New Half Dime with a question for the Half Dime guys!

Koinlink

This came in today's mail and I'm very happy with it to say the least! A special thanks to seller iras4 on eBay for a great coin & use of his pics!

It's an 1837 Small Date, PCGS AU58.

Now leading up to the technical question for the experts-> As you can see there is some anomaly showing in the fields adjoining Liberty's leg and arm that's holding the flag.
What I suspect is that there was a little die wear or chip along the leg & arm that allowed some extra raised surfaces to form there.

Keep in mind that this is noted as being a "Small Date" yet I found this coin, 1837 "Large Date", on Heritage's website. (you might have to be logged in to view it in the auction archives). It has the same exact anomaly!
If you go to the website there are very large pics available for this coin. Finally, to the questions:

1) Are they from the same die but the Heritage coin having the large date punched over the small date?
2) Is it just a coincidence that they have the dies happen to wear in the same manner?
3) Other???

Thanks for sharing any opinions!

lathmach

A nice Half Dime you have there.
Ira is a member here. He's one of the good guys.
Looks like you have some die deterioration going on there.
Steve Crain (MrHalfDime here), is the expert on the series. He can tell you if it's common or not. I don't believe it is common.
This is the small date, as you know. The quickest way to tell is the top of the 1 is flat on the small date, concave on the large date. Same goes for the large and small date 1837 Seated Dimes, and the 1842-O small and large date Seated Quarters.

Ray

MrHalfDime

Koinlink:

The beautiful half dime that you have is an example of the "Small Date". Such a designation is actually a misnomer, as the date numerals are really not much smaller than those used previously; that designation only serves to confuse people. Just remember it this way - the first Liberty Seated half dimes, struck in 1837, utilized date numeral punches left over from the Capped Bust half dimes (look at any Capped Bust half dime for comparison). These 'varieties' are designated V1, V2, and V3, and are the so-called "Large Date" varieties. Later in the year (1837), the Mint procured new numeral punches for striking the dates into the working dies. These new numeral punches were used for the remaining coins struck in 1837, and for subsequent years. They comprise the so-called "Small Date" varieties V4, V5, and V6. Look at any Liberty Seated half dime from 1838 until 1852 for comparison. Another way to distinguish the date numerals - the "Large Date" has a tall pointed peak to the numeral 1 in the date; the "Small Date" (such as your coin) has a flat top to the 1.

Your coin is an example of the V6 "Small Date" (flat top to the 1), using the new date punches. The die suffered considerable rust damage, or 'spawling', which accounts for the anomoly you observed on your coin. The rust formed pits in the die surface, which accounts for the raised areas seen on the struck coin. In the latest die state of this die marriage, a large die crack forms from the foot of Miss Liberty to the rim at K5:00.

The Heritage coin was simply misattributed as a "Large Date" by PCGS. I know this will come as a shock to some collectors, but sometimes the TPGs just don't get it right. The Heritage coin is the same die marriage as yours (V6) and even the same die state. This is one of the most commonly misattributed Liberty Seated half dimes, along with the 1848 Large Date V1, 1849/6 and 1849/8.

Your coin is an extremely attractive example of Christian Gobrecht's beautiful design, before Robert Ball Hughes cluttered it up with the addition of the stars and severely modified Miss Liberty and the entire obverse.

Koinlink

Thank you VERY much for the replies! I just finished a little photoshop job comparing the dates of my new 1837 small date half dime (top) and my other 1837 which is attributed
as a large date (bottom). It's a PCGS MS62. It really is difficult to tell between the two. Does it appear the lower one is correctly attributed? The difference is so minute I'm not really
convinced the lower one is in fact a large date. Thanks for your help and education!!

MrHalfDime

Those are BOTH "Small Date" examples, with the flat top to the 1. The difference, as Lathmach correctly pointed out, is very obvious, and easy to detect. Just place any Capped Bust half dime (1829-1837) next to any Liberty Seated half dime (1838-1852), and look at the date numerals. Look at the 1 in the date and compare them. The differences will become quite obvious to you. Do not look for size differences, as implied by the very misleading "Large Date" and "Small Date" sobriquets. Instead, look at the shape of the numeral 1, at the top, or flag. The so-called "Small Date" has the flat top; the so-called "Large Date" has the tall peak to the 1. These are very often misattributed, as your experience has shown - they got them both wrong.

Koinlink

Wow! I just finished poking through the Heritage Auction Archives & saw what a large date should look like. The shocking part was that I came across a few others that were
mis-attributed as large dates! I'm surprised that the error on the part of PCGS is that common!!! I also checked out the comparison of the Capped Bust "1".

Thank you again for your much appreciated help. I guess I'll be sending my "Large Date" coin back for proper attribution!

Conder101

As I have said in the past, attributions by PCGS and NGC should always be confirmed because you can not trust them to be correct. Attributions by the top two grading firms are frequently wrong. (This may get interesting now that they are going to start attributing VAMs.) but we trust them to be able to tell MS grades to a precision of one point or less.

LanLord

<< <i>Your coin is an extremely attractive example of Christian Gobrecht's beautiful design, before Robert Ball Hughes cluttered it up with the addition of the stars and severely modified Miss Liberty and the entire obverse. >>



I wish someone had told the mint this back in 1837. I'd like all seated coins to be starless!

Trime

Mr Half Dime's description of small and large date 1837 LSH10C coins and the historical explanation is so clear that everyone reading this thread should understand. That said, it is surprising that the TPG so often misattribute this popular date and thus mislable the slabbs. I have 2 1837 LS small date HDs including a PCGS MS66 example that is misattributed as "Large Date"
Her sister coin a MS 67 NGC is correctly labeled "small date". In thinking about it I am not sure where in the PCGS grading process the attribution of major varieties occurs.

ms70

I don't get how this could happen so often when the coins are put in front of 2 to 3 "world class" graders.

Barndog

If one must pay extra for attribution, consider it money spent for a few guys to throw a dart and come up with "some answer"

slumlord98

PCGS is terrible at attributing varieties of most any sort. In the Capped Bust Halves, they frequently mistake the 1827 curl base 2. This is a mistake that is so obvious, one need only hold the coin at arm's length and look. Sometimes it appears as though this is assigned by a counter, perhaps every 15th 1827 is designated a curl base 2. Fortunately, they don't limit themselves to this single year. 1828 contains a number of different punch styles, and PCGS f***s these up to a faretheewell.

Dismeguy

Same grading service problem with seated dimes. I've seen a number of 1837 Small Dates (Obverse 3) labeled as Large Dates. The difference in the large vs. small date punch size is rather significant, but still the professional graders cannot make the correct association. Probably too focused on wear, toning etc. and not the variety. These folks get beat up on grading outcomes more than variety attribution.