Options
1888/7 Indian Cent - another perspective (Pilliod)
Lakesammman
Posts: 17,703 ✭✭✭✭✭
I asked Chris Pilliod about the 1888/7 IHC that's been discussed here and across the street. He is a professional metallurgist and has written numerous articles on IHC's. He gave me permission to post this since my inquiry to him led to this article to be published in Longacres Ledger.
If you want to see the full article with illustrations, join the Flyin Club.
1888/7 Snow-1
What is it, really?
Chris Pilliod
This subject seems to really get everyone’s dander up. Especially when it comes to overdate analysis because everybody loves these things. So it is easy to get caught up in the hype, especially if you are the discoverer. You know, we all want something to be what we want it to be, regardless of what it really is. A $25 find can be worth $10,000 if it is what we really want it to be. But enough of the “box of chocolates”...
A keen third party scientific analysis with no bias is always a must. And maybe in this case I qualify. That’s because I am not the discoverer, nor do I currently own one. My collection is XF or higher only (except for cuds), and I have never been able to conjure up the funds for a high-grade example, and the single low-grade example I ever found in a dealer’s junk box I sold for $100 years ago (by the way, for you Michigan members, it was in your state where I found it). So I have no personal stake in what this variety really is, only a thirst to fully understand it. And in addition to this lack of bias, being a metallurgist does add a trifle to any opinion rendered on the subject, I humbly imagine. So let’s take a gander.
My grandpa always used to say, “sometimes it’s easier to get the horse in the barn through the back door”. That might be an appropriate scientific thought process in this case. We all agree that any and all analysis of the 1888 Snow-1 variety leads to at least one unanimous conclusion. That is, it is definitely something in the die. Numerous examples have been discovered and they all show the identical features as shown in the photograph of this VF20 example.
Now maybe the next logical step might be what engineers call an Ishakawa or “fishbone”, a list of all possible causes. That won’t take long, as it’s a coin, not global warming. Then we can discuss the merits of each potential suspect and weigh their attributes accordingly.
OK, let’s start a laundry list-- and if I am missing anything on the list below, hey, we can always add to the discussion:
1. It’s a repunched date, an 1888/8.
2. Actually it’s a die chip.
3. Or maybe a die crack, or corrosion or pitting on the die.
4. Perhaps the date engraver got sloppy with the die punch and it’s really a mis-placed digit or an upside down something, like the 1858 Half Dime with an upside-down date.
5. Another guy at the mint went and put a die gouge in the die, right at the bottom of the last “8”.
6. It’s a polishing mark in the die.
7. It’s a clash mark.
8. It’s an overdate, 1888/7, just like we’ve always said.
Now, let’s just go down the list. A repunched date. Overlays repeatedly done on the feature show absolutely no match between the shape of the feature and the actual shape of the last “8”. So a repunched date has no chance.
A die chip. This theory has a lot of promise, as Indian cent dies notoriously form little chips on the features of the die, especially on the obverse. The 1890’s are most prone to exhibit this defect, and 1888 is close to this time frame. So this fits. In addition, this feature is of the approximate proper size and shape often seen on chips. And if it is a chip and formed late in the die’s life, this would explain the variety’s rarity.
On the other hand, if it is a chip what explains the features seen inside the “8” and above and to the left of the “8”. These are not die chips as they show none of the metallurgical fracture features and are not emanating or attached to the “8”. In addition, die chips are rarely (if ever) seen on the digits of the date. They are almost always seen on the feathers, so this would indeed be very unusual. But the most persuading feature in my mind is the shape and topography of the base of the feature. High magnification visual work I have done shows no evidence of a fracture surface nor does it show any corrosion or pitting, but is clearly a mechanical perturbation on the die—that is, the localized area of the die was moved or worked into its position. Therefore, I am convinced it is not a die chip. And for the exact same reason, there is no way it is a die crack.
So now we are on to a misplaced digit or an upside-down digit. Well, this might fit since we have confirmed by its character that it is a mechanical feature added to the die. We already know it is not an “8”, so this means if it is a misplaced digit it would have to be a “1”. I tried like heck to get a “1” to align with any of its shapes, but came up empty handed… sorry, not an MPD or an upside-down date.
OK, if it is a mechanical blemish on the die, then it could be a die gouge, right? Absolutely, so let’s talk about this. Die gouges are very common on Indian cents… we find them on the eye of Miss Liberty, in the feathers, on the reverse as well. We rarely see them near the date, so this is a strike against this theory already. In addition the tip of the gouge tends to be a sharp point, much like the tool the die engraver is using. While this in and of itself is not a show-stopper, the fact that the gouge stops and starts within the upper loop of the “8” and shows an angle within the last “8” virtually eliminates this theory. No die gouge I have ever seen on an Indian cent shows an angle like this. Therefore, I am eliminating any die gouge or polishing line off my list of suspects.
A die clash. Well, OK, yes this would cause mechanical movement of the die surface. But this theory quickly breaks down as it would be the shield from the reverse clashing the date area and the features on the 1888/7 Snow-1 show none of this. In addition any clashed features would show incuse on the obverse die, none of the features on the Snow-1 are incuse. No way it is a clashed die.
Unless I missed a suspect on my list we now got the horse in the barn. That’s because we are now down to what I believe this variety truly is—a true overdate. I also use a little bit of anecdotal evidence in its favor. That is, just the year before in 1887 the Mint had a heyday producing overdates. There is an 1887 3-cent nickel that clearly shows a 7/6 underdigit. In addition both Philadelphia and New Orleans produced 1887/6 Morgan Dollars. So just one year before 1888 it was accepted procedure to produce overdates by re-tooling leftover dies. Surely this thinking did not cease in 1888. I do believe both this variety and the Die#2 1888/7 are truly overdates.
Not the search is on for 1887 and 1889 overdates—is one out there? It wouldn’t surprise me.
NOTE: This article will appear in Longacre’s Ledger with accompanying photos, so JOIN now at www.fly-inclub.org
If you want to see the full article with illustrations, join the Flyin Club.
1888/7 Snow-1
What is it, really?
Chris Pilliod
This subject seems to really get everyone’s dander up. Especially when it comes to overdate analysis because everybody loves these things. So it is easy to get caught up in the hype, especially if you are the discoverer. You know, we all want something to be what we want it to be, regardless of what it really is. A $25 find can be worth $10,000 if it is what we really want it to be. But enough of the “box of chocolates”...
A keen third party scientific analysis with no bias is always a must. And maybe in this case I qualify. That’s because I am not the discoverer, nor do I currently own one. My collection is XF or higher only (except for cuds), and I have never been able to conjure up the funds for a high-grade example, and the single low-grade example I ever found in a dealer’s junk box I sold for $100 years ago (by the way, for you Michigan members, it was in your state where I found it). So I have no personal stake in what this variety really is, only a thirst to fully understand it. And in addition to this lack of bias, being a metallurgist does add a trifle to any opinion rendered on the subject, I humbly imagine. So let’s take a gander.
My grandpa always used to say, “sometimes it’s easier to get the horse in the barn through the back door”. That might be an appropriate scientific thought process in this case. We all agree that any and all analysis of the 1888 Snow-1 variety leads to at least one unanimous conclusion. That is, it is definitely something in the die. Numerous examples have been discovered and they all show the identical features as shown in the photograph of this VF20 example.
Now maybe the next logical step might be what engineers call an Ishakawa or “fishbone”, a list of all possible causes. That won’t take long, as it’s a coin, not global warming. Then we can discuss the merits of each potential suspect and weigh their attributes accordingly.
OK, let’s start a laundry list-- and if I am missing anything on the list below, hey, we can always add to the discussion:
1. It’s a repunched date, an 1888/8.
2. Actually it’s a die chip.
3. Or maybe a die crack, or corrosion or pitting on the die.
4. Perhaps the date engraver got sloppy with the die punch and it’s really a mis-placed digit or an upside down something, like the 1858 Half Dime with an upside-down date.
5. Another guy at the mint went and put a die gouge in the die, right at the bottom of the last “8”.
6. It’s a polishing mark in the die.
7. It’s a clash mark.
8. It’s an overdate, 1888/7, just like we’ve always said.
Now, let’s just go down the list. A repunched date. Overlays repeatedly done on the feature show absolutely no match between the shape of the feature and the actual shape of the last “8”. So a repunched date has no chance.
A die chip. This theory has a lot of promise, as Indian cent dies notoriously form little chips on the features of the die, especially on the obverse. The 1890’s are most prone to exhibit this defect, and 1888 is close to this time frame. So this fits. In addition, this feature is of the approximate proper size and shape often seen on chips. And if it is a chip and formed late in the die’s life, this would explain the variety’s rarity.
On the other hand, if it is a chip what explains the features seen inside the “8” and above and to the left of the “8”. These are not die chips as they show none of the metallurgical fracture features and are not emanating or attached to the “8”. In addition, die chips are rarely (if ever) seen on the digits of the date. They are almost always seen on the feathers, so this would indeed be very unusual. But the most persuading feature in my mind is the shape and topography of the base of the feature. High magnification visual work I have done shows no evidence of a fracture surface nor does it show any corrosion or pitting, but is clearly a mechanical perturbation on the die—that is, the localized area of the die was moved or worked into its position. Therefore, I am convinced it is not a die chip. And for the exact same reason, there is no way it is a die crack.
So now we are on to a misplaced digit or an upside-down digit. Well, this might fit since we have confirmed by its character that it is a mechanical feature added to the die. We already know it is not an “8”, so this means if it is a misplaced digit it would have to be a “1”. I tried like heck to get a “1” to align with any of its shapes, but came up empty handed… sorry, not an MPD or an upside-down date.
OK, if it is a mechanical blemish on the die, then it could be a die gouge, right? Absolutely, so let’s talk about this. Die gouges are very common on Indian cents… we find them on the eye of Miss Liberty, in the feathers, on the reverse as well. We rarely see them near the date, so this is a strike against this theory already. In addition the tip of the gouge tends to be a sharp point, much like the tool the die engraver is using. While this in and of itself is not a show-stopper, the fact that the gouge stops and starts within the upper loop of the “8” and shows an angle within the last “8” virtually eliminates this theory. No die gouge I have ever seen on an Indian cent shows an angle like this. Therefore, I am eliminating any die gouge or polishing line off my list of suspects.
A die clash. Well, OK, yes this would cause mechanical movement of the die surface. But this theory quickly breaks down as it would be the shield from the reverse clashing the date area and the features on the 1888/7 Snow-1 show none of this. In addition any clashed features would show incuse on the obverse die, none of the features on the Snow-1 are incuse. No way it is a clashed die.
Unless I missed a suspect on my list we now got the horse in the barn. That’s because we are now down to what I believe this variety truly is—a true overdate. I also use a little bit of anecdotal evidence in its favor. That is, just the year before in 1887 the Mint had a heyday producing overdates. There is an 1887 3-cent nickel that clearly shows a 7/6 underdigit. In addition both Philadelphia and New Orleans produced 1887/6 Morgan Dollars. So just one year before 1888 it was accepted procedure to produce overdates by re-tooling leftover dies. Surely this thinking did not cease in 1888. I do believe both this variety and the Die#2 1888/7 are truly overdates.
Not the search is on for 1887 and 1889 overdates—is one out there? It wouldn’t surprise me.
NOTE: This article will appear in Longacre’s Ledger with accompanying photos, so JOIN now at www.fly-inclub.org
Gone but not forgotten: IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Ricko, Big Moose, Cardinal, CoinsAreFun.
0
Comments
What features inside the 8? That's always been my bone to pick with it ... I see no features inside the 8.
The first appears to show the base of the 7 falls within the base of the 8 - ie: it doesn't line up with the protrusion at the bottom of the 'overdate'. The second shows it lines up exactly with the spine at the top left in the expected position. I am left to wonder a few things:
Did the mint use a 4 numeral punch or individual numeral punches. If four, then which overlay is correct? If individual, are they both correct?
All the metallurgical 'barndoor' evidence in the world won't support an overdate IF the mint used 4 numeral punches and the first overlay is correct [ie: the base of the 7 falls within the base of the 8].
The one low grade (Good04) example I've been able to cherry was also found in the State of Michigan. Sold it for $1400 around 5 years ago. I believe it to be a legitimate overdate, but one with little eye appeal. Rarity aside, when I think of a desirable overdate, I think of coins like the 18/17 5c and 25c or the 42/41 dime-not something you have to guess about.
I have always wondered why noone has ever set parameters to determine an over date.In relation to the 1888/7 one HAS to use their imagination.As an artist I am very familiar with using ones imagination.For the longest time the 1869/9 use to be thought of as an 1869/68.It is true that Indian cents has some of the wierdest varieties of ANY series.However the other wierd series being Large cents and half cents have DISTINGUISHABLE overdates.Just because a coin is listed in the Red Book doesn't mean it is an accepted overdate and the case is closed (fait complete)
Stewart
ps I wonder what the mint would call the coin ?
I should have known it would be like throwing pearls to swine.
One question - could there have been multiple (slightly different) four-digit logotypes used during a year?
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>Actually, I'm quite open to the idea it's an overdate now that the second overlay has been published. But I still have questions regarding why the two overlays are different... >>
In my opinion, he first (smaller) overlay is not large enough to say whether or not the registration is accurate enough to come to a conclusion about the position of the alleged 7.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
are all over the place. Spacing between numbers is consistent, but alignment of a digit can be up or
down. Some overdates are described as 8/8/7 (for example 1880 VAM-11 or VAM-16).
I can certainly see here that a 7 could have been re-punched twice before the '8' was over-layed. You
can prove this by looking at 1887 varities for a re-punched 7, this would be the die "re-used" in 1888.
Free Trial
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
<< <i>If you collected Morgan dollars, the idea of the Mint using a date logotype would be ludicrous. Dates
are all over the place. Spacing between numbers is consistent, but alignment of a digit can be up or
down. Some overdates are described as 8/8/7 (for example 1880 VAM-11 or VAM-16).
I can certainly see here that a 7 could have been re-punched twice before the '8' was over-layed. You
can prove this by looking at 1887 varities for a re-punched 7, this would be the die "re-used" in 1888. >>
The consistent spacing between the numbers proves that a date logotype was used. If single-digit punches were used, the spacing would wander all over the place, just like the positions on the mint marks before 1985.
Tom D.
Free Trial