Options
Is this 1837 half dime labeled correctly Caution large pics
fishteeth
Posts: 2,236 ✭✭✭✭✭
I sent this coin to PCGS in an old green PCI slab. It was labeled as AU58 strike tru repunched date. I always thought it was at least a 63. PCGS upgraded it to an MS60, I guess they didn't want to jump a PCI 58 to a 63. I didn't send it in raw because I was unsure if they would grade this or call it damage. The coin is a great purple color with nice luster.
The real question is is this a true repunched date?
and any ideas on what could have caused this type of strike thru?
thanks for the help
The real question is is this a true repunched date?
and any ideas on what could have caused this type of strike thru?
thanks for the help
0
Comments
-Paul
Attribution aside, that is a spectacular half dime. The strike-through is actually cool, but I am guessing that PCGS netted the grade a bit for this anomaly. It happens. It looks like a nice Ch. Unc. coin, although it is hard to tell as images do not really capture the true essence of the luster.
In this condition, this variety is rare, imho.
edited for spelling
Geesh. I didn't even read the questions asked by fishteeth. I just went straight to the image.
Yes, it is a real repunched date.
The strike through? Well, based on my experience, I would guess that it was struck through a mint worker's index finger, which is rare. Usually they were struck through pinky fingers. Just kidding. I don't know. Nobody does. I would guess either a metal fragment, a tool or....less likely in this case....a piece of cloth.
HA! I just checked Heritage and they have sold an MS-66 and an MS-67 example of V-1. Told you I don't do much with seated coins! Too modern.
<< <i>That was funny reading your conversation with yourself Dennis.
I do that often. "We" even have coffee together every morning.....except for Wednesdays. That's when I have coffee with Sylvester Crosby and B. Max Mehl.
I don't know if you received an adequate answer to your question about the repunched date status of your half dime, as your thread took a rather unusual turn, and we were all somewhat amused and distracted by Dennis' conversation with himself. Assuming that you were seeking a more complete answer, let me offer the following insight on the 1837 V1 Large Date No Stars half dime.
Dr. Valentine identified a total of six (6) die marriages, or 'varieties', for the 1837 No Stars half dime, and that number seems to stand today, with no new discoveries made for this date. As others have stated, this is a beautiful example of Christian Gobrecht's lovely and uncluttered original design, before it was 'improved' by Robert Ball Hughes, noted miniaturist, in 1840. This same obverse die was used to strike the V1, V2, and V3, in that chronological order, until the new date numeral punches were introduced and used for the V4, V5, and V6 marriages, and all subsequent obverse dies. Someone, perhaps even Daniel Valentine, used the very misleading sobriquet "Large Date" to describe the date numerals on this die, with the companion moniker "Small Date" for the subsequent (V4, V5, V6) marriages, and collectors and researchers have been confused ever since. This is perhaps one of the most often misattributed characteristics of all half dimes (1837 Large Date vs. Small Date), and will likely remain that way until someone introduces a more appropriate title. The so-called Large Date has a tall peak to the top of the 1, while the so-called Small Date has a flat top to the 1.
When the date numerals were being punched into this obverse die, before it was used to strike any coins, all of the date numerals were misplaced and needed to be repunched. Perhaps it was an apprentice who punched the numerals, or perhaps it was simply because it was a new coin design, but precise placement of the date numerals appeared to give Mint employees a real challenge when the Liberty Seated design was introduced. The four digit gang punch, or logotype, was not being used at this time, so each date numeral was individually punched into the working die by hand. The 8 was actually quadruple punched, with three (3) distinctly misplaced 8s visible below the final 8 on very early die states (near and into the dentils). The 1, 3 and 7 were double punched, again with all evidence of the misplaced digits seen below the final digit, but not as low as the 8. So the 1837 V1 is certainly worthy of the description "Repunched Date". It is most evident on the V1, and even though the same obverse die was later used on the V2 and V3, due to die wear from striking many thousands of coins, and perhaps a bit of lapping by the die sinker, the evidence of the repunched date numerals is weaker and less pronounced on the later die marriages.
As others have indicated, the anomoly on the reverse of your coin is unique to your coin, and is not characteristic of the die marriage. It may be a strike through error, but in my opinion does not affect the value of your coin, up or down.
Your coin is a relatively early die state, and obviously of the V1 marriage, with strong evidence of the repunched date numerals. I have seen earlier die states, with even stronger evidence of repunching, but the combination of early die state, high grade, and attractive toning and eye appeal on your coin combine to provide some very nice eye candy. Thank you for sharing that coin.
Thanks again