NEW 1849/6 Seated half dime from the Melville, NY show- Grading opinions welcomed!

NumisOxide

Last sunday, I went to the Melville NY coin show for my first time and I have to say it was a very good show.

So, while viewing several coins for a good hour, I stumbled upon a dealer who had a nice selection of seated coinage in 2x2 in albums. I viewed several coins but decided to pick up this 1849 H10c due to it's dark original tone. The dealer just had it marked as a normal 1849. So, I get home and examine it further and get a nice little suprise:

What's the rarity of this variety?

What would you grade it?




1849/6

ziggy29

Not sure about the rarity of the variety but it's a cool one, and as for the grade, I'd say EF-45 -- maybe a little better if there's still strong luster in hand.

Cladiator

Nice half dime, I like it

Can't answer your specific questions though. That sounds like a job for Mr.HalfDime so I'll go ahead and turn on the beacon light for ya!

NumisOxide

Thanks clad, neat signal!

I'm waiting for Mr.HalfDime to chime in.

DAM

Nice coin John!!

The underlying digit is extreemly clear. Here's one on Larry Whitlow's site graded MS63. I've also got one graded MS63, but the underlying digit on yours shows a lot better than mine.

I believe there are some that believe the underlying digit to be an 8 and not a 6. Maybe it's already been settled.

Regardless, nice job!!!

RichieURich

Looks like one of the 1849 overdate varieties to me, just don't know which one. Waiting for MrHalfDime, he's already been signaled.

rhedden

Nice. I think the best I have managed for that variety is a F-VF, and the digit underneath is not anywhere near as clear.

CaptHenway

<< <i>Nice coin John!!

The underlying digit is extreemly clear. Here's one on Larry Whitlow's site graded MS63. I've also got one graded MS63, but the underlying digit on yours shows a lot better than mine.

I believe there are some that believe the underlying digit to be an 8 and not a 6. Maybe it's already been settled.

Regardless, nice job!!! >>



I am of the opinion that all of the 1849 overdate half dimes are 1849/1846, utilizing the 1846 obverses returned from the New Orleans Mint unused. Other people disagree with me. The question remains unresolved.
TD

STONE

I'd give it the same grade as ziggy.

That's a neat coin, thanks for sharing.

MrHalfDime

Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to work for a living, and we could just play with our coins and spend our time communicating about important matters like overdates and repunched dates on Liberty Seated half dimes. But alas, we must work in order to support our addiction. Maybe someday I will retire, and be able to spend all of my time with coins.

The coin you pictured in your post is an example of the Valentine V2 - of that I am certain. What specific digit lies under the 9, however, was once a topic of considerable debate.

I find it most appropriate that my comments should follow those of Thomas K. Delorey (CaptHenway). Let me explain. Over the years, there has been much discussion and debate regarding the specific identity of the underdigits on the several repunched date or overdate examples for the 1849 half dimes (1849/6, 1849/8, 1849/9, etc.). Many well known numismatic scholars have weighed in on this hotly debated issue, but at least two experts were willing to commit their opinions to public scrutiny in the pages of the Gobrecht Journal, official quarterly publication of the Liberty Seated Collectors Club. In March of 1985 and July of 1985, numismatic heavyweights Bill Fivaz and Tom Delorey each presented their opinions regarding the identity of the underdigits for the 1849 V1, V2, V4, V5, V6 and V8 die marriages. Each put forth some very convincing arguments for their own side, and each argument was well documented with photographs and illustrations. These may be seen in Volume 11, page 32 of the March 1985 issue and Volume 11, page 33 of the July 1985 issue, respectively.

After thoroughly reading, studying and scrutinizing each of the articles, and comparing what I read with what I saw on my own examples of each of these varieties, I found myself in total agreement with Mr. Delorey's arguments for each of the varieties. His argument simply made more sense to me, and agreed with what I saw in my numerous examples of each of those varieties, in all die states.

Sometime later, in August of 1997, at the ANA Summer Convention in New York, I happened by the table of Harlan Berk, a well known ancient and foreign coin dealer from Chicago. I knew that Tom Delorey worked for Harlan Berk, so I decided to stop and introduce myself. After exchanging pleasantries, I told Mr. Delorey that after considerable study, I was in total agreement with his findings on the various repunched date/overdate varieties of the 1849 half dimes. Tom smiled, reached into his display case, pulled out a coin that was tucked against the side of the case, out of view of the customer, and said "Well, then you're gonna love this!". He handed me what had to be the very earliest die state of the V2 (like your coin) that I had ever seen. The ENTIRE underdigit was completely there, just as bold as could be. I studied the coin under my loop, and you could hear my jaw hit the floor. Tom smiled again and said "Kind of puts an end to the argument, doesn't it?". That was an understatement. There, under the 9 in the date, slightly below and to the right, was a full digit 6. Unmistakable and bold. No question. Not an 8, but a 6. This coin had to be the very first coin struck from those dies, before the underdigit began to wear away. From that point on, my mind has been completely made up - that the 1849 V2 was an overdate, with the digit 9 punched over a 6, just as mentioned in CaptHenway's earlier post. I thanked Tom profusely and handed him back his magnificent coin, feeling most privileged just to have seen it. Tom looked at me with a surprised look and asked "Don't you want the coin?". He quoted me a price and I don't believe I ever purchased a coin as quickly, or with as little deliberation. It remains one of my favorite coins in my reference collection, and will be used to illustrate the Valentine V2 (1849/6) in my pending book on the series. Thank you again, Tom.

One of the nice things about the 1849 V2 is that if you find one in a much later die state, with most if not all of the evidence of the underdigit worn completely away, you can still positively attribute it by looking at the reverse die, which severely shattered in mid and late die states. Of course, why would you want an example of an 1849 overdate if there were no evidence of the repunching, and you had to use the reverse die to prove the attribution? Nonetheless, the reverse die did severely shatter, with a die crack from the rim to UN of UNITED, to the wreath, to D of DIME, and to H of HALF. Another die crack runs from the rim to T2 (first T of STATES) to S1 (first S of STATES) to the wreath. Another die crack runs from the rim to F of OF, to the wreath. Yet another die crack runs from the rim to E3 (E of AMERICA) to the wreath, to F of HALF. Still another die crack runs from the rim at the bottom to the right ribbon and to the right stem. And one more die crack runs from the left bow to D of DIME. Certainly this would qualify as a severely shattered reverse die, but remember, this is only on mid to late die states. Your coin does not appear to have any of these reverse die cracks, confirming what we suspected from the underdigits, that your coin is a very early die state (VEDS) of the 1849/6 V2.

As to the rarity, I always try to play down any notion of rarity based purely upon things like the LSCC census surveys because they are a very limited census, essentially by invitation only (members only), and ultimately represent only a very small portion or segment of the total pieces extant. Indeed, in the latest LSCC half dime census survey I wrote several introductory paragraphs of caveats, warning collectors not to place too much significance in the purported 'rarity' of the figures. It is all too easy to jump to a conclusion that a particular variety "must certainly be an R7 because only five pieces were reported", when there can be multiple other reasons for the small reported numbers.

That having been said, I can tell you with a straight face that with nearly twenty-five years of dedicated searching for exactly that coin, in that very early die state, it is only the second example that I have personally seen. I presently own fourteen (14) examples of the 1849 V2, in all die states, but only one in that die state. I would have to do a side-by-side comparison of our two coins to determine which is the earliest die state, but your coin compares very favorably with the plate coin shown in the Breen encyclopedia, which is also a VEDS.

In the latest LSCC half dime census survey, there were forty-seven (47) examples of the 1849/6 V2 reported in all grades. Of these, eleven (11) were in XF, fourteen (14) were in AU, and three (3) were in MS grades, the balance being in lower grade. I would dare say that perhaps no more than 1 or 2 of those were in such an early die state as your coin, however.

In short, you have an example of the Valentine V2 1849/6, which is only slightly scarce, and can be found with only a little bit of searching. But you have an extremely early die state, which is the most desirable die state for a repunched date or overdate variety. I see no reason why that coin would not grade a full AU, although I would reserve final comment until after I saw the coin in hand.

Congratulations on a very scarce die state of a very interesting overdate. In that die state, there are perhaps fewer that 5 or 6 pieces known.

elwood

Now who asked him to chime in, now I'll have to read all that

Thank-You MrHalfDime Very informative!!

I'll keep it short EF-45 maybe a 50 on a good day

NumisOxide

Way cool!

MrHalfDime,

I'm truly grateful for the knowledge and time you put into my thread concerning my coin. WOW, that is a lot of writing.

Thank You, Sir!

NumisOxide

Before I get too excited, I better say and show you that the reverse does have a few die cracks. There much thinner than the paint outlines I used to highlight them are.

tradedollarnut

what had to be the very earliest die state of the V2 (like your coin) that I had ever seen. The ENTIRE underdigit was completely there, just as bold as could be. I studied the coin under my loop, and you could hear my jaw hit the floor. Tom smiled again and said "Kind of puts an end to the argument, doesn't it?". That was an understatement. There, under the 9 in the date, slightly below and to the right, was a full digit 6. Unmistakable and bold. No question. Not an 8, but a 6. This coin had to be the very first coin struck from those dies, before the underdigit began to wear away.

How does an underdigit wear away?

With regards to the 1875-S/CC trade dollar, I've always been of the opinion that the CC mintmark was filled with something which slowly wore away and allowed the underdigit to show more and more clearly. The best showing examples always seem to have heavy die cracks.

seanq

I'd like to know how you and Tom knew it was a 6 and not an inverted 9. On John's coin, I do think I see a little repunching SE of the 4, were the last two digits of the date punched together?


Sean Reynolds

NumisOxide

<< <i>I do think I see a little repunching SE of the 4 >>


Looks like remnants of a 4 to me.

elwood

It sure looks like an 8 to me??

Possibly the Large Date Variety?

IGWT

-- "How does an underdigit wear away?

With regards to the 1875-S/CC trade dollar, I've always been of the opinion that the CC mintmark was filled with something which slowly wore away and allowed the underdigit to show more and more clearly. The best showing examples always seem to have heavy die cracks." --

I don't know the explanation, but I do know that the underdigit on the 83/2 Shield 5c appears to become bolder in later die stages.

MrHalfDime

I certainly cannot speak to the 1875-S/CC Trade Dollars, but generally speaking, at least for the half dimes that I have studied, the underdigits (which are in relief on the struck coin but incuse in the die) were typically lapped to reduce their relief as much as possible before the second digit was punched into the die. After the die was placed into use striking coins, over time the details erode and the relief, particularly for very low relief objects such as underdigits, become worn from the successive blows of the dies. In successively later die states, the underdigits become progressively weaker, until eventually you cannot see any evidence of the underdigits at all. Many/most of the later die states of the 1849/6 V2 can only be identified by the reverse die cracks, as no evidence remains of the underdigits.

I find your explanation of the later die states for the 1875-S/CC Trade Dollar quite interesting and very plausible. If the later CC mint mark were filled, perhaps with grease from the coin press, it could very well have happened that way.

tradedollarnut

Perhaps as the steel die compresses with use, the shallowly punched underdigit loses relief?

CaptHenway

<< <i>I'd like to know how you and Tom knew it was a 6 and not an inverted 9. On John's coin, I do think I see a little repunching SE of the 4, were the last two digits of the date punched together?


Sean Reynolds >>



Yes.
TD

MrHalfDime

I find this entire discussion to be very interesting, with many valid and intriguing points brought up. We have, in just a few hours and a few comments, rekindled the old debate from 1985 regarding the repunched date and overdate varieties of 1849.

I would like to make just a few comments in response to specific questions that were asked.

"I'd like to know how you and Tom knew it was a 6 and not an inverted 9."

It's almost like deja vu all over again. This question, and others like it, were asked repeatedly in the former debate about the 1849/6 and 1849/8 varieties. I certainly was not there in Philadelphia when these dies were made, but I have always held that there was probably no difference between a 6 numeral punch and a 9 numeral punch; they were probably the very same punch, and the die sink simply inverted it as needed when punching in a date. So you might then ask "Why, then, do you think the underdigit was a 6 and not an inverted 9?". For the answer to this I would defer to Tom Delorey's theory, that the dies were originally made in 1846, to be used that year. Since they were not used, and they had not been tempered or hardened for use, the dies were annealed, or softened, the incorrect underdigit was lapped to remove as much as possible, and the new digit (in this case a 9) was punched into the die.

One mistake that I have been making here, and one that I always correct others for making, is to improperly designate an overdate, such as "1849/6". In actuality, during this period of the Philadelphia Mint, the die sink was using a gang punch, or logotype, to punch all four of the date numerals into the die in one motion. When an overdate die was repunched with a corrected date, after the die was lapped to remove as much of the incorrect numeral as possible, the date was repunched using the same gang punch, repunching all four digits at the same time. The first three digits (184) would presumably find registration or alignment within the original digits, and thus correctly aligning the fourth digit. Thus, we should properly designate this not as "1849/6", but as "1849/1846", indicating that all four digits were repunched. This accounts for why you can see the remnants of another 4 below the final 4 in the date, as pointed out by several respondents.

"It sure looks like an 8 to me?? Possibly the Large Date Variety?"

Indeed, it looks like an 8 to many other people as well, hence the longstanding debate. However, once you see a VEDS example of this variety, such as the spectacular coin that Tom Delorey sold to me, as he stated "It sure puts an end to the debate". On that coin, you can readily see the entire outline of the underdigit for the fourth digit. It is decidedly a 6, and not an 8. An 8 would have an indent half way up either side of the digit, whereas a 6 would not. A 6 would have a ball on the stem at the top, whereas an 8 would not. Detailed study of these characteristics of the date numerals positively identifies the underdigit as a 6 (or inverted 9), but not an 8.

Also, the underdigit is decidedly not the Large 8 used on the 1848 V1 Large Date variety. The die sink used a logotype for a dime die when making that variety, and the date numerals would be better described as HUGE. The underdigit may appear to be large since it extends well below and to the right of the 9, but that was because the original date gang punch was not in proper alignment, running downhill from left to right, while the later gang punch was properly aligned, leaving the remnants of the underdigit exposed below and to the right of the 9.

I would encourage anyone interested in this ongoing debate to read the aforementioned articles in the Gobrecht Jopurnal, republished in the Collective Volume #2, pages 57 - 60 for Bill Fivaz's argument, and pages 61 - 64 for Tom Delorey's opinion. Unfortunately, this VEDS example was not known to either of the authors at the time the articles were published, or perhaps there never would have been such a debate.

Also, keep your eyes out for additional examples of any of the repunched date or overdate varieties of 1849. There weren't just two (1849/6 and 1849/8), but several, including the V1, V2, V4, V5, V6, and V8, and who knows how many more?

Cladiator

...and who knows how many more?

And that right there is what I simply love about half dime collecting

roadrunner

I've never appreciated the 1849 varieties until now. I can see the value of the EDS mentioned. But with several 1849 varieties to choose from, each is techically scarce by itself, but as a date, 1849 is decidedly common. I don't feel any of the later die states are worth anything more than any other Philly date in the 1840's. Bust halves have the same problem. Most any NGC MS65 is a low pop by Overton number, yet as a group most dates are pretty common. Add up all those pop 1 varieties and you have dozens of coins in MS65 for the date. Still common imo.

Nice overdate though. Grade it AU53 or 55.

roadrunner

seanq

<< <i>I would like to make just a few comments in response to specific questions that were asked.

"I'd like to know how you and Tom knew it was a 6 and not an inverted 9."

.....

One mistake that I have been making here, and one that I always correct others for making, is to improperly designate an overdate, such as "1849/6". In actuality, during this period of the Philadelphia Mint, the die sink was using a gang punch, or logotype, to punch all four of the date numerals into the die in one motion. When an overdate die was repunched with a corrected date, after the die was lapped to remove as much of the incorrect numeral as possible, the date was repunched using the same gang punch, repunching all four digits at the same time. The first three digits (184) would presumably find registration or alignment within the original digits, and thus correctly aligning the fourth digit. Thus, we should properly designate this not as "1849/6", but as "1849/1846", indicating that all four digits were repunched. This accounts for why you can see the remnants of another 4 below the final 4 in the date, as pointed out by several respondents. >>




I highlighted the passages above because on the VEDS coin that started this thread, you really can see the repunching of all four digits, the original 1846 is slightly to the right of the 1849 punch:



So John, where were you with this coin 22 years ago? You could have saved Tom D a lot of trouble.


Sean Reynolds

Edited because I can't tell left from right.

Garneteye

Great thread, I love this place!!!!!!!

Dan

NumisOxide

<< <i>So John, where were you with this coin 22 years ago? You could have saved Tom D a lot of trouble.


Sean Reynolds >>



I wasn't even a thought!

I'm only 18 years old ya know.

NumisOxide

Negative image

RichieURich

Wow! What a thread! Now you know why his name is MrHalfDime.

seateddime

I would say this coin is XF48

FinallyHere

I have not taken the time to read this entire thread yet, but I'm gonna. This is just wonderful information and there has not been any yelling, name calling or ugliness!!! Gotta love that too!!

LanLord

<< <i>Wow! What a thread! Now you know why his name is MrHalfDime. >>



Maybe you don't yet know all of why he's called MrHalfDime - that guy has nearly 2000 half dimes! YEEEEEEOWWWW, I got maybe 50 and feel like that's a bunch, but 2000????? whoa!