Very informative thread! I think the 1888/7 Snow-1 is an overdate, based on the pictures shown, especially the ones of the Morgans, and Tom DeLorey's (Capt. Henway) commentary.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Ahhh - the shot I've been waiting for. And now I'm open to the possibility that it is indeed an overdate.
TDN: Whew - what a relief. I was really worried.
Stewy - you need a better imagination.
Shylock - for the last time, it's Lakesammman, not Lakesammmon.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
Believe me, I want the 1888/7 IH to be a genuine overdate. Belief is not enough.
I just need to see one logical explanation, and it would help if it were combined with visuals.
This doesn't work.
The little relief curl that extends from the upper left of the 8 should match up with the edge of the overlayed 7. It's inside the 7 on this explanation. Matching the bottom nub of the 7 along with the upper faint details, which are part of this overdate, are the key. It's easy to change the size/rotation of the 7 to make it match the lower nub. It's impossible to change it to match the lower and upper supposed 7 details.
I think it's really a 1888/1888/1887. That would cause the 7 to be even weaker than usual. If you look at the last 8, the middle of the digit has a bulging waist that would most likely have been caused by another 8. You can see remnants of overstrikes on the first 2 8's as well.
The size of the 7 doesn't matter. With the polishing of the die, the base is going to get smaller than a normal 7. Just like you can tell the die progression of a coin by seeing elements get smaller or get polished into the field, the same can occur with a digit you're trying to get rid of. It gets smaller before it disappears.
Finally, if you look closely at the last 7, the highest point is NOT the left edge. It's the mid-portion of the top left element of the 7. THAT is the last portion that will disappear with polishing and it's that portion that lines up best with the overlay.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
I quickly skimmed over the posts from ATS, and think Newmismatst pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Shylock is taking a two-dimensional approach to a three-dimensional problem. If one could take a three-dimensional image of a numeral 7 punch and a three-dimensional, reversed image of the overdate coin, and manipulate, rotate, and toggle the 7 punch, there would likely ba a way to make the two match perfectly.
The partial image produced by the numeral 7 punch is a product of depth, rotation, and angle/tilt. But I don't think I'll be able to come up with a visual for that...
The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
I guess I'll never see a visual reconstruction of this overdate. My mind works in a pragmatic way -- as TheRegulator alluded to, in a two-dimensional manner -- when it comes to coins and variety strikes.
As per TheRegulator's post, I can understand the concept of "toggling" the 7 punch, an angled date punch that may make the 7 "fit" on the 1888/7. But the nub on the lower left of this overdate looks "untoggled" to me, a two- dimensional almost dead on impression.
As per Lakes post,
I think it's really a 1888/1888/1887. That would cause the 7 to be even weaker than usual. If you look at the last 8, the middle of the digit has a bulging waist that would most likely have been caused by another 8. You can see remnants of overstrikes on the first 2 8's as well.
The size of the 7 doesn't matter. With the polishing of the die, the base is going to get smaller than a normal 7. Just like you can tell the die progression of a coin by seeing elements get smaller or get polished into the field, the same can occur with a digit you're trying to get rid of. It gets smaller before it disappears.
Finally, if you look closely at the last 7, the highest point is NOT the left edge. It's the mid-portion of the top left element of the 7. THAT is the last portion that will disappear with polishing and it's that portion that lines up best with the overlay.
Lakes has been my variety mentor since I first met him during an EBay sale years ago. He made me understand the upside down/inverted theory of clashed dies, which blew my mind up until then. His explanation is similar to DWLange's on the NGC board.
Imagine drawing a small circle in the dirt with the point of a stick. Then, push the stick right into the center of the circle. Much of the dirt displaced by the second action will fill the circle, while some dirt will form a ridge around the punch hole.
When an overdated die is basined (for its initial use), this ridge will be removed by the friction of the basining wheel, obliterating most of what remains of the original circle and leaving just the peripheral image. Subsequent polishings of the die to remove clashmarks, signs of erosion, etc. will only further weaken the original punching.
Bear in mind that any overdating of a die has to be done before it is hardened for its initial use. Once hardened, the die is never re-annealed, or softened. There is just one example of a previously used die being overdated at a later time, and that was during the Mint's earliest years.
This overdate will forever be a theoretical one, never explained completely to my satisfaction, but which I now believe is true. I'm going to go back to my original NGC post where the only reason I believed this was an overdate was because I couldn't come up with a logical reason for what caused the nub on the 8.
In other words, it's an overdate because I can't explain why it isn't
The pro-overdate theory requires a leap of faith about the date punch process. The anti-overdate theory requires an explanation of what exists on this coin. I'm a bit confused by the first but can't explain the latter.
Even though I believe it IS an overdate, I am not impressed with it. I know I got rid of the Good04 specimen I cherried several years ago as quickly as I could-paid a buck for it and sold it for $1400.
I just don't understand the price of an 1888/7 ? Does anyone know what caused the die cud on a genuine 1888/7 ?
Personally I think the 1894/1894 is a spectacular RPD.
The 1888/7 is the MOST EXPENSIVE overdate on any coin.That is in comparison to an ms 63 bn 1883 cent at $50 compared to $40,000 for an 1888/7 that is certified.Why is this coin priced so high ?
koynekwest: If I had a G4 example, I wouldn't appreciate the variety either. The 64RB coin is wonderful in person. There is a slabbed G4 that isn't really an S1 overdate. Perhaps you owned that one??
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
<< <i>I just don't understand the price of an 1888/7 ? Does anyone know what caused the die cud on a genuine 1888/7 ?
Personally I think the 1894/1894 is a spectacular RPD.
The 1888/7 is the MOST EXPENSIVE overdate on any coin.That is in comparison to an ms 63 bn 1883 cent at $50 compared to $40,000 for an 1888/7 that is certified.Why is this coin priced so high ?
Stewart >>
Stewart, with all due respect to your numismatic accomplishments, the 1817/4 half dollar is a much more expensive overdate than the 1888/7 cent. There are a few gold overdates that are more expensive also.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
No-I'm quite well versed in error-variety coins-it was an S-1.
I HAVE seen a photo of an MS64 that was more impressive, tho-it showed much more of the underdigit. I would say that it must have been an EDS coin, but with the rarity of this variety I don't see how there could be a late, or even a mid die state coin-they would almost all HAVE to be EDS coins.
This was a great thread with a lot of interesting contributions... and a good post by @Zoins to add to the discussion. Too bad we have lost so many of the pictures... Would still be of immense value to IHC collectors and certainly of interest to coin collectors in general. Cheers, RickO
The fallacy in the argument is declaring that all digits must fit perfectly or it fails. The most basic argument against this is that these digits are punched into the die by hand and as such, anything can happen.
On the other hand the 1888 S2, or "18888/887" was disproven as an overdate not by date position using an overlay, but by seeing repunching of an 8 on the final digit. It was not a 7.
@Lakesammman said:
Sherlock....er, I mean Shylock.
I think it's really a 1888/1888/1887. That would cause the 7 to be even weaker than usual. If you look at the last 8, the middle of the digit has a bulging waist that would most likely have been caused by another 8. You can see remnants of overstrikes on the first 2 8's as well.
The size of the 7 doesn't matter. With the polishing of the die, the base is going to get smaller than a normal 7. Just like you can tell the die progression of a coin by seeing elements get smaller or get polished into the field, the same can occur with a digit you're trying to get rid of. It gets smaller before it disappears.
Finally, if you look closely at the last 7, the highest point is NOT the left edge. It's the mid-portion of the top left element of the 7. THAT is the last portion that will disappear with polishing and it's that portion that lines up best with the overlay.
I never heard anyone call it 1888/1888/1887. I believe I have the coin that tells why it is an 1888/1888.
It explains the nub and the upper left. Curious if this thread will re-open after so long.
Comments
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
TDN: Whew - what a relief. I was really worried.
Stewy - you need a better imagination.
Shylock - for the last time, it's Lakesammman, not Lakesammmon.
I have a hard enough time remembering how many "m"s are in your nic, let alone the right vowels.
From here on in you are "Lakes" to me
I just need to see one logical explanation, and it would help if it were combined with visuals.
This doesn't work.
The little relief curl that extends from the upper left of the 8 should match up with the edge of the overlayed 7.
It's inside the 7 on this explanation. Matching the bottom nub of the 7 along with the upper faint details,
which are part of this overdate, are the key. It's easy to change the size/rotation of the 7 to make it match
the lower nub. It's impossible to change it to match the lower and upper supposed 7 details.
I think it's really a 1888/1888/1887. That would cause the 7 to be even weaker than usual. If you look at the last 8, the middle of the digit has a bulging waist that would most likely have been caused by another 8. You can see remnants of overstrikes on the first 2 8's as well.
The size of the 7 doesn't matter. With the polishing of the die, the base is going to get smaller than a normal 7. Just like you can tell the die progression of a coin by seeing elements get smaller or get polished into the field, the same can occur with a digit you're trying to get rid of. It gets smaller before it disappears.
Finally, if you look closely at the last 7, the highest point is NOT the left edge. It's the mid-portion of the top left element of the 7. THAT is the last portion that will disappear with polishing and it's that portion that lines up best with the overlay.
I quickly skimmed over the posts from ATS, and think Newmismatst pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Shylock is taking a two-dimensional approach to a three-dimensional problem. If one could take a three-dimensional image of a numeral 7 punch and a three-dimensional, reversed image of the overdate coin, and manipulate, rotate, and toggle the 7 punch, there would likely ba a way to make the two match perfectly.
The partial image produced by the numeral 7 punch is a product of depth, rotation, and angle/tilt. But I don't think I'll be able to come up with a visual for that...
in a two-dimensional manner -- when it comes to coins and variety strikes.
As per TheRegulator's post, I can understand the concept of "toggling" the 7 punch, an angled date punch that may make the
7 "fit" on the 1888/7. But the nub on the lower left of this overdate looks "untoggled" to me, a two- dimensional almost dead on
impression.
As per Lakes post,
I think it's really a 1888/1888/1887. That would cause the 7 to be even weaker than usual. If you look at the last 8, the middle of the digit has a bulging waist that would most likely have been caused by another 8. You can see remnants of overstrikes on the first 2 8's as well.
The size of the 7 doesn't matter. With the polishing of the die, the base is going to get smaller than a normal 7. Just like you can tell the die progression of a coin by seeing elements get smaller or get polished into the field, the same can occur with a digit you're trying to get rid of. It gets smaller before it disappears.
Finally, if you look closely at the last 7, the highest point is NOT the left edge. It's the mid-portion of the top left element of the 7. THAT is the last portion that will disappear with polishing and it's that portion that lines up best with the overlay.
Lakes has been my variety mentor since I first met him during an EBay sale years ago. He made me understand the upside down/inverted theory of clashed dies, which blew my mind up until then. His explanation is similar to DWLange's on the NGC board.
Imagine drawing a small circle in the dirt with the point of a stick. Then, push the stick right into the center of the circle. Much of the dirt displaced by the second action will fill the circle, while some dirt will form a ridge around the punch hole.
When an overdated die is basined (for its initial use), this ridge will be removed by the friction of the basining wheel, obliterating most of what remains of the original circle and leaving just the peripheral image. Subsequent polishings of the die to remove clashmarks, signs of erosion, etc. will only further weaken the original punching.
Bear in mind that any overdating of a die has to be done before it is hardened for its initial use. Once hardened, the die is never re-annealed, or softened. There is just one example of a previously used die being overdated at a later time, and that was during the Mint's earliest years.
This overdate will forever be a theoretical one, never explained completely to my satisfaction, but which I now believe is true.
I'm going to go back to my original NGC post where the only reason I believed this was an overdate was because I couldn't
come up with a logical reason for what caused the nub on the 8.
In other words, it's an overdate because I can't explain why it isn't
The pro-overdate theory requires a leap of faith about the date punch process.
The anti-overdate theory requires an explanation of what exists on this coin.
I'm a bit confused by the first but can't explain the latter.
I just don't understand the price of an 1888/7 ? Does anyone know what caused the die cud on a genuine 1888/7 ?
Personally I think the 1894/1894 is a spectacular RPD.
The 1888/7 is the MOST EXPENSIVE overdate on any coin.That is in comparison to an ms 63 bn 1883 cent at $50 compared to $40,000 for an 1888/7 that is certified.Why is this coin priced so high ?
Stewart
koynekwest: If I had a G4 example, I wouldn't appreciate the variety either. The 64RB coin is wonderful in person. There is a slabbed G4 that isn't really an S1 overdate. Perhaps you owned that one??
<< <i>I just don't understand the price of an 1888/7 ? Does anyone know what caused the die cud on a genuine 1888/7 ?
Personally I think the 1894/1894 is a spectacular RPD.
The 1888/7 is the MOST EXPENSIVE overdate on any coin.That is in comparison to an ms 63 bn 1883 cent at $50 compared to $40,000 for an 1888/7 that is certified.Why is this coin priced so high ?
Stewart >>
Stewart, with all due respect to your numismatic accomplishments, the 1817/4 half dollar is a much more expensive overdate than the 1888/7 cent. There are a few gold overdates that are more expensive also.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I HAVE seen a photo of an MS64 that was more impressive, tho-it showed much more of the underdigit. I would say that it must have been an EDS coin, but with the rarity of this variety I don't see how there could be a late, or even a mid die state coin-they would almost all HAVE to be EDS coins.
Resurrecting this ancient thread due to recent discussion here:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12121320
Here's a closeup pic from PCGS CoinFacts:
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/2171
This link is broken now due to the forum upgrade.
Any idea which thread this was now?
The same thread exists ATS but only has 2 responses:
https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topic/62606-photoshop-proves-the-18887-doesnt-work/
This was a great thread with a lot of interesting contributions... and a good post by @Zoins to add to the discussion. Too bad we have lost so many of the pictures... Would still be of immense value to IHC collectors and certainly of interest to coin collectors in general. Cheers, RickO
The fallacy in the argument is declaring that all digits must fit perfectly or it fails. The most basic argument against this is that these digits are punched into the die by hand and as such, anything can happen.
On the other hand the 1888 S2, or "18888/887" was disproven as an overdate not by date position using an overlay, but by seeing repunching of an 8 on the final digit. It was not a 7.
I never heard anyone call it 1888/1888/1887. I believe I have the coin that tells why it is an 1888/1888.
It explains the nub and the upper left. Curious if this thread will re-open after so long.
Bookmarked it. Nice old thread with good info and debate
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out