially effaced, and then the "6" was sunk into the die correctly, giving us the 1806 over inverted 6 variety.

Congratulations on your half dime acquisition.

jadecoin

tporreca

Jadecoin,

Thanks. Nice web site too!

Tim

Conder101

In 1832 the mint was still producing dies by the hand punching method. The main devices would be hubbed into the die by the use of one of the presses but the inscriptions were still punched into the dies a letter at a time by hand. The F in OF was probably repunched in a similar fashion to how mintmarks used to be douple punched. They didn't like the placement of the F so they put the puch back in place and hit it again.

Barndog

Here's another one for you half dime fans. The dead giveaway for attribution is the bulged top of the shield on the reverse.

Conder101

As long as you brought this back up to the top, I'm going to use the opportunity to make a correction.



<< <i>You have an example of 1832 LM-12 (Valentine-2), which is a very common (R.2) variety. This is why we love early American type coins! Dramatic errors and die anomalies abound. One of my favorite coins is the 1801 cent (S-220) that shows 1/000 on reverse fraction. Eventually, someone at the mint caught the error and they feebly attempted to correct the error and we have S-221, which clearly shows the remnants of a "0" under the "1" in 1/100. >>


The rev die of S-220 is not the same die as the one used on S-221. In 1801 FIVE different dies were prepared with the 1/000 fraction.

One was caught and corrected to produce S-221.
One of the error dies was used to strike S-220.
One struck 1802 S-228 and then was used later to strike 1801 S-223.
One had two other errors (the U was punched in upside down and then corrected and they forgot to cut the left hand stem on the wreath.) and was used to strike S-218 and 219.
The last one was used to strike 1801 NC-3 and then two years later was corrected and used to strike 1803 S-249.

Cladiator

I've never seen this thread before, pretty cool. You had my hopes up for a minute Barndog as I thought it was a new thread.