In the latest Coin Values they had an article about the validity of the 1893/2 Barber Dime. Big Pics

Realone · February 11, 2010 2:56AM

Here is a supposed 1893/2 , do you think this regular strike (not proof) is a 3/2? Oh and guess the grade while youre at it, thanks.

CaptHenway · February 11, 2010 3:18AM

FWIW, I have never seen an 1893 dime that I thought was an 1893/2.
TD

PonyExpress8 · February 11, 2010 3:33AM

RealOne I can't determine from the photo. Need a clear close up of the date to check it out.

93/92 business strikes have the remnants of the bottom of the two in the lower loop of the three as a horizontal line nestled in the bottom of the "3" loop.

The proof version is different and although discredited where it was once recognized by the TPG's, the proof has a diagonal line of the underlying "2" in the bottom loop of the 3. I have several photos of the proof version from a coin I was able to study and photograph, and I am working on a piece to include photos on it I will be sharing in the future.

I believe both the proof and business strike to be legitimate.

Of course there is controversy about both the business strike and proof strike 3/2 as to whether they are real overdates or not. Very much like the 1882-O/S $1, which really is as controversial if one reasons out the die life (s) and die states versus how the thing could actually happen.

Unknown · February 12, 2010 3:40AM

This content has been removed.

Unknown · February 12, 2010 9:35AM

This content has been removed.

MFH · February 12, 2010 9:41AM

Ponyexpress8 - When you come back from Vancouver - check out my 1893/2 Dime at BluCCphotos. Give me your thoughts.

Unknown · February 13, 2010 3:33AM

This content has been removed.

blu62vette · February 13, 2010 3:36AM

<< Ponyexpress8 - When you come back from Vancouver - check out my 1893/2 Dime at BluCCphotos. Give me your thoughts. >>

I think he is having too much fun and may not come back. I need to get yours imaged so you can add to the discussion.

Type2 · February 13, 2010 3:45AM

Looks MS a Very Nice Dime

PR65/66

MFH · February 13, 2010 7:06AM

<< 

<< Ponyexpress8 - When you come back from Vancouver - check out my 1893/2 Dime at BluCCphotos. Give me your thoughts. >>

I think he is having too much fun and may not come back. I need to get yours imaged so you can add to the discussion. >>

Well...what's keeping you ?.....

MFH · February 13, 2010 12:55PM

Didn't take too long - Thanks !!

Here's the close up:

The obverse:

This was a very quick shot - and although nicely done the underlying 2 is not immediately visable.

The reverse:

Note the Die Marker at 2:30 O'Clock on the Reverse. That dark toning patch is hiding a lump - which is associated
with the overdate. This is new to me - but my source is an expert in the series.

Here are the images from ANR four and a half years ago when I bought this coin [ in an ANACS 58 holder ]
and it crossed to PCGS as an AU 58 as well. The underlying 2 is very visable.

Unknown · February 20, 2010 12:53AM

This content has been removed.

messydesk · February 20, 2010 1:16AM

The reverse dies of Realone's and MFH's coins are the same. There is a die chip on the corn husks directly to the right of the E in DIME. I can't tell if the obverse dies are the same, because I can't find a good marker. There might be a die crack along the bottom of the bust, but I can't tell. Reading the CV article, the issue seems to be whether or not the overdate is a 3/2 or 3/3. If the proof was shown to be a 3/3 and you can find some of the same die markers (polish in Liberty's mouth, ear, or between the leaves would be my guesses for where you'd find this), then the business strike was made from the 3/3 proof dies and is a 3/3. From the pictures, all I can see is maybe an extra line across the lower loop of the 3, but it's mushy, as if from die erosion, which can distort stuff like that. Of course, I also see a line across the bottom loop of the 9, which would make me think RPD after the first 1893 was punched too high.

Disclaimer: I'm not to be mistaken for an expert on Barber dimes.

blu62vette · February 20, 2010 1:19AM

Here are the larger images but I need to do these with more care and an actual close up when I have a chance.

Unknown · February 20, 2010 2:16AM

This content has been removed.

MFH · February 20, 2010 2:22AM

Thanks for showing us the Blown Up images !!

tradedollarnut · February 20, 2010 2:27AM

That's an overdate? Harumph.

Unknown · February 20, 2010 2:32AM

This content has been removed.

Unknown · February 20, 2010 12:19PM

This content has been removed.

AUandAG · February 20, 2010 12:23PM

Yes, a 3/2 in my eyes.

bob

MFH · February 20, 2010 12:24PM

<< Didn't take too long - Thanks !!

Here's the close up:

The obverse:

This was a very quick shot - and although nicely done the underlying 2 is not immediately visable.

The reverse:

Note the Die Marker at 2:30 O'Clock on the Reverse. That dark toning patch is hiding a lump - which is associated
with the overdate. This is new to me - but my source is an expert in the series.

Here are the images from ANR four and a half years ago when I bought this coin [ in an ANACS 58 holder ]
and it crossed to PCGS as an AU 58 as well. The underlying 2 is very visable.

>>

Here is another image of the Date area...

DNADave · February 20, 2010 12:26PM

Whoa !

<<

>>

Unknown · February 20, 2010 12:35PM

This content has been removed.

messydesk · February 20, 2010 1:08PM

If this were a Morgan dollar, it would be cataloged as having merely a line in the 3 unless there were an earlier die state (less die erosion) that clearly showed it was part of an actual digit. The die chip on the reverse is more significant. Make fun of all the minutiae you want that some VAM collectors like, but Leroy Van Allen was always very strict about what was called a repunched date or overdate. I believe Breen's catalog lists an 1896/4-O, which Leroy called "Bar in 6" from 1973 when it was reported by Bill Fivaz until 2001, when I was able to convince him it was a repunched date.

blu62vette · February 20, 2010 1:59PM

Couple more of Mike's coin..... I will do more close ups later in the coming days.

Labelman87 · February 20, 2010 9:53PM

I'm not an expert (of Barber dimes) but I believe this is one time you have to see the coin "live" to make a determination.

tincup · February 20, 2010 11:23PM

Anyone have photos of a proof version?

CaptHenway · February 20, 2010 11:47PM

<< I'm not an expert (of Barber dimes) but I believe this is one time you have to see the coin "live" to make a determination. >>

I have seen alleged 1893/2 dimes live, and have never seen one that convinced me it was an overdate and not simply a repunched date.
TD

DIMEMAN · February 21, 2010 2:08AM

Alan, it's hard to tell on your coin. The diagnostic for the 93/2 is the bar across the inside of the bottom of the bottom loop of the three. Your pic is blown up to big and blurry for me to tell, but it may be. You can see it plain on my AU58. There is a good pic of mine somewhere on the forum on a thread by RHEDDEN. I bought the coin from him but have not gotten it yet. I have the pic that is in that thread and it will go in the set when I get the coin and add it to my set.

Unknown · February 21, 2010 2:10AM

This content has been removed.

blu62vette · February 21, 2010 2:16AM

<< Anyone have photos of a proof version? >>

Proof version:

DIMEMAN · February 21, 2010 2:18AM

The smaller pic is the one I was using to say maybe.

And the grade has to be AU58 maybe 55, but probably 58.

Overdate · February 21, 2010 2:45AM

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does a thin, straight diagonal bar in the "3" translate to being part of a "2"?

I looked at an image of an 1892 Barber dime, and I don't see any portion of the "2" that would have this appearance when overlaid with a "3".

tradedollarnut · February 21, 2010 2:48AM

<< Maybe I'm missing something, but how does a thin, straight diagonal bar in the "3" translate to being part of a "2"?

I looked at an image of an 1892 Barber dime, and I don't see any portion of the "2" that would have this appearance when overlaid with a "3". >>

rhedden · February 21, 2010 2:49AM

Here is my 1893/2, soon to belong to Dimeman. It's PCGS AU58. There are two interesting die markers for the variety. One is an obverse die crack that winds across the base of Liberty's neck. In later die states, it is connected to the left ribbon end behind the head. Not all 1893/2 dimes have this crack clearly visible- some are apparently early die states. The other die marker is a lump of metal on the right corn ear, right at the base of the kernels. Some coins may have a faint crack coming out of this lump and heading toward the rim. To my knowledge, all 1893/2 business strikes have this lump. It is clearly visible in the photo below.

I recently examined an 1893 dime that had both the obverse die crack (late state) and the lump on the corn ear. There was no trace of the 3/2 overdate, even in a microscope. It was obviously the exact same die pair, and a late die state, so what does that mean? The 3/2 feature could have been lost through repeated use of the die; it could have been removed purposefully by a mint employee; or it could have been caused by a filled die error in the first place, meaning it is not a true overdate.

">1893/2 dime

Unknown · February 21, 2010 2:49AM

This content has been removed.

rhedden · February 21, 2010 2:51AM

Something is wrong with my previous link, and I can't edit it, so let's try again:

DIMEMAN · February 21, 2010 2:52AM

Ron your link is not working.

rhedden · February 21, 2010 2:56AM

There is some kind of error, and I can't edit the message or the original link. Sorry about that.

tincup · February 21, 2010 4:29AM

Fabulous pics on the proof one blu62vette... thanks!

messydesk · February 21, 2010 10:44PM

Looks like the proof and business strike are from different dies based on the date alignment with the denticles (looking at right edge of 3). As for the little mark in the loop of the 3 on the proof, I've seen more called less. I shall call this "equivocal."

MFH · February 21, 2010 11:23PM

The new Dimeman overdate has a pronounced 3/2 without the aid
of any additional larger images. I can't see that this coin would ever
be called a RPD as there are no diagnostics of an underlaying 3; I
see a 2.

I have seen over-lays showing transparancies of dates superimposed
over another, and if any one [- pro or con the 93/2 Overdate -] has this,
please feel free to post them.

Unknown · February 22, 2010 1:44AM

This content has been removed.

rhedden · February 22, 2010 5:55AM

Realone,

Dimeman is purchasing the untoned (white) example I posted on p2 of this thread from me. Your coin is the exact same die marriage. It has the die crack across the lower neck and the lump of metal on the right corn ear.

PonyExpress8 · February 23, 2010 2:38AM

First I apologize for not picking this back up. I was in Vancouver and had a wonderful time. I also had a mild cold really get a lot heavier after standing in the snow 7 hours and being rained on. Still not over it but the past couple of days are somewhat better so I may have turned a corner. Haven't had a cold like this in years.

Whether this is a true overdate or not has been debated over the years. The issue seemed to have been settled about 20 years ago for the business strike.

For those of you who don't have David Lawrence's 1991 "Complete Guide to Barber Dimes", the following appears:

"The 1893/2 is the best knwon overdate in the series, though not discernable in low grades. Breen reports at least 4 varieities of this overdate, which exists in both proof and business strikes. A repunched 3 with several positional varieties is also reported by Breen.

No. 101 -- 1893/2-P (photo here and in Breen). The overdate is visible in the bottom of the 9 and the lower loop of the 3. The validity of this overdate has sometimes been questioned. Much of the skepticism was eliminated when 6 sharply struck, high-grade pieces were discovered in 1990 (one graded MS-66 at PCGS). The overdate is now recognized by PCGS."

i tend to accept the coin as an overdate due to the recognition by PCGS as well as the reference in the David Lawrence reference book for the business strike.

1893/2 PCGS MS66 Link

The proof "overdate" is different and has a diagonal line through the bottom loop of the 3 not the horizontal line at the bottom of the loop like the business strike. Todd's photos of a coin I had him photograph and posted here shows the different underlying diagonal on the Proof version. I am working on an article regarding the proof version. The proof 1893/2 was recognized by NGC which had 4 or 5 coins in their population report. A few years ago NGC went through and reviewed all the varieties they recognized and made the decision to "de-recognize" (must be a better word to use here) the '93/2 proof overdate along with several other varieties. There were 3 or 4 Heritage sales as well for the proof coin that are no longer in the archives but I did see at one time. As of this date you can no longer find the population report which NGC purged nor can I locate the HA archive which was also purged.

Al, your coin has the diagnostics of what is recognized by PCGS as well as confirmed by the David Lawrence book as the 1893/2 dime mint state overdate, both of which are later and beyond Breen's reference.

I haven't gotten together with Todd yet to look at Mike's coin as I haven't wanted to spread my cold around. Hopefully in the next day or so I will feel I am over this enough to be out and about and not pass this on.

Whether one wants to believe this as a true overdate or not bottom line will come down to a personal view. There is definitely something there at the bottom of that lower loop of the 3 and with a respected reference book on the series as well as PCGS recognizing the variety I will defer to those experts unless I can be convinced otherwise.

Glenn

Unknown · February 23, 2010 2:56AM

This content has been removed.

PonyExpress8 · February 23, 2010 3:49AM

Al,

If you read my post a bit more carefully you will note the TPG's are inconsistent on the PROOF not the MS coin, which is different. Nor was it in the same sentence.

You might find this thread interesting as well.

Earlier Thread

It will take some work on my part to come up with an overlay but I hope to do that at some point in the future. I will be happy to share that information with you when I get it done.

Glenn

Unknown · February 23, 2010 3:58AM

This content has been removed.

blu62vette · February 23, 2010 12:11PM

<< I haven't gotten together with Todd yet to look at Mike's coin as I haven't wanted to spread my cold around. Hopefully in the next day or so I will feel I am over this enough to be out and about and not pass this on.
>>

And I appreciate that!! You know what coffee shop to find me.....

In the latest Coin Values they had an article about the validity of the 1893/2 Barber Dime. Big Pics

Comments

Leave a Comment