My new 1837 Capped Bust Half Dime...
 of 4-17-04 004.jpg)
UtahCoin
Posts: 5,354 ✭✭✭✭✭
She may not be much to look at, but I believe it is a new discovery die marriage. But I'll wait for the experts to chime in with their expertise.
The obverse is the 1837 Obverse Die Number One.
The reverse, to me, looks nothing like any of the four reverse dies supposedly used in 1837. It does however match the D obverse which was used only two times. Those two times would be the 1829 LM-4 & LM-5.
If it is indeed a new die marriage, the "pocket change" I paid for it would certainly be considered a pretty good investment.
The obverse is the 1837 Obverse Die Number One.
The reverse, to me, looks nothing like any of the four reverse dies supposedly used in 1837. It does however match the D obverse which was used only two times. Those two times would be the 1829 LM-4 & LM-5.
If it is indeed a new die marriage, the "pocket change" I paid for it would certainly be considered a pretty good investment.
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
0
Comments
Fingers crossed for you, Utah!
If this proves to be correct, this would be only the second new die marriage discovered for the Capped Bust half dimes since the Logan/McCloskey book was published in 1998. If proven to be true, this would be a highly significant discovery, made all the more incredible by the fact that it was discovered by a relative newbie to the series. Wes has made a rather amazing start to his Capped Bust half dime collection, having recently cherried a high R7 die marriage, and now making a completely new discovery.
The reverse die pictured would appear to match the diagnostics for the Reverse D die detailed in the Logan/McCloskey reference Federal Half Dimes 1792-1837. However, this reverse die was presumably used in just two known die marriages, LM-4/V13 and LM-5/V6, both produced in 1829. After the LM-5 die marriage, the die was assumed to be 'retired'.
There is substantial documentation to show that the dies used during this period were a very precious commodity, having been hand made, and representing many long hours of tedious labor to produce. Accordingly, the dies were seldom destroyed after use, but were stored for possible later use, even if heavily damaged. This was true even for obverse (dated) dies. There is ample documentation to show that the coiner actually placed little emphasis on what date appeared on an obverse die installed in the coining press to meet a particular warrant. The detailed "Emission Order" published in the L/M reference, which details the order, or sequence, of manufacture of the various die marriages, shows that coins minted in any given year could have dates from any of the previous years for which the Capped Bust half dimes were produced. The coiner simply picked a serviceable pair of dies, placed them into the coining press, and began striking coins, with little regard to the date appearing on them. Today there is actually a law stating that the date appearing on a coin must be the same date that it was produced, but such was not the case at the first (or second) mint.
I closely studied this 'marriage' (assuming the two images are from the same coin), and compared the dies with examples from my own reference collection. I must concur that the reverse die appears to be Reverse D. The obverse die is much more difficult to positively attribute, although I am quite certain that it is not Obverse 3. I believe that it is Obverse 1, but that may prove to be incorrect upon closer inspection.
As the obverse die on Wes's coin has the 1837 date, the last year of production for the Capped Bust half dimes, it is a certainty that the coin was produced in 1837; there were no 1837 dated obverse dies at the mint from 1829 through 1836, and there were none until 1837, the year the reverse die was produced. Thus, it must have been produced after the two other marriages using the same reverse die (Reverse D). Indeed, not only was this marriage produced after the others, it was produced fully nine (9!) years later, meaning that the reverse die must have laid around in the vault for nine full years before it was retrieved and put back into service! There is no other example in the Capped Bust half dime series where any die was retired for such a long period, and later returned to service.
Way to go, Wes!
I should add that there is now a distinct possibility, pending confirmation of this new discovery, that the controversial 'new' Logan/McCloskey renumbering system for the Bust half dimes, which completely replaced the former and widely accepted Valentine numbering system, will now have a fatal flaw. Russ Logan wanted to renumber the entire series to reflect the emission order, or chronological sequence of manufacture for the various die marriages. While a noble goal, the 'new' numbering sequence holds water only until a new die marriage is discovered. When Edgar Souders discovered a new die marriage for 1835, we lucked out when the next sequential number (LM-12) actually fit the model, as it turned out to be the last marriage produced in 1835. It does not look, at this early date, that this new 1837 half dime will be so lucky. It must be called 1837 LM-6, the next number, although it is not likely that it was produced after LM-5.
<< <i>...my preliminary assessment would be that he has, in fact, discovered a new, previously unknown, die marriage... >>
Holy Schnikes!
If this is a new variety, major congratulations!
I saw this coin listed and did not buy it. My reason: I also saw that the seller had an 1829 half dime listed with the same reverse image. I have seen sellers do this one more than one occasion, not through intentional deceit but rather as a result of a simple mistake of matching the wrong obverse image with the wrong reverse image when listing multiple coins of the same type and similar grades. So, until UtahCoin gets the coin in hand, I am sticking to my theory. A nine year gap between uses was too much for me to believe.
The 1829 is still for sale on ebay, note the identical reverse image
When it arrives, I am afraid you will find that the reverse is not the one you are hoping for.
I've been numismatically 'punked'.
siliconvalleycoins.com
The scuffiness is unfortunate but not awful, I say.
I like that it has a little CircCam action goin' on, and even some colors.
I'd consider it pocket change well spent.
siliconvalleycoins.com
It went pretty quickly at the ten bucks I asked for it, too. Hmm. Did I just shoot myself in the foot again?
Cladiator seemed quite interested in it and had it for a little while, but he sent it back to me, so I figured it turned out to be nothing spectacular. Anyway, this is part of what he said about it earlier
<< <i>"The majority of the controversy about your coin is centering on the 3 in the date, the accepted die marriage emission sequence and how they don't fit together. Steve Crain also noticed another oddity that we'll look into. The LM9.2 nearly always comes with Star 3 either weakly struck or not struck up at all due to the mondo cud on the back. Yours has the mondo cud but killer strike on Star 3...odd. Your coin has piqued the curiosity of a hand full of half dime experts." >>
Yeah. I understood part of that.
You all know the OTHER story about me and Cladiator and a holey Bust coin that slipped through my unknowing hands.
I'm so clueless.
<< <i>Was there a prank here? Huh? What happened?
I'm so clueless.
I think just a seller's mistake in jumbling images, but UtahCoin can confirm or deny once the coin is in hand.
Your 1835 holey is very cool. Whenever I see 1835 LM-9.2 half dimes with one or more cuds, I pick them up if they are available at fair prices
I looked at the "properties" for Utahs coin as well as that of an 1829 that he has for sale. Here they are listed below along with the actual pictures from the sellers auction, the 1837 listed first. They are not identical but in that they both end the same and they look the same I'm thinking it's the same picture just used at different times.
I'll hope I'm wrong.
http://i.ebayimg.com/19/!BT3rQLg!Wk~$(KGrHgoH-CYEjlLl9odTBKKtnuwIVw~~_14.JPG
http://i.ebayimg.com/12/!BT3q6C!Bmk~$(KGrHgoH-EEEjlLl)LvtBKKtmKbQ5g~~_14.JPG
Congrats on discovering a new die marriage, assuming the pictures were not mixed up.
Sorry if my excitement caused some premature jubilation.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Some of us are waiting, holding our breathe in anticipation of your next post?????????????
It was the general concensus of my half dime peers that I was barking up the wrong tree with your coin. Bummer, but that's usually how it ends up.
<< <i>I have not seen Wes's Capped Bust half dime personally; I have only viewed his images and had a brief PM discussion with him about his coin. However, based purely upon the images he supplied (separate images for both obverse and reverse, in different sizes), my preliminary assessment would be that he has, in fact, discovered a new, previously unknown, die marriage. Of course, this is all pending further review and an in-hand inspection of the coin.
If this proves to be correct, this would be only the second new die marriage discovered for the Capped Bust half dimes since the Logan/McCloskey book was published in 1998. If proven to be true, this would be a highly significant discovery, made all the more incredible by the fact that it was discovered by a relative newbie to the series. Wes has made a rather amazing start to his Capped Bust half dime collection, having recently cherried a high R7 die marriage, and now making a completely new discovery.
The reverse die pictured would appear to match the diagnostics for the Reverse D die detailed in the Logan/McCloskey reference Federal Half Dimes 1792-1837. However, this reverse die was presumably used in just two known die marriages, LM-4/V13 and LM-5/V6, both produced in 1829. After the LM-5 die marriage, the die was assumed to be 'retired'.
There is substantial documentation to show that the dies used during this period were a very precious commodity, having been hand made, and representing many long hours of tedious labor to produce. Accordingly, the dies were seldom destroyed after use, but were stored for possible later use, even if heavily damaged. This was true even for obverse (dated) dies. There is ample documentation to show that the coiner actually placed little emphasis on what date appeared on an obverse die installed in the coining press to meet a particular warrant. The detailed "Emission Order" published in the L/M reference, which details the order, or sequence, of manufacture of the various die marriages, shows that coins minted in any given year could have dates from any of the previous years for which the Capped Bust half dimes were produced. The coiner simply picked a serviceable pair of dies, placed them into the coining press, and began striking coins, with little regard to the date appearing on them. Today there is actually a law stating that the date appearing on a coin must be the same date that it was produced, but such was not the case at the first (or second) mint.
I closely studied this 'marriage' (assuming the two images are from the same coin), and compared the dies with examples from my own reference collection. I must concur that the reverse die appears to be Reverse D. The obverse die is much more difficult to positively attribute, although I am quite certain that it is not Obverse 3. I believe that it is Obverse 1, but that may prove to be incorrect upon closer inspection.
As the obverse die on Wes's coin has the 1837 date, the last year of production for the Capped Bust half dimes, it is a certainty that the coin was produced in 1837; there were no 1837 dated obverse dies at the mint from 1829 through 1836, and there were none until 1837, the year the reverse die was produced. Thus, it must have been produced after the two other marriages using the same reverse die (Reverse D). Indeed, not only was this marriage produced after the others, it was produced fully nine (9!) years later, meaning that the reverse die must have laid around in the vault for nine full years before it was retrieved and put back into service! There is no other example in the Capped Bust half dime series where any die was retired for such a long period, and later returned to service.
Way to go, Wes!
I should add that there is now a distinct possibility, pending confirmation of this new discovery, that the controversial 'new' Logan/McCloskey renumbering system for the Bust half dimes, which completely replaced the former and widely accepted Valentine numbering system, will now have a fatal flaw. Russ Logan wanted to renumber the entire series to reflect the emission order, or chronological sequence of manufacture for the various die marriages. While a noble goal, the 'new' numbering sequence holds water only until a new die marriage is discovered. When Edgar Souders discovered a new die marriage for 1835, we lucked out when the next sequential number (LM-12) actually fit the model, as it turned out to be the last marriage produced in 1835. It does not look, at this early date, that this new 1837 half dime will be so lucky. It must be called 1837 LM-6, the next number, although it is not likely that it was produced after LM-5. >>
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
<< <i>And the end result was... >>
I assume not good.
-Paul
<< <i>
<< <i>And the end result was... >>
I assume not good.
-Paul >>
After reading MrHalfDime's (usual) excellent post, this would not be good.
Indeed, my jubilation was premature. The seller had inadvertently mixed up some photos. The next time when I think I've found something great, I'll stay mum until I have it in hand.
My apologies to all.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
<< <i>Sorry, I've been gone and didn't see that this has been resurrected....
Indeed, my jubilation was premature. The seller had inadvertently mixed up some photos. The next time when I think I've found something great, I'll stay mum until I have it in hand.
My apologies to all. >>
Bummer.