<< <i>The coin in question is an NGC MS-65FB example of FS-110, listed in the Cherrypicker's Guide. I stand behind my attribution of the coin as that variety. Overdate or not, it's apparent that it's collectible, at least to some. >>
your post is reasonable. you are not the only one calling this an over date. it just seems this forum may be the right place to finally quash this speculation and collectors here can lead the way on just calling it a variety.
here is another look at this date.
FC. That one is a much later die state than the one on ebay. There is much wear on the die by the time that one was struck. The one I had posted (and they are both my images) is much earlier with greater detail.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
I also do not believe for a second that this is an overdate and have pointed out problems with the designation in the past. However, if CPG wants to consider this possible and if PCGS designates such then that is fine for those groups. Regardless, this is not an overdate. The seller was honest and hopefully the buyer is happy.
Shame on you Tony for hyping this thing in the forum, only bidding up to $550 and making me pay so much for the damn thing that I will now have to spend more money to get slabbed and attributed at PCGS.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>Without this thread, I think it would have been a lot less. >>
It has been discussed here before, but personally, I don't like the idea of people posting links to or discussing auction listings before they have closed. I do all sorts of bizarre searches on eBay to try to find listings that other people will not find with routine searches. If someone had posted links to these listings, I would be less than thrilled.
The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for the kind words Jon, although I have a very long ways to go with the set.
In regards to the debate. I don't know if the darn thing is an overdate or if a kitty kat got loose at the mint and went around scratching things in a funny way. I just hope there is enough of a debate left over 20-30 years from now when it comes time for me to get rid of it. I do find it interesting and enjoy the points that both sides bring to the discussion.
Greg
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>One cannot “polish off” a digit on a working die. To do so will leave a depression equal in depth to the height of the digit. The coin will have a raised lump in that location. >>
Now that this is over, I can really chime in. Aside from the people who were slamming the attribution and the grade (I always thought it was bad form to do so while a member's auction was in progress) this statement, from someone I respect, whose book on Peace dollars I contributed to, bothered me the most.
I do believe 100% that this has happened numerous times at the mint throughout history.
The 1858/7 Flying Eagle cents are an example. The numerous 1880/79 Morgan Dollars are another. Rick Snow had a thread here just recently involving an 1857 pattern die that may have been polished down and overdated with an 1856 date. The 1900-O/CC Morgan dollars are yet another- they all show traces of underlying digits or letters, because a die dated for the previous year or CC mint was polished down to remove the old date or mint mark. If mint history has shown anything, a die can be polished to remove any kind of detail- we see that with all of the 2-Feather Buffalo nickels, and the 3 and 3 1/2 leg examples. The Thornhead series of 1921-S Morgan dollars show an absolute progression involving the removal of deep gouges from a working die numerous times throughout it's time in the press.
I have owned a PCGS AU-58+ 1942/1-D Mercury dime recently. One of the things I saw on that coin is a large amount of polishing and die work in the date area, very similar, though not as extensive, as the coin that sold tonight. I have had plenty of time to examine this 1936-S in-hand (and I question how many of the posters here have had quality time with the variety), and I can say, with over 20 years of experience with varieties, that there is more going on in the date area than some die scratches and polish. Overdate? I don't know- I haven't tried overlaying images yet, but either way it is a very cool variety. If it were a Morgan dollar, it would be a very popular VAM, I'm sure.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this, and I'm open to the evidence, but to simply dismiss it because the mint chose not to record that it was done, or to say that the act itself was technically impossible is something I must disagree with, in light of the numerous examples of just this type of thing throughout US coinage.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
I agree...very seldom do they leave the entire under date. They usually make a feable attempt to correct it thinking no one will notice. Little did they know us variety collectors would be along in a 100 years give or take!
I too think it was in bad taste to bash the coin while the auction was going on.
It's a nice example of a really neat coin and I am happy for Greg.
<< <i>Anybody thinking those are die scratches...........well there's a word for that, but I won't use it. >>
Congrats to the buyer....and seller. Some will believe this to be an overdate while others may disagree. And that is all fine. Please understand that those that know this is not an overdate shouldn't disparage you nor should you disparage them.
If I see Hillary Clinton in a piece of french toast selling on EBAY you can politely disagree and think I am a little....whatever if I spend $1300 or so on it. If you see an overdate on that Merc I can politely disagree also.
But hey.....we all spend our money on what we like and that is the way it should be. Congrats to the buyer as I hope he enjoys this coin. And to the seller..... Nice
Bill doesn't tell you what you want to hear. He didn't tell me what I wanted to hear about my "super torch" at all. He doesn't make wild guesses. He goes strickly by the facts.
<< <i>Sorry, but that 2 inside the 3 is NOT random marks......come on!!!!
And it's not me saying this is a RPD....it is Bill Fivaz and I agree with him 200%! >>
Mr. Fivaz said "POSSIBLE OVERDATE."
Not "Overdate," he said "Possible Overdate." >>
What Bill said in the Cherrypicker's Guide..........
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
That's your opinion! Bill Fivaz, PCGS, myself and scores of others say it is!
So we can agree to disagree. >>
PCGS certifies this variety as an FS-110 WITHOUT calling it an overdate. The FS-110 listing in the CPG calls is a Possible Overdate, not an Overdate. Neither PCGS nor the CPG call this an "Overdate."
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
That's your opinion! Bill Fivaz, PCGS, myself and scores of others say it is!
So we can agree to disagree. >>
PCGS certifies this variety as an FS-110 WITHOUT calling it an overdate. The FS-110 listing in the CPG calls is a Possible Overdate, not an Overdate. Neither PCGS nor the CPG call this an "Overdate." >>
They don't put 1945-D/D on the label for the 1945-D/D does that mean it isn't a D/D? Every other RPM they do in the series is DATE-D/D or DATE-S/S. They also don't call the 1940-S/S/S/S, but only 1940-S/S does that mean there are only two mintmarks when there are clearly four?
If it is only Die Gouges, they are some of the coolest Die Gouges I've seen. I really don't think it matters one way or the other. These coins with something going on in the date, the doubling on other parts of the coin where the top of the cap doesn't line up with the underlaying cap, the doubling on the top of the wings, and the doubling on LIBERTY sure seem to support an overdate. Over a year ago I sent images to Dr. Wiles who wanted to disprove this coin. I sent him regular and microscopic images of the two coins I have, and images of almost every coin I have from the 1920's. If he could have proved it wasn't we would have seen something by now.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
They don't put 1945-D/D on the label for the 1945-D/D does that mean it isn't a D/D? Every other RPM they do in the series is DATE-D/D or DATE-S/S. They also don't call the 1940-S/S/S/S, but only 1940-S/S does that mean there are only two mintmarks when there are clearly four?
If it is only Die Gouges, they are some of the coolest Die Gouges I've seen. I really don't think it matters one way or the other. These coins with something going on in the date, the doubling on other parts of the coin where the top of the cap doesn't line up with the underlaying cap, the doubling on the top of the wings, and the doubling on LIBERTY sure seem to support an overdate. Over a year ago I sent images to Dr. Wiles who wanted to disprove this coin. I sent him regular and microscopic images of the two coins I have, and images of almost every coin I have from the 1920's. If he could have proved it wasn't we would have seen something by now.
>>
Bogus analogy. They put "RPM" for "Repunched Mint Mark" on the 1945-D label, in addidion to the FS number. They only put "FS-110" on the 1936-S label, and if you go to your handy-dandy Cherrypicker's Guide you will see that that refers to a "Possible Overdate," not an "Overdate."
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
They don't put 1945-D/D on the label for the 1945-D/D does that mean it isn't a D/D? Every other RPM they do in the series is DATE-D/D or DATE-S/S. They also don't call the 1940-S/S/S/S, but only 1940-S/S does that mean there are only two mintmarks when there are clearly four?
If it is only Die Gouges, they are some of the coolest Die Gouges I've seen. I really don't think it matters one way or the other. These coins with something going on in the date, the doubling on other parts of the coin where the top of the cap doesn't line up with the underlaying cap, the doubling on the top of the wings, and the doubling on LIBERTY sure seem to support an overdate. Over a year ago I sent images to Dr. Wiles who wanted to disprove this coin. I sent him regular and microscopic images of the two coins I have, and images of almost every coin I have from the 1920's. If he could have proved it wasn't we would have seen something by now.
>>
Bogus analogy. They put "RPM" for "Repunched Mint Mark" on the 1945-D label, in addidion to the FS number. They only put "FS-110" on the 1936-S label, and if you go to your handy-dandy Cherrypicker's Guide you will see that that refers to a "Possible Overdate," not an "Overdate."
TD >>
Tom,
The easy way out is to just say its bogus. Why don't you do some research and prove it one way or the other? I am one of the few who have seen one in hand (I actually have two); have you seen one in hand?
Tony
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
They don't put 1945-D/D on the label for the 1945-D/D does that mean it isn't a D/D? Every other RPM they do in the series is DATE-D/D or DATE-S/S. They also don't call the 1940-S/S/S/S, but only 1940-S/S does that mean there are only two mintmarks when there are clearly four?
If it is only Die Gouges, they are some of the coolest Die Gouges I've seen. I really don't think it matters one way or the other. These coins with something going on in the date, the doubling on other parts of the coin where the top of the cap doesn't line up with the underlaying cap, the doubling on the top of the wings, and the doubling on LIBERTY sure seem to support an overdate. Over a year ago I sent images to Dr. Wiles who wanted to disprove this coin. I sent him regular and microscopic images of the two coins I have, and images of almost every coin I have from the 1920's. If he could have proved it wasn't we would have seen something by now.
>>
Bogus analogy. They put "RPM" for "Repunched Mint Mark" on the 1945-D label, in addidion to the FS number. They only put "FS-110" on the 1936-S label, and if you go to your handy-dandy Cherrypicker's Guide you will see that that refers to a "Possible Overdate," not an "Overdate."
TD >>
Tom,
The easy way out is to just say its bogus. Why don't you do some research and prove it one way or the other? I am one of the few who have seen one in hand (I actually have two); have you seen one in hand?
Tony >>
Please re-read my comment. I was calling your analogy bogus because of the different markings on the labels. The label for the 1945-D dime mentions the repunched mint mark, or "RPM." The label for the 1936-S dime does not specify any variety other than the reference to FS-110. The CPG does not call FS-110 an overdate.
I have indeed seen one of these in hand. As I mentioned earlier, I handled the discovery specimen. Bill Fivaz sent it to me for my opinion, as he has done with many other varieties over the years. You might wish to read the Dedication to Volume One of the Fourth Edition CPG.
I told Bill that in my opinion it was not an overdate.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
They don't put 1945-D/D on the label for the 1945-D/D does that mean it isn't a D/D? Every other RPM they do in the series is DATE-D/D or DATE-S/S. They also don't call the 1940-S/S/S/S, but only 1940-S/S does that mean there are only two mintmarks when there are clearly four?
If it is only Die Gouges, they are some of the coolest Die Gouges I've seen. I really don't think it matters one way or the other. These coins with something going on in the date, the doubling on other parts of the coin where the top of the cap doesn't line up with the underlaying cap, the doubling on the top of the wings, and the doubling on LIBERTY sure seem to support an overdate. Over a year ago I sent images to Dr. Wiles who wanted to disprove this coin. I sent him regular and microscopic images of the two coins I have, and images of almost every coin I have from the 1920's. If he could have proved it wasn't we would have seen something by now.
Bogus analogy. They put "RPM" for "Repunched Mint Mark" on the 1945-D label, in addidion to the FS number. They only put "FS-110" on the 1936-S label, and if you go to your handy-dandy Cherrypicker's Guide you will see that that refers to a "Possible Overdate," not an "Overdate."
TD >>
Tom,
The easy way out is to just say its bogus. Why don't you do some research and prove it one way or the other? I am one of the few who have seen one in hand (I actually have two); have you seen one in hand?
Tony >>
Please re-read my comment. I was calling your analogy bogus because of the different markings on the labels. The label for the 1945-D dime mentions the repunched mint mark, or "RPM." The label for the 1936-S dime does not specify any variety other than the reference to FS-110. The CPG does not call FS-110 an overdate.
I have indeed seen one of these in hand. As I mentioned earlier, I handled the discovery specimen. Bill Fivaz sent it to me for my opinion, as he has done with many other varieties over the years. You might wish to read the Dedication to Volume One of the Fourth Edition CPG.
I told Bill that in my opinion it was not an overdate.
TD >>
Tom,
Did you take the opportunity to image and do overlays?
Tony
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
The easy way out is to just say its bogus. Why don't you do some research and prove it one way or the other? I am one of the few who have seen one in hand (I actually have two); have you seen one in hand?
Tony >>
Please re-read my comment. I was calling your analogy bogus because of the different markings on the labels. The label for the 1945-D dime mentions the repunched mint mark, or "RPM." The label for the 1936-S dime does not specify any variety other than the reference to FS-110. The CPG does not call FS-110 an overdate.
I have indeed seen one of these in hand. As I mentioned earlier, I handled the discovery specimen. Bill Fivaz sent it to me for my opinion, as he has done with many other varieties over the years. You might wish to read the Dedication to Volume One of the Fourth Edition CPG.
I told Bill that in my opinion it was not an overdate.
TD >>
Tom,
Did you take the opportunity to image and do overlays?
Tony >>
Has anyone done overlays, and if so are those images available for public view? I'm personally skeptical but I'm willing to be convinced, and since overlays keep coming up as required to disprove the variety, I think it's fair to ask to see them from the side arguing for its validity.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Did you take the opportunity to image and do overlays?
Tony >>
I do not have a camera capable of taking such pictures. As Sean suggested, the proponents of this die variety being an overdate are welcome to provide such overlays to bolster their allegations. TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Let's see if we can't get this thread to 100, shall we?
I made the following image by taking high-resolution photos of a 1929-S and a 1936-S from the Heritage auction archives. I then placed the 1936-S image over the 1929-S at 60% opacity, and carefully adjusted the size and rotation so all of the major design elements (the portrait, the rims, and the letters of LIBERTY and IGWT) were aligned. I think it may be off ever so slightly, mainly at the top of the coin, but it is certainly close enough for these purposes.
So here are the two images from Heritage, scaled down for the post:
Now here are the two images with the 1929-S at 100% and the 1936-S overlaid at at 60%:
Here is a close-up of the date, with a few of the adjacent design elements left in the frame so you can see how closely they line up:
(You can see the overlay in all its high-resolution glory here) Now here is the fcloud's close-up of the variety:
Finally, just so you don't think there's any funny business, I made the animated GIF below showing the two photos inthe overlay so you can see for yourself how closely the other design elements line up (warning, big file):
Based on everything above, I have to conclude that the coin is not an overdate 1936 over 1929. The form of the 2 in the date is slightly different for earlier dates in the 1920s but I don't have the time today to play with overlays through the rest of the decade trying to find a match.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
These overlays don't prove or disprove anything. The date is punched in by hand and can be in different places. And since they were trying to overlay the old date it would probably be in a different location than the normal one. The overlays do show that the spacing is right and would be where it is at on an overdate.
So actually I am more convinced than before that it is an overdate.
Thank you, Sean. I am amazed to see how much further to the right the 2 is on the 1929 master hub (as confirmed by its position below the back point of the bust) relative to the position of the 3 on the 1936 master hub.
Since the alleged "2" on the alleged "1936/29-S" die is directly under the 3, this proves that the die IS NOT, repeat, IS NOT a 1936/29 overdate. It is, as has been suggested before, an interesting pattern of random die scratches and/or die polish.
You have done numismatics a great service by forever debunking this "so-called overdate." TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
It proved just the opposite...it is the overdate. I clearly shows that the line in front of the 9 is the leg of the 9 from 1929. And the 2 inside speaks for itself. Unless you want to stick with that obsurd idea that is is random die scratches. RIGHT!!!!
IT IS AN OVERDATE!!!! Plain and simple......get over it!!!!!
<< <i>These overlays don't prove or disprove anything. The date is punched in by hand and can be in different places. And since they were trying to overlay the old date it would probably be in a different location than the normal one. The overlays do show that the spacing is right and would be where it is at on an overdate.
So actually I am more convinced than before that it is an overdate. >>
The date was not punched into the individual die by hand in 1929 or 1936, the practice was discontinued at the Mint in 1908. All 20th century overdates are actually doubled dies where a die was struck by hubs bearing two different dates. The 1914/3 Buffalo nickel was confirmed to be an overdate because of overlays like the ones shown above.
Now if you want to argue that the Mint, due to a die steel shortage (which RWB contents was not the case, but I digress) attempted to manually rework a 1929 die for use in 1936, then I would argue that the underdate should align perfectly with the 1929-S pictured above and every other 1929-S dime struck, since they all came from the same master hub. I would also expect the digits of a manually punched "1936" not to match any other 1936 dime from that year, since it would be the only die on which the date was not created by a working hub. Remember also that individual date punches did not exist for the Mercury dime since the practice of individually punching digits into dies was discontinued eight years before the series began, so they would have been one-off tools created at the SF mint solely for this purpose. Finally, I would expect the digits in the 1936 date to have much wider spacing in order to cover the underdate, since you can also see from the overlays that the date extended much closer to the rim in 1929 vs 1936.
If fcloud has an image of the full obverse of his coin, I can take the Photoshop layers used above and place them over his coin. If the manually punched date theory is true, I would expect the 1929 overlay to align perfectly with the underdate, and the 1936 overlay to be radically misaligned. I would be very happy to do those overlays if the image of the overdate obverse is provided.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>These overlays don't prove or disprove anything. The date is punched in by hand and can be in different places. And since they were trying to overlay the old date it would probably be in a different location than the normal one. The overlays do show that the spacing is right and would be where it is at on an overdate.
So actually I am more convinced than before that it is an overdate. >>
The date was not punched into the individual die by hand in 1929 or 1936, the practice was discontinued at the Mint in 1908. All 20th century overdates are actually doubled dies where a die was struck by hubs bearing two different dates. The 1914/3 Buffalo nickel was confirmed to be an overdate because of overlays like the ones shown above.
Now if you want to argue that the Mint, due to a die steel shortage (which RWB contents was not the case, but I digress) attempted to manually rework a 1929 die for use in 1936, then I would argue that the underdate should align perfectly with the 1929-S pictured above and every other 1929-S dime struck, since they all came from the same master hub. I would also expect the digits of a manually punched "1936" not to match any other 1936 dime from that year, since it would be the only die on which the date was not created by a working hub. Remember also that individual date punches did not exist for the Mercury dime since the practice of individually punching digits into dies was discontinued eight years before the series began, so they would have been one-off tools created at the SF mint solely for this purpose. Finally, I would expect the digits in the 1936 date to have much wider spacing in order to cover the underdate, since you can also see from the overlays that the date extended much closer to the rim in 1929 vs 1936.
If fcloud has an image of the full obverse of his coin, I can take the Photoshop layers used above and place them over his coin. If the manually punched date theory is true, I would expect the 1929 overlay to align perfectly with the underdate, and the 1936 overlay to be radically misaligned. I would be very happy to do those overlays if the image of the overdate obverse is provided.
Sean Reynolds >>
Sean, please don't spoil his illusion by interjecting facts into the equation.
<< <i>I thought we already had this discussion not long ago and many of the same points are consistently made. Here is a thread from June. >>
Same argument, only now we have proof that it is not an overdate thanks to Sean. TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>The coin in question is an NGC MS-65FB example of FS-110, listed in the Cherrypicker's Guide. I stand behind my attribution of the coin as that variety. Overdate or not, it's apparent that it's collectible, at least to some. >>
your post is reasonable. you are not the only one calling this an over date.
it just seems this forum may be the right place to finally quash this speculation
and collectors here can lead the way on just calling it a variety.
here is another look at this date.
FC. That one is a much later die state than the one on ebay. There is much wear on the die by the time that one was struck. The one I had posted (and they are both my images) is much earlier with greater detail.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Oh, yea; It wasn't me.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Will the winner stand up and take a bow(sp) not a speller!
<< <i>Wowser $1313.99 23 bids
Oh, yea; It wasn't me. >>
WOW! Someone said, "F with the bull and your going to get the horn". They REALLY wanted that one.
EAC 6024
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
That's your opinion! Bill Fivaz, PCGS, myself and scores of others say it is!
So we can agree to disagree.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I hindsight I shouldn't have posted this thread. Please accept my apology, but you sure have one controversial coin.
Tony
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>Without this thread, I think it would have been a lot less. >>
It has been discussed here before, but personally, I don't like the idea of people posting links to or discussing auction listings before they have closed. I do all sorts of bizarre searches on eBay to try to find listings that other people will not find with routine searches. If someone had posted links to these listings, I would be less than thrilled.
In regards to the debate. I don't know if the darn thing is an overdate or if a kitty kat got loose at the mint and went around scratching things in a funny way. I just hope there is enough of a debate left over 20-30 years from now when it comes time for me to get rid of it. I do find it interesting and enjoy the points that both sides bring to the discussion.
Greg
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>One cannot “polish off” a digit on a working die. To do so will leave a depression equal in depth to the height of the digit. The coin will have a raised lump in that location. >>
Now that this is over, I can really chime in. Aside from the people who were slamming the attribution and the grade (I always thought it was bad form to do so while a member's auction was in progress) this statement, from someone I respect, whose book on Peace dollars I contributed to, bothered me the most.
I do believe 100% that this has happened numerous times at the mint throughout history.
The 1858/7 Flying Eagle cents are an example. The numerous 1880/79 Morgan Dollars are another. Rick Snow had a thread here just recently involving an 1857 pattern die that may have been polished down and overdated with an 1856 date. The 1900-O/CC Morgan dollars are yet another- they all show traces of underlying digits or letters, because a die dated for the previous year or CC mint was polished down to remove the old date or mint mark. If mint history has shown anything, a die can be polished to remove any kind of detail- we see that with all of the 2-Feather Buffalo nickels, and the 3 and 3 1/2 leg examples. The Thornhead series of 1921-S Morgan dollars show an absolute progression involving the removal of deep gouges from a working die numerous times throughout it's time in the press.
I have owned a PCGS AU-58+ 1942/1-D Mercury dime recently. One of the things I saw on that coin is a large amount of polishing and die work in the date area, very similar, though not as extensive, as the coin that sold tonight. I have had plenty of time to examine this 1936-S in-hand (and I question how many of the posters here have had quality time with the variety), and I can say, with over 20 years of experience with varieties, that there is more going on in the date area than some die scratches and polish. Overdate? I don't know- I haven't tried overlaying images yet, but either way it is a very cool variety. If it were a Morgan dollar, it would be a very popular VAM, I'm sure.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this, and I'm open to the evidence, but to simply dismiss it because the mint chose not to record that it was done, or to say that the act itself was technically impossible is something I must disagree with, in light of the numerous examples of just this type of thing throughout US coinage.
I too think it was in bad taste to bash the coin while the auction was going on.
It's a nice example of a really neat coin and I am happy for Greg.
It IS the one!!!!
This is MAD...like Heritage Auctions, 'cept eBay gets the juice.
<< <i>Anybody thinking those are die scratches...........well there's a word for that, but I won't use it. >>
Congrats to the buyer....and seller.
Some will believe this to be an overdate while others may disagree. And that is all fine.
Please understand that those that know this is not an overdate shouldn't disparage you nor should you disparage them.
If I see Hillary Clinton in a piece of french toast selling on EBAY you can politely disagree and think I am a little....whatever if I spend $1300 or so on it.
If you see an overdate on that Merc I can politely disagree also.
But hey.....we all spend our money on what we like and that is the way it should be.
Congrats to the buyer as I hope he enjoys this coin.
And to the seller.....
Nice
That was a nice little reply except.......you snuck in the "those that know it's not an overdate".
Those just think they know......they actually don't know!!
Bill doesn't tell you what you want to hear. He didn't tell me what I wanted to hear about my "super torch" at all. He doesn't make wild guesses. He goes strickly by the facts.
<< <i>
<< <i>Sorry, but that 2 inside the 3 is NOT random marks......come on!!!!
And it's not me saying this is a RPD....it is Bill Fivaz and I agree with him 200%! >>
Mr. Fivaz said "POSSIBLE OVERDATE."
Not "Overdate," he said "Possible Overdate." >>
What Bill said in the Cherrypicker's Guide..........
<< <i>Tom,
That's your opinion! Bill Fivaz, PCGS, myself and scores of others say it is!
So we can agree to disagree.
PCGS certifies this variety as an FS-110 WITHOUT calling it an overdate.
The FS-110 listing in the CPG calls is a Possible Overdate, not an Overdate.
Neither PCGS nor the CPG call this an "Overdate."
<< <i>
<< <i>Tom,
That's your opinion! Bill Fivaz, PCGS, myself and scores of others say it is!
So we can agree to disagree.
PCGS certifies this variety as an FS-110 WITHOUT calling it an overdate.
The FS-110 listing in the CPG calls is a Possible Overdate, not an Overdate.
Neither PCGS nor the CPG call this an "Overdate." >>
Probably because it isn't an overdate
They don't put 1945-D/D on the label for the 1945-D/D does that mean it isn't a D/D? Every other RPM they do in the series is DATE-D/D or DATE-S/S. They also don't call the 1940-S/S/S/S, but only 1940-S/S does that mean there are only two mintmarks when there are clearly four?
If it is only Die Gouges, they are some of the coolest Die Gouges I've seen. I really don't think it matters one way or the other. These coins with something going on in the date, the doubling on other parts of the coin where the top of the cap doesn't line up with the underlaying cap, the doubling on the top of the wings, and the doubling on LIBERTY sure seem to support an overdate. Over a year ago I sent images to Dr. Wiles who wanted to disprove this coin. I sent him regular and microscopic images of the two coins I have, and images of almost every coin I have from the 1920's. If he could have proved it wasn't we would have seen something by now.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
you have one?!? i've been looking for one of these forever-please pm me with your price!
<< <i>Labels don't matter.
They don't put 1945-D/D on the label for the 1945-D/D does that mean it isn't a D/D? Every other RPM they do in the series is DATE-D/D or DATE-S/S. They also don't call the 1940-S/S/S/S, but only 1940-S/S does that mean there are only two mintmarks when there are clearly four?
If it is only Die Gouges, they are some of the coolest Die Gouges I've seen. I really don't think it matters one way or the other. These coins with something going on in the date, the doubling on other parts of the coin where the top of the cap doesn't line up with the underlaying cap, the doubling on the top of the wings, and the doubling on LIBERTY sure seem to support an overdate. Over a year ago I sent images to Dr. Wiles who wanted to disprove this coin. I sent him regular and microscopic images of the two coins I have, and images of almost every coin I have from the 1920's. If he could have proved it wasn't we would have seen something by now.
Bogus analogy. They put "RPM" for "Repunched Mint Mark" on the 1945-D label, in addidion to the FS number. They only put "FS-110" on the 1936-S label, and if you go to your handy-dandy Cherrypicker's Guide you will see that that refers to a "Possible Overdate," not an "Overdate."
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>Labels don't matter.
They don't put 1945-D/D on the label for the 1945-D/D does that mean it isn't a D/D? Every other RPM they do in the series is DATE-D/D or DATE-S/S. They also don't call the 1940-S/S/S/S, but only 1940-S/S does that mean there are only two mintmarks when there are clearly four?
If it is only Die Gouges, they are some of the coolest Die Gouges I've seen. I really don't think it matters one way or the other. These coins with something going on in the date, the doubling on other parts of the coin where the top of the cap doesn't line up with the underlaying cap, the doubling on the top of the wings, and the doubling on LIBERTY sure seem to support an overdate. Over a year ago I sent images to Dr. Wiles who wanted to disprove this coin. I sent him regular and microscopic images of the two coins I have, and images of almost every coin I have from the 1920's. If he could have proved it wasn't we would have seen something by now.
Bogus analogy. They put "RPM" for "Repunched Mint Mark" on the 1945-D label, in addidion to the FS number. They only put "FS-110" on the 1936-S label, and if you go to your handy-dandy Cherrypicker's Guide you will see that that refers to a "Possible Overdate," not an "Overdate."
TD >>
Tom,
The easy way out is to just say its bogus. Why don't you do some research and prove it one way or the other? I am one of the few who have seen one in hand (I actually have two); have you seen one in hand?
Tony
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Labels don't matter.
They don't put 1945-D/D on the label for the 1945-D/D does that mean it isn't a D/D? Every other RPM they do in the series is DATE-D/D or DATE-S/S. They also don't call the 1940-S/S/S/S, but only 1940-S/S does that mean there are only two mintmarks when there are clearly four?
If it is only Die Gouges, they are some of the coolest Die Gouges I've seen. I really don't think it matters one way or the other. These coins with something going on in the date, the doubling on other parts of the coin where the top of the cap doesn't line up with the underlaying cap, the doubling on the top of the wings, and the doubling on LIBERTY sure seem to support an overdate. Over a year ago I sent images to Dr. Wiles who wanted to disprove this coin. I sent him regular and microscopic images of the two coins I have, and images of almost every coin I have from the 1920's. If he could have proved it wasn't we would have seen something by now.
Bogus analogy. They put "RPM" for "Repunched Mint Mark" on the 1945-D label, in addidion to the FS number. They only put "FS-110" on the 1936-S label, and if you go to your handy-dandy Cherrypicker's Guide you will see that that refers to a "Possible Overdate," not an "Overdate."
TD >>
Tom,
The easy way out is to just say its bogus. Why don't you do some research and prove it one way or the other? I am one of the few who have seen one in hand (I actually have two); have you seen one in hand?
Tony >>
Please re-read my comment. I was calling your analogy bogus because of the different markings on the labels. The label for the 1945-D dime mentions the repunched mint mark, or "RPM." The label for the 1936-S dime does not specify any variety other than the reference to FS-110. The CPG does not call FS-110 an overdate.
I have indeed seen one of these in hand. As I mentioned earlier, I handled the discovery specimen. Bill Fivaz sent it to me for my opinion, as he has done with many other varieties over the years. You might wish to read the Dedication to Volume One of the Fourth Edition CPG.
I told Bill that in my opinion it was not an overdate.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Labels don't matter.
They don't put 1945-D/D on the label for the 1945-D/D does that mean it isn't a D/D? Every other RPM they do in the series is DATE-D/D or DATE-S/S. They also don't call the 1940-S/S/S/S, but only 1940-S/S does that mean there are only two mintmarks when there are clearly four?
If it is only Die Gouges, they are some of the coolest Die Gouges I've seen. I really don't think it matters one way or the other. These coins with something going on in the date, the doubling on other parts of the coin where the top of the cap doesn't line up with the underlaying cap, the doubling on the top of the wings, and the doubling on LIBERTY sure seem to support an overdate. Over a year ago I sent images to Dr. Wiles who wanted to disprove this coin. I sent him regular and microscopic images of the two coins I have, and images of almost every coin I have from the 1920's. If he could have proved it wasn't we would have seen something by now.
Bogus analogy. They put "RPM" for "Repunched Mint Mark" on the 1945-D label, in addidion to the FS number. They only put "FS-110" on the 1936-S label, and if you go to your handy-dandy Cherrypicker's Guide you will see that that refers to a "Possible Overdate," not an "Overdate."
TD >>
Tom,
The easy way out is to just say its bogus. Why don't you do some research and prove it one way or the other? I am one of the few who have seen one in hand (I actually have two); have you seen one in hand?
Tony >>
Please re-read my comment. I was calling your analogy bogus because of the different markings on the labels. The label for the 1945-D dime mentions the repunched mint mark, or "RPM." The label for the 1936-S dime does not specify any variety other than the reference to FS-110. The CPG does not call FS-110 an overdate.
I have indeed seen one of these in hand. As I mentioned earlier, I handled the discovery specimen. Bill Fivaz sent it to me for my opinion, as he has done with many other varieties over the years. You might wish to read the Dedication to Volume One of the Fourth Edition CPG.
I told Bill that in my opinion it was not an overdate.
TD >>
Tom,
Did you take the opportunity to image and do overlays?
Tony
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Your wasting your time trying to reason with someone who is completely blind to what is there.
He says it's not an overdate.....he is a know-it-all.....so it must not be!!
Let's stick with the chicken tracks on the die that just happen to form a 2 inside the 3....yes that's it...chicken tracks...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Tom,
The easy way out is to just say its bogus. Why don't you do some research and prove it one way or the other? I am one of the few who have seen one in hand (I actually have two); have you seen one in hand?
Tony >>
Please re-read my comment. I was calling your analogy bogus because of the different markings on the labels. The label for the 1945-D dime mentions the repunched mint mark, or "RPM." The label for the 1936-S dime does not specify any variety other than the reference to FS-110. The CPG does not call FS-110 an overdate.
I have indeed seen one of these in hand. As I mentioned earlier, I handled the discovery specimen. Bill Fivaz sent it to me for my opinion, as he has done with many other varieties over the years. You might wish to read the Dedication to Volume One of the Fourth Edition CPG.
I told Bill that in my opinion it was not an overdate.
TD >>
Tom,
Did you take the opportunity to image and do overlays?
Tony >>
Has anyone done overlays, and if so are those images available for public view? I'm personally skeptical but I'm willing to be convinced, and since overlays keep coming up as required to disprove the variety, I think it's fair to ask to see them from the side arguing for its validity.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>
Tom,
Did you take the opportunity to image and do overlays?
Tony >>
I do not have a camera capable of taking such pictures.
As Sean suggested, the proponents of this die variety being an overdate are welcome to provide such overlays to bolster their allegations.
TD
I made the following image by taking high-resolution photos of a 1929-S and a 1936-S from the Heritage auction archives. I then placed the 1936-S image over the 1929-S at 60% opacity, and carefully adjusted the size and rotation so all of the major design elements (the portrait, the rims, and the letters of LIBERTY and IGWT) were aligned. I think it may be off ever so slightly, mainly at the top of the coin, but it is certainly close enough for these purposes.
So here are the two images from Heritage, scaled down for the post:
Now here are the two images with the 1929-S at 100% and the 1936-S overlaid at at 60%:
Here is a close-up of the date, with a few of the adjacent design elements left in the frame so you can see how closely they line up:
(You can see the overlay in all its high-resolution glory here) Now here is the fcloud's close-up of the variety:
Finally, just so you don't think there's any funny business, I made the animated GIF below showing the two photos inthe overlay so you can see for yourself how closely the other design elements line up (warning, big file):
Based on everything above, I have to conclude that the coin is not an overdate 1936 over 1929. The form of the 2 in the date is slightly different for earlier dates in the 1920s but I don't have the time today to play with overlays through the rest of the decade trying to find a match.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
As noted repeatedly, the basin for 1929 and 1936 are different, some of which is evident in the composites.
So actually I am more convinced than before that it is an overdate.
Since the alleged "2" on the alleged "1936/29-S" die is directly under the 3, this proves that the die IS NOT, repeat, IS NOT a 1936/29 overdate. It is, as has been suggested before, an interesting pattern of random die scratches and/or die polish.
You have done numismatics a great service by forever debunking this "so-called overdate."
TD
It proved just the opposite...it is the overdate. I clearly shows that the line in front of the 9 is the leg of the 9 from 1929. And the 2 inside speaks for itself. Unless you want to stick with that obsurd idea that is is random die scratches. RIGHT!!!!
IT IS AN OVERDATE!!!! Plain and simple......get over it!!!!!
<< <i>These overlays don't prove or disprove anything. The date is punched in by hand and can be in different places. And since they were trying to overlay the old date it would probably be in a different location than the normal one. The overlays do show that the spacing is right and would be where it is at on an overdate.
So actually I am more convinced than before that it is an overdate. >>
The date was not punched into the individual die by hand in 1929 or 1936, the practice was discontinued at the Mint in 1908. All 20th century overdates are actually doubled dies where a die was struck by hubs bearing two different dates. The 1914/3 Buffalo nickel was confirmed to be an overdate because of overlays like the ones shown above.
Now if you want to argue that the Mint, due to a die steel shortage (which RWB contents was not the case, but I digress) attempted to manually rework a 1929 die for use in 1936, then I would argue that the underdate should align perfectly with the 1929-S pictured above and every other 1929-S dime struck, since they all came from the same master hub. I would also expect the digits of a manually punched "1936" not to match any other 1936 dime from that year, since it would be the only die on which the date was not created by a working hub. Remember also that individual date punches did not exist for the Mercury dime since the practice of individually punching digits into dies was discontinued eight years before the series began, so they would have been one-off tools created at the SF mint solely for this purpose. Finally, I would expect the digits in the 1936 date to have much wider spacing in order to cover the underdate, since you can also see from the overlays that the date extended much closer to the rim in 1929 vs 1936.
If fcloud has an image of the full obverse of his coin, I can take the Photoshop layers used above and place them over his coin. If the manually punched date theory is true, I would expect the 1929 overlay to align perfectly with the underdate, and the 1936 overlay to be radically misaligned. I would be very happy to do those overlays if the image of the overdate obverse is provided.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>
<< <i>These overlays don't prove or disprove anything. The date is punched in by hand and can be in different places. And since they were trying to overlay the old date it would probably be in a different location than the normal one. The overlays do show that the spacing is right and would be where it is at on an overdate.
So actually I am more convinced than before that it is an overdate. >>
The date was not punched into the individual die by hand in 1929 or 1936, the practice was discontinued at the Mint in 1908. All 20th century overdates are actually doubled dies where a die was struck by hubs bearing two different dates. The 1914/3 Buffalo nickel was confirmed to be an overdate because of overlays like the ones shown above.
Now if you want to argue that the Mint, due to a die steel shortage (which RWB contents was not the case, but I digress) attempted to manually rework a 1929 die for use in 1936, then I would argue that the underdate should align perfectly with the 1929-S pictured above and every other 1929-S dime struck, since they all came from the same master hub. I would also expect the digits of a manually punched "1936" not to match any other 1936 dime from that year, since it would be the only die on which the date was not created by a working hub. Remember also that individual date punches did not exist for the Mercury dime since the practice of individually punching digits into dies was discontinued eight years before the series began, so they would have been one-off tools created at the SF mint solely for this purpose. Finally, I would expect the digits in the 1936 date to have much wider spacing in order to cover the underdate, since you can also see from the overlays that the date extended much closer to the rim in 1929 vs 1936.
If fcloud has an image of the full obverse of his coin, I can take the Photoshop layers used above and place them over his coin. If the manually punched date theory is true, I would expect the 1929 overlay to align perfectly with the underdate, and the 1936 overlay to be radically misaligned. I would be very happy to do those overlays if the image of the overdate obverse is provided.
Sean Reynolds >>
Sean, please don't spoil his illusion by interjecting facts into the equation.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>I thought we already had this discussion not long ago and many of the same points are consistently made. Here is a thread from June. >>
Same argument, only now we have proof that it is not an overdate thanks to Sean.
TD
Sometimes winning and auction is worse than losing it.
<< <i>Man Alive Im glad I dont have $1313.99 riding on an impossibility like this.
Sometimes winning and auction is worse than losing it. >>
Nothing about the coin (or for that matter, what is known about it) has changed in the interim.