Options
Why the 1888/7 IH overdate just doesn't work
shylock
Posts: 4,288 ✭✭✭
I've worked this variety on Photoshop to the point where I can't look at it anymore.
And though I've yet to find an 1887 example large enough in scale/quality to overlay
on Lakesammmon's breakthrough image, I've come to one undeniable conclusion.
The "nub" that appears at the bottom of this "overdate" is just too narrow to be a base
of a "7".
The overdate in question.
The best example of an 1887 emailed to me I originally rejected. PCGS TrueView imaged, the date
had too much shadow to compare the date's outline edge to. But on second look everything that
looks "shadow" on this coin is actually part of the date. The "188" shadow outline matches up
perfectly with Lake's 188. Considering this, the base of the "7' is way too wide to match
up to Lake's nub.
I then reduced Lake's image to a more managable size and compared it to other 7's from the best
1887 image's I could find on the web. The same results. That "nub" on the bottom of the 1888/7 is
way too narrow to be the bottom of a true IH die punch 7. It just doesn't work.
Kudos to TDN who really started this thread with his previous posts. He was right. As hard as I find
it to believe, the nub at the bottom of the 1888/7 is not the base of a 7. I can't explain what it
is or what appears at the top of the 8. Die chips in perfect places?
And though I've yet to find an 1887 example large enough in scale/quality to overlay
on Lakesammmon's breakthrough image, I've come to one undeniable conclusion.
The "nub" that appears at the bottom of this "overdate" is just too narrow to be a base
of a "7".
The overdate in question.
The best example of an 1887 emailed to me I originally rejected. PCGS TrueView imaged, the date
had too much shadow to compare the date's outline edge to. But on second look everything that
looks "shadow" on this coin is actually part of the date. The "188" shadow outline matches up
perfectly with Lake's 188. Considering this, the base of the "7' is way too wide to match
up to Lake's nub.
I then reduced Lake's image to a more managable size and compared it to other 7's from the best
1887 image's I could find on the web. The same results. That "nub" on the bottom of the 1888/7 is
way too narrow to be the bottom of a true IH die punch 7. It just doesn't work.
Kudos to TDN who really started this thread with his previous posts. He was right. As hard as I find
it to believe, the nub at the bottom of the 1888/7 is not the base of a 7. I can't explain what it
is or what appears at the top of the 8. Die chips in perfect places?
Paul <> altered surfaces <> CoinGallery.org
0
Comments
After reading the thread across the street, I will agree with you
so +1 on your side
<< <i>Why the 1888/7 IH overdate just doesn't work >>
I agree. Also the so-called serif of the "7" looks too much like many RPDs' "tails" that I've seen, IMO. I've never thought that it looked like part of a "7".
Nice work Shylock!
Great detective work!
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Wish you guys would now take a look at the 1858/7 Snow-7 Flying Eagle Cent. The thing doesn't show much evidence of being an overdate in my opinion. Unlike the Snow-1 which is an obvious and accepted overdate, the Snow-7 seems to have a little piece of metal off to the right of the top of the "8", not much evidence there.
Apparently no die states have been found with any greater detail (unlike the EDS Snow-1s with lots of detail).
<< <i>I then reduced Lake's image to a more managable size and compared it to other 7's from the best
1887 image's I could find on the web. The same results. That "nub" on the bottom of the 1888/7 is
way too narrow to be the bottom of a true IH die punch 7. It just doesn't work. >>
Have you considered that the 7 was not deeply impressed and thus the contour would be a different size and shape than one fully impressed?
<< <i>Have you considered that the 7 was not deeply impressed and thus the contour would be a different size and shape than one fully impressed? >>
The same thought occured to me as well. However, I suspect Shylock is on to something.
not many can add more to your arguement.
you made such a clear case.. what else is there to say?
it sounds like accross the street, this got a bit more attention
and many of us have read it.
but i know what you meant.
<< <i>As usual, Ebay posts get more attention than posts like this. The PCGS forum sucks these days. But what else is new
This SHOULD be a great thread. I don't even collect IHC's and am wanting more debate, pictures, and info!
Anyway, a bunch of food for thought. We now return you to griping about eBay and misgraded coins.
Another interesting bit -- notice how 8/7 is a recurring theme throughout U.S. coins? 1858/7 FE cent, 1888/7 Indian cent, 1880/79 Morgan dollars, 1918/7-S SLQ, 1918/7-D Buffalo 5c, probably others. Maybe in 2008, they'll come out with an 8/7 commemorative and just put th eoverdate on the galvanos.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
The base of the 7 being smaller isn't a problem when you consider the die was probably "filed" to try and eliminate the underdate before the overdate was added. It would make it appear smaller. Other overdates or MPD's have the same "distortion" of the underdate or MPD.
By the way, I don't have a dog in the hunt - sold all mine.
Filed????
Not until April 18th. We get an extra day here in New York.
I haven't been into indians that closely for a while (2002/3), but I was never convinced this coin was what it was touted as ... the digits never seemed to match up correctly. I think your research proves this point.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
It's easier for most novices to understand "filed" rather than polished or lapped when discussing the removal of details from dies.
<< <i>Yes - filed.
It's easier for most novices to understand "filed" rather than polished or lapped when discussing the removal of details from dies. >>
Yes, but it perpetuates a myth that you can remove one digit [or clashmarks and thus a buffalo leg] with an emory board or file or whatever.
The only way to remove details from a die is to lap away the upper layer of metal which removes relief from everything punched into the die. To make a 7 completely disappear, the entire upper level of metal would have to be removed to the depth of the digit punch. Of course, this would make every other letter or number punched to the same depth or less disappear. They'd practically have to start over to rebuild the die. Because, after all, on a die everything is sunk into the metal - not raised above it [except for certain gold coin dies, of course].
An alternate method would be to fill in the digit with some material, but it's doubtful this filler would stand up to the pressures of coinage.
<< <i>An alternate method would be to fill in the digit with some material, but it's doubtful this filler would stand up to the pressures of coinage. >>
It does for a while. The 82-O/S Morgans are perfect examples of this.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
<< <i>I wish someone would show a few overdate pics with just pieces of the underdigit showing. >>
What do you think of this 1894 Snow-1 RPD?
The lower left loop of the original 8 is visible in the primary one, and the point of the original 4 is visible inside the loop of the primary 4 also.
But look at the 9 - portions of the original digit are seen above and to the right of it, and the ball of the original digit is seen under the loop, but the loop inside the 9 is clean as a whistle.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>I wish someone would show a few overdate pics with just pieces of the underdigit showing. >>
Does this work? Granted, it isn't a fully hubbed, steam press struck modern type coin, but it illustrates the point.
<< <i>I wish someone would show a few overdate pics with just pieces of the underdigit showing. >>
The coin is tiny, but is the best I could do.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>According to Shylock, a RPD is a completely different animal. >>
That's sort of an odd stance to take, and one I don't recall reading in either thread (here or across the street). Is the argument that less care would be taken to obliterate the original date if it was simply repunched with the same numerals?
Maybe one of the VAM guys can post some 1880/79 overdates, I'm pretty sure those exist on several dies with varying degrees of visibility of the underdate.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>Maybe one of the VAM guys can post some 1880/79 overdates, I'm pretty sure those exist on several dies with varying degrees of visibility of the underdate. >>
They do (see post of mine from Sunday evening). I'll post illustrations tonight.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Shylock we should have an Indain Head Only board. I hate looking for IHC threads in this mess sometimes.
I'm still a novice when it comes to IH varieties, and have learned a lot in this thread alone.
One thing I have learned is you can't compare RPD's, MPD's and overdates, it's like apples & oranges.
Kevin Flynn's article on this website makes you appreciate the different circumstances under which
each was created.
Some details of this article make me look at Lakesammmon's arguement in a new light.
An overdate occurs when a coin exhibits dates of different years. This can occur when the date is punched or hubbed into a die for one year and the date of another year is punched or hubbed over one or more of the digits of that working die. This might have happened intentionally for a number of reasons:
1. There might have been a shortage of dies or metal to make dies.
2. The mint may have made too many dies for a particular year, with many dies left over at the end of the year.
3. The working dies produced for one year might not have been used or may have been used very little.
4. On the second hubbings of a working die, a new working hub with a different date was used.
In the 18th and 19th centuries at the Mint, the date was punched into the working die by hand. It was an acceptable practice during the 19th century to reuse new or slightly used dies from one year to the next to get the most out of each die. To reuse the die for the next year, the engraver could remove the old date with abrasives and punch in the new date or just punch the new date over the old. Any remnants of the old date that were left, especially of digits that were different, would produce an overdate.
An overdate could also have happened by accident. The engraver could have picked up the punch for one year and when he went to strike the date punch a second time he picked up the punch for a different year. Even though an accident like this is unlikely, it is possible, especially when dies were being hubbed around the New Year and punches for more than one year might have been lying around.
Another way an overdate might have happened by accident was when a die was hubbed at the end of the year. The working hub of one year was used to hub the working die, and then when the die was returned to be rehubbed after annealing, a working hub of a different year was used to hub the die. This happened for the 1918 over 1917 Buffalo nickel and the 1942 over 1941 Mercury dime./i]
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
It's instructive because it's a MPD in the area of the devices, not an area capable of being lapped to remove or efface the date like in the fields.
If you look at the middle 2 arrows, they are pointing out the bases of 2 different 5's. The lower one is much smaller not because it was lapped but because it was more "weakly" impressed.
If you apply the same idea to the 1888/7, the underdate 7 may have been either more weakly impressed or partially effaced by subsequent lapping of the die OR BOTH. In either case, the base of the underdate 7 would look smaller than a normal 7 on a 18887 cent.
It may have .... *if* you believe that there's a 7 there. But let's ask this differently: what evidence is there that it's a 7 and not just a die chip at the bottom of the 8?
Isn't the designation of an overdate something you can see without having to use your imagination ? I believe the same is true in grading.I you want to see an ms 65 become an ms 66 you just have to look at it long enough and concentrate.
The price of ANY 1888/7 is extremely high and based on the requirement of having to use my imagination,I believe it should be much lower.
Stewart
Is that why PCGS keeps undergrading your IHC's?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
One important thing to remember with overdates is that the act of punching the second date into the die tends to collapse the first date to some degree, depending on the shapes of the two digits, the hardness of the die, the strength/depth of the two punchings, etc.
Look at the 1880-P 8/7 VAM-6. The top of the 7 is all there, and the bottom is just gone.
IMHO the 1888/7 IHC is an overdate.
Tom DeLorey
possible before repunching. This would make the old digit fainter and thinner.
<< <i>In the 18th and 19th centuries at the Mint, the date was punched into the working die by hand. It was an acceptable practice during the 19th century to reuse new or slightly used dies from one year to the next to get the most out of each die. To reuse the die for the next year, the engraver could remove the old date with abrasives and punch in the new date or just punch the new date over the old. Any remnants of the old date that were left, especially of digits that were different, would produce an overdate. >>
In the 18th and early 19th centuries unused dated dies that were left over at the end of the year that had already been hardened or previously used dies were NOT overdated and were simply used in the later years with the old date. The only exception to this were the 1805/5 quarter and half dollars. No other overdated dies are known that had been previously used in its non-overdated state.
This was because quality die steel was scarce and the most likely time for it to fail was during the hardening process. The stresses created during hardening would frequently result in cracking of the dies. So if they had a perfectly good die that has managed to survive the hardening process once they were not going to risk annealing it redating it and subjecting it to the hardening process a second time, because they woud be very likely to lose it and the creation of another die would mean a lot of labor intensive hand work.. (They did it for the 1806/5 and both of those dies then failed shortly afterwards.) And you can't overdate a die without annealing it because trying to punch the digit into the hardened steel die would result in a weak impression, chipping or spalling of the die face, and probably the destruction of the date punch.
Leftover dies that were either undated or dated but not hardened were overdated. (By 1798 the mint was starting to make dies in quantity and and only punch the first three digits so if they weren't needed this year they could be used next year.) Sometimes the die would be lapped to weaken the date before overdating, sometimes not.
After 1840 the mint was using 4 digit logotypes for entering dates rather than individual punches so overdates after then until about 1909 will normally show some repunching on the other dates. Most overdates during this period are the result of errors by the diesinker picking up the wrong punch, discovering his error after an initial, lighter punching, and then finishing with the proper punch. Since the first blow was normally lighter to "Set" the punch before the heavier blows, the underdigit is often partial and faint. One instance where this probably isn't the cas is on the 1880/79 morgan dollars. Since there are so many different ones for this year, this is probalby a case of leftover unhardened, dated dies.
After 1908 overdates are the result of hubbing errors during those months when dies for both the current and following year are being produced since the date is now on the hub and not punched into the die by hand.
Flynn's second scenario: An overdate could also have happened by accident. The engraver could have picked up the punch for one year and when he went to strike the date punch a second time he picked up the punch for a different year. Even though an accident like this is unlikely, it is possible, especially when dies were being hubbed around the New Year and punches for more than one year might have been lying around.
I find this theory hard to believe. Granted, the 1860's-70's era of Indian Cent minting is ripe with human era. Nothing you could post here would surprise me on an 1865 IH when it comes to variety, the Mint employees were smoking something very potent during this era. But they seemed to get their act together in the 1880's. I find the 'reaching for the wrong date punch' theory very hard to believe in 1888.
1) That's not a proof, it's a toned MS 1887 coin.
2) It doesn't line up to the 8 of Lake's 1888/7. Believe me, I wanted this and many other images to line up.
But they don't.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Here are some pics of overdates for thought---it looks like some bolster 1 theory while others bolster the other ?????
1836/1336
1829/27
1820/19
1824/2/0