What's going one with the date on this 2 cent?

stev32k

I've had this two-cent piece in my collection for quite awhile. Today I was taking some pictures and noticed there is something a little strange about the date. The 1,8, and 6 look like they maybe doubled or re-cut while the 4 is fairly flat. Anybody know what this is? Thanks.



(edit:When all else fails read the instructions!)

tlhoy

All I get is an red X, right clicking & show picture doesn't help.
Glenn

stev32k

I don't know why the image will not show up, but here's the address:Link

dorkkarl

FANTASTIC digi-pic.

the last digit is weak from being struck w/ a partially filled die.

K S

nwcs

Link

Looks like the 4 was weakly punched. Those were in the days of punching the numbers.

Russ

Apparently, your host doesn't allow outside linking.

Russ, NCNE

ss350camaro

WOW !! That's a VERY nice 2 cent'r

Fantastic pics too !!

tlhoy

WOW, FANTASTIC picture!!!

Welcome to the forum.
I agree with nwcs!

stev32k

I'm getting ready to send it to PCGS, but wanted some pictures for ID first.

Bubblehead

Whoa!

Now that is one helluva nice photo!

Sorry, I'm not able to elaborate on the date business, tho..

vega1

I also can't help but compliment you on your photography. Thats a beautiful coin too.

stev32k

Thank all of you for the complements on the picture. Photography is also a hobby of mine, and it is extremely difficult to get accurate pictures of coins. Each one is different. The coloring is different, the reflectance is different, the hue is different... I have some some very good equipment (Nikon D70; Nikkor 60mm, f2.8 micro) and still must shoot each shot 100% manually including the flash.

coppercoins

All I can offer is that dates were punched into the dies by hand back then, which accounts for the depth differences. I don't see anything that stands out as repunching, but repunched dates are rather common on two cent coins. It wouldn't surprise me if that is a minor RPD.

shylock

Good luck matching it to one of the 100 1864 varieties

Conder101

The problem is that although the dates were puched by hand, they were NOT punched using individual digit punches. Beginning in 1840 the mint switched from individual punches to a four digit logo punch. So you can't repunch just the first three digits. That would make the partially filled die explaination the most reasonable.

dorkkarl

friends, it is not a repunched date, or weakly punched digit.

grading by obv. alone, i'd guess ms-64. honestly, its a $200 coin, & spending $25 on a slab might be a waste of your money.

K S

Shamika

Wow! That image shows incredible depth of field on the coin's devices.