Options
Attention Seated Dime guys
Barry
Posts: 10,100 ✭✭✭
This is from the upcoming Lemus Sale (Stacks). I thought the die crack through the CC didn't appear until part way through the 72-CC's. What's this 71-CC doing with the die crack there?
0
Comments
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Ray
Now, put ON your glasses and look at this. Here's an enlargement of the Lemus 71-CC dime MM:
Now, here is the same 71-CC pic, with a partial transparency of my 74-CC dime MM overlaying it:
I wish I could have blown it up bigger, but the Stack's photo becomes pixelated if enlarged any more. In any case, to me, it appears the die crack on my 74-CC lines up perfectly with whatever I'm seeing on the 71-CC. The only difference is the 74-CC die crack is longer.
What do you think?
After studying it further, I still don't believe there's any die crack there.
Ray
I got a PM from Gerry Fortin saying agrees with me and will add this new variety to his book. First impressions are usually correct
Ray
<< <i>I got a PM from Gerry Fortin saying agrees with me and will add this new variety to his book. First impressions are usually correct >>
I would think that Gerry would want to see the coin in person before making that decision?
Wouldn't it be a die state and not a variety?
I'm not convinced it's a die crack? It looks more like a die chip to me (from the picture).
Barry, I don't know how to link, but if you look at Lot #375 in ANR's Kennywood Sale 1/10/05 the 1872-CC in that sale doesn't appear to have this same characteristic.
Also take a look at the 73-CC AU-58 that just sold in the Heritage LB Sale. It doesn't seem to have the characteristic either?
It does to raise a few questions. Why would it show up on a 71-CC and a 74-CC but not a 72-CC or a 73-CC??
If the same reverse die was used for all 71-74-CC Dimes then the die characteristics should be the same on all known coins. The only thing that should differ would be the die state of known examples.
The Heritage 73-CC clearly DOES have the die crack as all 73-CC's should.
I was chatting via email with Bill Makrides (ebay wsmmbe) last night. He lurks here and saw the thread. He reminded me that we both saw a 71-CC on Ebay last year that appeared to have the full die crack thru the CC, which didn't make sense, either. I had forgotten about that coin. Bill's theory is some of the 71-CC's must have been minted in 1872, after some 72-CC's were already minted. Makes sense to me. The coin above must be the "missing link" in that early 72-CC's have no die crack at all, and the later ones have the full die crack seen in 73 and 74. This 71-CC has a chip or start of the die crack, so it had to be minted after some of the 72's.
Here's the 72-CC from the Kennywood sale:
and here's the Heritage coin:
The 73 shows the die crack but not the triangle shape that shows up on the 71 or the 74.
The triangle shape in the 2nd C of the 71 is what you noticed isn't it?
I'm referring to the triangle shape in the second C, as well as the dot in the first C. If you play "connect the dots" between those two points, it's in the same spot as the usual die crack. Also, the triangle is not part of the 74-CC. I overlaid a 74CC on top of the 71CC at reduced opacity, so you can see through the 74CC and see the details of the 71CC under it.
Maybe it's a stretch, but could the chip have developed, then as the die crack developed, they lapped/polished it? Otherwise, either that's not a die chip or a second die must have been used. However, the MMs are in exactly the same position, so that would rule out a second die, right?
The Stack's Lemus Seated Dime collection (October 18, 2005) contained an 1871-CC dime (Lot 654) that was graded About Uncirculated but exhibited a bold strike. The Carson City mintmark on this coin showed a faint triangular shaped artifact in the second C of the mintmark that does line up with the location of subsequent cracking during later usage. The sharp details and bright fields of the Lemus 1871-CC dime made the artifact visible. Barry Kutner is credited with identifying this reverse artifact on the Lemus example via careful inspection of the Stack's website plate coin photographs. Is this artifact an early stage of the subsequent die crack? I believe that a final determination cannot be made until another example is located with the artifact and closer inspection occurs with a stereo microscope.
Yes, I was at the preview but I failed to remember to closely inspect this 1871-CC dime. Why? Have you ever been busy working at a preview and some guy sits next to you with incredibly bad BO? We are talking "can't breath BO". This individual also had pizza sauce on his chin and left arm. Nice guy as he tried to engage me on conversations concerning the John J Ford Mass silver that he was inspecting. I lost all concentration and missed the 1871-CC reverse since I was not in the market for this coin
<< <i> Yes, I was at the preview but I failed to remember to closely inspect this 1871-CC dime. Why? Have you ever been busy working at a preview and some guy sits next to you with incredibly bad BO? We are talking "can't breath BO". This individual also had pizza sauce on his chin and left arm. Nice guy as he tried to engage me on conversations concerning the John J Ford Mass silver that he was inspecting. I lost all concentration and missed the 1871-CC reverse since I was not in the market for this coin >>
I can honestly answer yes to this question. Only it was a female! I was in the front a van, she was in the back and I could still smell the BO. I didn't realize until later it was her and not the van! Made me wanna urp!
Now, on to more important things.
I would not be at all surprised if 1871 dies were used in 1872. Howard Hickson, in "Mint Mark CC", indicates that 1872 dies arrived late because of severe snow. Of course, the theory Bill M. suggests here is that some 1872 specimens were minted first, then followed by some 1871s. But I think they did what they had to do in Carson City - it was an upstart backwater affair. However, the other thing you need to support this theory is an 1872-CC with a badly worn or cracked obverse die - not sure that exists - not to mention that Fortin/Ahwash/Greer all note only one obverse die for 1872. I guess another explanation is that someone installed an 1871-CC obverse die by mistake sometime during 1872 - that wouldn't surprise me either.
Anyway the search is on - let's find the 1872-CCs with the partial die crack matching the Lemus coin, or 1871-CCs with any die crack!
I want to take this discussion and thought process towards a different theory for explaining what is on under the CC mintmark on the Lemus coin.
To be honest, my first impression on seeing the blow ups of the Lemus 1871-CC mintmark was that the CC mint mark was repunched. The theory here is that the Lemus dime is a very earlier striking from the reverse die where traces of repunching on the mintmark can be detected. Then the repunching fades away or is polished away. Take a look at 1845 F-102a with the repunching on top of the 8 digit. That repunching is only seen on an extremely well struck coin so that the depth of the strike can leave the repunching artifact above the 8 digit. Think of all the 1845 F102s out there that do not show this repunching.
To make some progress on this matter and overcome the BO incident at Stack's
Gerry
Still, there still should be some other 71CCs that show traces of this - this can't be the only one?
Look at the Jim Gray 71-CC--
http://www.bowersandmerena.com/auctions/previous_lot_detail.chtml?passkey=&searchtext=&Psearch=&startrow=51&catid=494&cats=32&auctid=11752&orderby=Lotnumber Asc&siteid=494&extralink=no&showdesc=no&perpage=50&frompage=previous_listings.chtml&bidtype=2&lotid=1939305&lotno=2142&searchbidderid=&psearch=&frompage=previous_listings.chtml&magnify=1
The photo isn't great or at all conclusive, but I think I see something in the second 'C' that is interesting.