Question for Baby Bustie collectors

coindeuce

I've got an 1834 Early state V-5 (die defect in lower loop of 8, 3/reversed 3). Does the L-M reference have a listing just for the early state, or is it inclusive of late state w/out the die defect? What is the L-M # for each if not inclusive?

I've got a Durst reprint of Valentine. Useless.

tjkillian

Being a "baby busty", are these half dimes or dimes?

Tom

coindeuce

Half dime. Baby brother/sister to the dime.

LanLord

<< <i>Being a "baby busty", are these half dimes or dimes? Tom >>

I'm thinking he's talking half dimes. It fits the v-# he's talking about. I think I'm gonna leave it up to some of the half dime experts on the board, there are some good ones!

Barndog

The Valentine-5 and 5A correspond to the 1834 LM-1. The obverse you describe is obverse 1 for the 1834 bust half dime. Two 1834 bust half dimes share this obverse: the 1834 LM-1 (V-5 and V-5A) and the 1834 LM-3 (V2). If the reverse of your coin has the second A in America away from the top arrowhead, yours is the LM-1. If it touches the arrowhead, yours is the LM-3. All five 1834 die marriages are fairly common, with the scarcest being only R-3. I do think, however, that the 1834 LM-5/V-3 is quite a good find when it is in AU or better grade. Seems a tough die marriage in higher grades. I hope this helps.

RGT

The LM book lists each die marriage, not each die state. According to the book, the LM-1 includes both V-5 and V-5a from Valentine. The later die state also has rim breaks between S3 and S6. On the reverse, a cud forms at the top of ED. This is a R2 die marriage.

coindeuce

Thank you for your input. I'll put it under my Zeiss tomorrow. BTW, it's ANACS-62 w/natural moderate toning. Attributed as V-5, but I think I'll resubmit for L-M designation.

Barndog

If you can post photos here, there are many who can tell you exactly what you have without wasting your time or money on changing a slab label. Plus, we always like to see photos of baby busties!

coindeuce

delete

stiffy

Plus, we always like to see photos of baby busties!

Yeah, and other busties, too! This forum isn't just for babies only.

Barndog

<< <i>Barndog, did you mean to write V5/LM3 as the better die marriage in AU or better? >>



No. Higher grade examples of the 1834 LM-1 through LM-4 are readily available, so it would seem. It is the LM-5 that is somewhat elusive in higher grade.

coindeuce

O.K. The correlation between V#'s and LM#'s caught me off guard. I find it easier to follow the crossover from Judd-Pollock in patterns, or Haseltine-Bolender-Bowers/Borckardt in Early dollars. Thanks.

MrHalfDime

The 1834 V5 Capped Bust half dime is now known as the Logan/McCloskey LM-1 die marriage. A chart showing the relationship of the original Valentine numbers to the new Logan/McCloskey numbers appears on page 78 of the LM reference.

When the "Federal Half Dimes 1792-1837" reference was being written, I made my case to Russ Logan not to renumber the entire series, as the Valentine numbers had been ingrained in American numismatics for over 60 years, numerous collections and auction catalogs had listed half dimes with the V numbers, and there seemed no compelling reason to make such a dramatic change. Originally, the draft of the LM half dime book included the use of "DM" numbers, for "die marriage", but after a draft of the book was sent to Q. David Bowers for his learned comments, he suggested that DM should be changed to LM, for Logan/McCloskey, and the rest, as they say, is history. One of Russ Logan's primary reasons for the number change was to delineate the emission sequence, or order of manufacture of the various die marriages. However lauditory that knowledge might be, it was my feeling that the emission sequence was known, it was published in the LM book, and therefore it was not necessary to change the entire numbering sequence merely to present the emission sequence which could be found elsewhere in the book using the Valentine numbers. History will record that my opinion on this matter was completely ignored.

In the Logan/McCloskey numbering system, the LM-x number designates the die marriage regardless of die state. Unlike the Valentine, or later the Reiver numbering systems which used a lower case letter suffix to designate consecutive die states (e.g., V2a, V5b, etc), Russ Logan reasoned that die states occur as a continuum, and not as discrete steps. Therefore it will always be possible to find an intermediate die state in between designated die states. This presents the awkward problem of trying to designate a 'new' die state in between V1a and V1b. Russ presents die state information for each die marriage in paragraphs, with the tense of the verb describing when various die deterioration occurs (e.g., "die crack develops", or "die crack extends").

A concept that was first introduced in the Logan/McCloskey half dime reference that is related to die states, but distinctly different, was the concept of remarriages. A remarriage occurs when a die pair used to strike coins is later separated, a different die is substituted to produce a different die marriage, and then, after some discernable die wear, the original die pair is reunited to produce additional coins. Originally, in the Valentine and Reiver references, these were simply treated as later die states, as the concept of a remarriage was unknown to Jules Reiver, and presumably to Daniel Valentine.

If your 1834 V5/LM-1 half dime shows filling of the 8 in the date, it is not an early die state, as the early die states are those before the 8 filled. It may be an intermediate die state. In the latest die state there is a retained cud over ED of UNITED.

Barndog

Give the Valentine to Logan-McCloskey comparisons some time and you will find the transition easy. Many CBHD collectors use Valentine numbers almost exclusively, whereas others use the LM numbers exclusively. Those who speak or write about them find it more beneficial to the population of collectors to mention both of them.

coindeuce

MrHalfDime--absolutely fascinating. I empathize with your position. Also, you've just planted a seed for me, being a Morgan VAM specialist. What do you think the concept of "die remarriage" could do to the VAM system? OH...MY..GOD!!

MrHalfDime

I enthusiastically embrace the use of the term "die marriage" instead of "variety" as being a significantly more descriptive term. Valentine, as well as many other numismatic researchers and writers, liked the term "variety", and go even further to discuss "major varieties", whatever those are. An obverse die and a reverse die, used together to produce coins, are a "die marriage". If they are later reunited to produce more coins, we have a "remarriage". It is okay to talk about "varieties", but it opens the door to problems when collectors look merely for major diagnostics, or "pick-up points" as in the Fivaz-Stanton book, and do not look at both obverse and reverse dies when attributing coins.

Every die marriage is a "variety", but most are pretty mundane, with no spectacular die cracks, cuds, repunched numerals or other characteristics to make them interesting. With a series as huge as the Morgan dollars, with their extremely high mintages, if each and every die marriage were to be separately listed, the VAM book would be a twelve volume set.

coindeuce

Actually, and unfortunately the trend in VAM's by some involved does seem to be moving toward trying to identify every die marriage of every date and variety. Seems pointless to me. Too many VAM's are mundane, and splitting hairs on the countless possible die marriages is a waste of knowledge to satisfy a very few fanatics need to feed their ego by claiming DISCOVERY!! DISCOVERY!!

MrHalfDime

Perhaps it is best to leave the pursuit of 'die marriages' to the early Federal coinage, to the series produced from hand made dies, and to the series where die marriage collecting began. Large Cents, Half Cents, and all of the silver and gold issues up through 1837 or 1838 are the provence of "die marriage" collecting. Later series, like the Morgan dollars, are perhaps best left to "Major variety" collecting. Otherwise, as you say, there is no end to the series.

coindeuce

Very well stated. My sentiments exactly.