All I can get form the dime collectors ( who's opinions is no doubt unbiased with objective thoughts about dimes ) is that they think it is an overdate because
1: overdates have happened before 2: It was a hard time in America 3: if you apply a 19th cen manufacturing process to a 20th cen coin it sort of makes sense. 4: If you apply 20th cen manufacturing process logic to 21st cen overlays it proves nothing if it doesn't line up but proves everything if it does? 5: Absence of a smoking gun proof that it isn't (at least to biased perspective) should be proof that it is to a unbiased bystander? 6: Logic does not trump passion and visual trickery
Please if I missed any of your supporting arguments that it is an overdate please fill me in because I want to believe, I really do as it would be the first time since the dawn of our country that such an error occurred
<< <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. >>
Right. No thing has changed. Yet.
And there lies the problem. Faced with this kind of damning evidence, it seems a very good possibility that PCGS may, w/o warning, yank the variety from their list of "attributable FS varieties".
There is certainly precedent for this to occur.
Then the coin loses a great deal of it's value overnight.
Just ask fcloud!
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty and they're cold. I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." Mary
<< <i>Here is my own isue with this discussion. We have a couple of members here who are believers and I asume are owners of said possible variety too or they would at least like to own one, I believe one already has said he found two. These members offer no proof of their own, use only verbal writings by Bill Fivaz and/or their own words. The only proof one needs to show is the research like Sean performed. Sean did it rather quickly and it can be done at an even slower pace with even greater detail if necessary. However non of the members who not only want to believe but also most likely have a stake have gone to the effort to produce overlays which is the single mostdefinitive way to prove the existence of an overdate. So my question is why haven't the believers including the esteemed Bill Fivaz who also has a stake produce such documentation via overlays. In other words less schmooze and more definitive research paperwork ie overlays! >>
Please note that Bill Fivaz did not say in the Cherrypicker's Guide that this was an overdate. He said that it was a possible overdate. To me that implies that he was calling for further study. Well, Sean just STUDIED it!!! 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.
And there lies the problem. Faced with this kind of damning evidence, it seems a very good possibility that PCGS may, w/o warning, yank the variety from their list of "attributable FS varieties".
There is certainly precedent for this to occur.<<<
This is completely different than the 41-S DDR that was taken out. And it should NOT have been taken out. There reasoning was "it was minor"!
Well, this coin is NOT minor. You can see it without a glass. If this coin is taken out it would be a RIP!!! Plain and simple and I would blame all the nay sayers here who have made such a stink over something that does not even concern them.
The remnents around the 9 and 3 are clearly from the 92 of 1929. CLEARLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please just let this die so it doesn't cause PCGS to take an unwarrented action.
Just to be clear, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm not trying to whizz in anybody's Cheerios. I've been following the threads and kept hearing talk of an overlay, and since I have the means to produce one I thought I'd add to the discussion. Bill Fivaz has an impeccable reputation as a researcher, and I'm not trying disparage him in any way, but I think he'll be the first to tell you that his opinion can change given new information. There have been a few listings which have been removed from the Cherrypickers Guide (the 1888/7 below is one example), and others which are listed as "possible" with more study needed (the 1943/2 Walking Liberty half, for example).
I've also been collecting varieties for over 20 years and I've been on both sides of similar arguments. Once I was sure I had another 1888/7 Indian cent overdate, in fact it looked very similar to one listed in the early editions of the CPG as a "possible" third die. Since this was back before the days of Adobe CS, I sent it out to a couple of researchers who took photos, did overlays, and told me it was an 8/8, not an 8/7. The variety has since been removed from the CPG and delisted.
Another time I thought I had a second 1956-D/ separated D RPM. I sent it to Researcher A who did not agree. I then sent it to Researcher B, who did. Not long after Researcher A posted examples from a different die state and credited someone else with the discovery. I took each of their photos, did some overlays, and proved to Researcher A that they were from the same die, and as a result I'm listed as the discoverer of 1956-D/D RPM#18.
Which is all to say, I know how it feels to be convinced of a significant discovery only to have it discredited. It isn't personal, and I'm not trying to hurt any feelings or cause any harm. As always I'm open to counterarguments, but honestly the evidence would need to be very compelling (and divested of emotional attachment) to convince me that this is anything more than some die gouges with a lot of character.
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
And there lies the problem. Faced with this kind of damning evidence, it seems a very good possibility that PCGS may, w/o warning, yank the variety from their list of "attributable FS varieties".
There is certainly precedent for this to occur.<<<
This is completely different than the 41-S DDR that was taken out. And it should NOT have been taken out. There reasoning was "it was minor"!
Well, this coin is NOT minor. You can see it without a glass. If this coin is taken out it would be a RIP!!! Plain and simple and I would blame all the nay sayers here who have made such a stink over something that does not even concern them.
The remnents around the 9 and 3 are clearly from the 92 of 1929. CLEARLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please just let this die so it doesn't cause PCGS to take an unwarrented action.
If this is an ego thing....LET IT GO!!! >>
The "naysayers" weren't the ones who started this thread about something, that in YOUR words, "does not even concern them".
And that which is so clear to you, isn't to many others, who are probably a lot less biased. Lastly, if the posted images prove your point, as you claimed previously, you shouldn't have to worry about any "unwarranted action", right?
And there lies the problem. Faced with this kind of damning evidence, it seems a very good possibility that PCGS may, w/o warning, yank the variety from their list of "attributable FS varieties".
There is certainly precedent for this to occur.<<<
This is completely different than the 41-S DDR that was taken out. And it should NOT have been taken out. There reasoning was "it was minor"!
Well, this coin is NOT minor. You can see it without a glass. If this coin is taken out it would be a RIP!!! Plain and simple and I would blame all the nay sayers here who have made such a stink over something that does not even concern them.
The remnents around the 9 and 3 are clearly from the 92 of 1929. CLEARLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please just let this die so it doesn't cause PCGS to take an unwarrented action.
If this is an ego thing....LET IT GO!!! >>
It's not about ego for me and I don't really care in what direction PCGS goes with this piece. However, I am a scientist (and a darn good one at that) and I am simply employing analysis to the data available. The results are that I do not believe it is an overdate.
"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set thee free!"
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.
Not to blur things any further, but as the seller with a $1300+ deal in the works (and I will add that I have no reason to think that the buyer won't honor his bid), I decided to look at other dates. The idea that this is a 36/29 came from the CPG, where it was mentioned that overlay photographs seem to indicate that a 1929 date could be there. As Sean showed us, this is, in fact, not the case. I'm at work, and I did this with a couple of pics I swiped from eBay (apologies to the sellers) and PowerPoint. It seems to at least indicate that in at least 1 other year, the 3 and 2 do line up in a manner similar to what is seen on this coin. This is a 1928- maybe someone with more time and better software can confirm this:
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.
Pot, meet kettle! It's odd how some are almost desperate to prove this is a legit overdate, and refuse to let things like analysis to the contrary get in the way of their beliefs.
Sean has me in the non-overdate camp. Even before that, common sense led me to think it unusual that the mint would keep a used 1929 die around for 7 years before deciding what to do with it....but I was willing to keep an open mind... until I saw the overlays. Laying aside the fact that the 2 wouldn't be in the location claimed, the second 9 in 1929 (or marks to indicate the remnants thereof) should be sticking out like a sore thumb to the right of the 6, and would still be even if Sean's alignment was off by half a millimeter (which it isn't). And even if the 2 was in the exact spot claimed, then the 1 (or remnants thereof) would be out of place to the left and traces theoretically visible. Nothing's there in either case. Nada. Zip.
I'm glad the winner is happy with his purchase; that's what collecting's all about. That said, $1300+ is a fair chunk to spend on a really big "maybe".
JMHO
Edit to add: Does anyone else have or know of an example of a 7-year removed confirmed overdate US coin? Lots of 1 and 2 year pieces, sure- but 7? Admittedly I haven't had time to research it, but nothing comes to mind right off. Anyone?
Also...to cmerlo-I don't see the relevance of using a 1928 as an example. The coin in question doesn't have a 1928 undertype and the alignment and spacing of the 1929 date is quite different. Unless you are saying it's actually a 1928 undertype rather than a 1929.
<< <i>Not to blur things any further, but as the seller with a $1300+ deal in the works (and I will add that I have no reason to think that the buyer won't honor his bid), I decided to look at other dates. The idea that this is a 36/29 came from the CPG, where it was mentioned that overlay photographs seem to indicate that a 1929 date could be there. As Sean showed us, this is, in fact, not the case. I'm at work, and I did this with a couple of pics I swiped from eBay (apologies to the sellers) and PowerPoint. It seems to at least indicate that in at least 1 other year, the 3 and 2 do line up in a manner similar to what is seen on this coin. This is a 1928- maybe someone with more time and better software can confirm this: >>
At your service, Christian, and I agree, this is a lot more interesting. I had to turn the opacity up to 65% to get the two dates to show:
Edited to add fcloud's image again for comparison
Full size high-resolution image here. I'd love to try 1926-S as the underdate also, but I'm short on time, if I can get to it tomorrow I'll upload those as well.
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
It's not about ego for me and I don't really care in what direction PCGS goes with this piece. However, I am a scientist (and a darn good one at that) and I am simply employing analysis to the data available. The results are that I do not believe it is an overdate. >>
Well put and what I believe too but it should be noted that I love coins and would love for it to be true I just need a little more proof to pass my logic test then others.
The fact that the CPG calls this a possible overdate doesn't take away from the fact that the date area is possibly another underdate rather than 1929. When CONECA requested images from me they requested "EVERY" year in the 1920'S for their comparision.
For those clamoring for an image, you could have simply taken the time to look at my sets, as they are imaged.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
You guys are funny as hell. I am building the best PCGS Merc Dime Complete Variety Set that I can. This coin is part of the set. I think it is a cool variety no matter what you call it. If PCGS were to remove it from the set I would be screwed but for me it would not be the end of the world...even though it would suck plenty. I consider the coin to be an interesting variety and that is all that matters. Feel free to fight over this thing for the next 20-30 years. In the end, if you are not a merc dime collector and do not think this is a cool variety...and you are spending so much of your time in here arguing then I think you might have bigger issues than myself.
Argue On!
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>You guys are funny as hell. I am building the best PCGS Merc Dime Complete Variety Set that I can. This coin is part of the set. I think it is a cool variety no matter what you call it. If PCGS were to remove it from the set I would be screwed but for me it would not be the end of the world...even though it would suck plenty. I consider the coin to be an interesting variety and that is all that matters. Feel free to fight over this thing for the next 20-30 years. In the end, if you are not a merc dime collector and do not think this is a cool variety...and you are spending so much of your time in here arguing then I think you might have bigger issues than myself.
Argue On!
Greg >>
Greg, I suspect that there would have been far fewer posts and considerably less arguing, had someone (and I'm not speaking of the OP). not proclaimed the variety, an obvious over-date, etc. Especially considering the strong evidence to the contrary.
I remember being a young kid and thinking everything I saw was a doubled die, an overdate, an error...something. Yea I was a variety weenie way back then. I remember looking at the 55 poor mans doubled die and thinking just a little bit more and it would be doubled die. Looking at machine doubled coins and thinking this one is soo close to a real doubled die. Looking at a MAD coin and thinking it was almost a real error.
I think it was a series of articles in the mag "Coin Prices" in the 70's written by either Herbert or Wexler that got me really interested. Then I decided to really try to understand the minting process. It was nothing like I had imagined. Talk about an eye opener. I remember picking up my first copy of a great read - Minting Varieties and Errors written by Alan Herbert. Again - eye opening.
Listen to some of the info posted in this thread by RWB, Tom (both of them), and Sean. These guys understand the minting process. I will always listen to someone who knows more than me and these guys are there.
I think a lot can be learned from this thread and a better appreciation of understanding the minting process. This is what led me to early coinage and the inherent varieties due to the good old screw press. Now that is a whole other story.
>>>Greg, I suspect that there would have been far fewer posts and considerably less arguing, had someone (and I'm not speaking of the OP). not proclaimed the variety, an obvious over-date, etc. Especially considering the strong evidence to the contrary. <<<
I assume you are speaking of me......and yes I still believe it is the 36/29. The so called evidence to the contrary actually shows that it is.
I don't know why you nay sayers feel that the dates should line up when the underlying digits are clearly outside the top digits.
The pics of the 29 and 36 clearly show the difference in the shapes of the first 9's. You can clearly see the remnints of the 9 from 29 date to the left of the 9 of 36 date.
It's clearly an overdate....those ARE NOT random die scratches...and the dates SHOULD NOT line up on an overlay.....and they don't.
I don't feel like argueing any more about it. This is my last reply to this post. I will not be swayed!!
I think I have been pretty consistent in calling it a "possible" overdate. I don't see any reason for a delisting of this coin. They are a very cool variety whether they are an overdate or die gouges making it look like an overdate. When you get down to the point where PCGS dumped the 1941-S coin number 145471 FS-801 DDR they did it because it is a hard variety to see (I still think they were wrong, but that is a different thread). This would still fall into a class similar to the Speared Bison Nickel. If only die gouges it is a really cool set of die gouges!
Maybe we should petition Bill Fivaz to change the description to something like "Looks Like an Overdate," or "Die Gouged Date."
The detail on these fishing lures is hard to see, but this is one of the few varieties you can see with a low power glass (at least with my eyes).
The total pop for this coin is 1 Genuine (my second coin--not in pop reports) 1 xf45 (my first coin) 1 ms63fb 1 ms66fb and the ms65fb in the NGC holder.
I would say if these were common they would be coming out of the woodwork. It took almost two years of local shows, two major shows, and a dealer allowing me to go through a 5 gallon bucket of Mercury Dimes to find my first one (I know it only took about another week to a month for me to find a second, but that is like being struck by lighting twice).
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>>>>Greg, I suspect that there would have been far fewer posts and considerably less arguing, had someone (and I'm not speaking of the OP). not proclaimed the variety, an obvious over-date, etc. Especially considering the strong evidence to the contrary. <<<
I assume you are speaking of me......and yes I still believe it is the 36/29. The so called evidence to the contrary actually shows that it is.
I don't know why you nay sayers feel that the dates should line up when the underlying digits are clearly outside the top digits.
The pics of the 29 and 36 clearly show the difference in the shapes of the first 9's. You can clearly see the remnints of the 9 from 29 date to the left of the 9 of 36 date.
It's clearly an overdate....those ARE NOT random die scratches...and the dates SHOULD NOT line up on an overlay.....and they don't.
I don't feel like argueing any more about it. This is my last reply to this post. I will not be swayed!! >>
I also don't feel much like beating this horse any more, but I feel the need to address the statement highlighted above.
You continue to think that this 20th century variety was created with a die produced by 19th century methods. After 1908 the date was was not punched onto individual dies, it was included on the master die, meaning the position of the date is the same on every die produced in a given year. All 1929-S dimes have the exact same date style in the exact same location on the die relative to the other design elements, and the same holds true for all 1936-S dimes.
The overlay photo shows the 1929 date was located much further to the right than the 1936 date, relative to the other design elements. Again, the location of the date is the same on every hub and every die produced that year. There is simply no possible way that fcloud's coins were struck by a die created in 1929 and reworked with a 1936 hub, because the location of the underlying date (accepting for the moment that the marks are an underdate) is not in the correct location. If you accept that the die was created using the normal hubbing process (and in 1929, why wouldn't it be?), then the two dates cannot move relative to each other because every hub and every die had the dates in the exact same location.
Now change the underdate to 1928, as Christian suggested and I illustrated in the second set of overlays, and things start to get a little interesting. The marks in the bottom of the 3 are very closely aligned with an underlying 2, and the first two digits of the date are perfectly aligned as well. I look at those images and I have to at least entertain the possibility that this could be a doubled die and an overdate. With that in mind, and acknowledging that I am far from an expert in 1920s US Mint die manufacturing techniques, I would make the following two suggestions:
- RWB in an earlier thread on this variety said that the basin (?) of the dies was changed between 1929 and 1936, and that the difference was notable in the fields. Has anyone examined the 1936/192?-S and evaluated if the basin matches that of a 1920s era die, as you would expect if it were struck by a die first manufactured in that era?
- John Wexler once floated a theory about modern "repunched dates" which he claimed could occur if a rejected master die were rehubbed and used as a working die. I can't think of any rational explanation for why this would occur, but given the uncanny alignment of the first two digits of the 1928 and 1936 dates, and knowing that in intervening years the date style had changed radically (see 1929), is it possible that an unsuccessful attempt was made to return to the earlier date style by salvaging or reworking an earlier master die, and that rather than discard it entirely it was put into use as a working die?
Even as I'm typing this it seems outlandish, I feel like I'm taking Occam's Razor and using it to cut my own throat. I do have to admit that the second set of overlays (1936 over 1928) are interesting enough to warrant some further exploration, and I can't dismiss the variety out of hand like I could when the underdate was said to be 1929.
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
Sean, it's late and I will leave the boards soon, but I can tell you that I requested that fcloud send me the FS-101 coin and any other high grade Mercs he had from the 1920s so that I could take images under controlled conditions to attempt a more definitive overlay. My request for the coins was turned down, but fcloud sent me an image of his cleaned FS-101. It was not much use, but I took images from Heritage and did overlays for every year in the 1920s with a 1936 Merc and found not matches to the proposed overdate FS-101. The 1928 did not match, either. Perhaps I will write a thread on it since it seems the best we can do without actual coins in-hand.
<< <i>Sean, it's late and I will leave the boards soon, but I can tell you that I requested that fcloud send me the FS-101 coin and any other high grade Mercs he had from the 1920s so that I could take images under controlled conditions to attempt a more definitive overlay. My request for the coins was turned down, but fcloud sent me an image of his cleaned FS-101. It was not much use, but I took images from Heritage and did overlays for every year in the 1920s with a 1936 Merc and found not matches to the proposed overdate FS-101. The 1928 did not match, either. Perhaps I will write a thread on it since it seems the best we can do without actual coins in-hand. >>
Sounds great, I'll look forward to reading it. I tried at first to use fcloud's microphoto for my overlays but it is cropped so close that I could not use the bust and the rim to confirm the placement of the image. Maybe cmerlo has a big photo of the example he just sold that could be of use?
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
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>Congrats, Greg! Now you'll need to do some updates and really watch your set jump! >>
I just added them up and I only have 9 coins to add to the set right now. It isn't enough to make a real dent. I probably need another 10 coins or so before I am update worthy...I just assume jump a few spots I guess.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I can't believe this was a year ago already... I still vividly remember cherrypicking that coin!
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>Not to blur things any further, but as the seller with a $1300+ deal in the works (and I will add that I have no reason to think that the buyer won't honor his bid), I decided to look at other dates. The idea that this is a 36/29 came from the CPG, where it was mentioned that overlay photographs seem to indicate that a 1929 date could be there. As Sean showed us, this is, in fact, not the case. I'm at work, and I did this with a couple of pics I swiped from eBay (apologies to the sellers) and PowerPoint. It seems to at least indicate that in at least 1 other year, the 3 and 2 do line up in a manner similar to what is seen on this coin. This is a 1928- maybe someone with more time and better software can confirm this: >>
At your service, Christian, and I agree, this is a lot more interesting. I had to turn the opacity up to 65% to get the two dates to show:
Edited to add fcloud's image again for comparison
Full size high-resolution image here. I'd love to try 1926-S as the underdate also, but I'm short on time, if I can get to it tomorrow I'll upload those as well.
Sean Reynolds >>
While your overlays clearly show the "possibility" of a match with the 1928, they do not address that line above the lower swoosh of the 1st 9 as alluded to by Dimeman's reply: "The remnents around the 9 and 3 are clearly from the 92 of 1929. CLEARLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Is that mark now to be dismissed as irrelevent?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Comments
1: overdates have happened before
2: It was a hard time in America
3: if you apply a 19th cen manufacturing process to a 20th cen coin it sort of makes sense.
4: If you apply 20th cen manufacturing process logic to 21st cen overlays it proves nothing if it doesn't line up but proves everything if it does?
5: Absence of a smoking gun proof that it isn't (at least to biased perspective) should be proof that it is to a unbiased bystander?
6: Logic does not trump passion and visual trickery
Please if I missed any of your supporting arguments that it is an overdate please fill me in because I want to believe, I really do as it would be the first time since the dawn of our country that such an error occurred
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Right. No thing has changed. Yet.
And there lies the problem. Faced with this kind of damning evidence, it seems a very good possibility that PCGS may, w/o warning, yank the variety from their list of "attributable FS varieties".
There is certainly precedent for this to occur.
Then the coin loses a great deal of it's value overnight.
Just ask fcloud!
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>Here is my own isue with this discussion. We have a couple of members here who are believers and I asume are owners of said possible variety too or they would at least like to own one, I believe one already has said he found two. These members offer no proof of their own, use only verbal writings by Bill Fivaz and/or their own words. The only proof one needs to show is the research like Sean performed. Sean did it rather quickly and it can be done at an even slower pace with even greater detail if necessary. However non of the members who not only want to believe but also most likely have a stake have gone to the effort to produce overlays which is the single mostdefinitive way to prove the existence of an overdate. So my question is why haven't the believers including the esteemed Bill Fivaz who also has a stake produce such documentation via overlays. In other words less schmooze and more definitive research paperwork ie overlays!
Please note that Bill Fivaz did not say in the Cherrypicker's Guide that this was an overdate. He said that it was a possible overdate.
To me that implies that he was calling for further study. Well, Sean just STUDIED it!!!
TD
And there lies the problem. Faced with this kind of damning evidence, it seems a very good possibility that PCGS may, w/o warning, yank the variety from their list of "attributable FS varieties".
There is certainly precedent for this to occur.<<<
This is completely different than the 41-S DDR that was taken out. And it should NOT have been taken out. There reasoning was "it was minor"!
Well, this coin is NOT minor. You can see it without a glass. If this coin is taken out it would be a RIP!!! Plain and simple and I would blame all the nay sayers here who have made such a stink over something that does not even concern them.
The remnents around the 9 and 3 are clearly from the 92 of 1929. CLEARLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please just let this die so it doesn't cause PCGS to take an unwarrented action.
If this is an ego thing....LET IT GO!!!
I've also been collecting varieties for over 20 years and I've been on both sides of similar arguments. Once I was sure I had another 1888/7 Indian cent overdate, in fact it looked very similar to one listed in the early editions of the CPG as a "possible" third die. Since this was back before the days of Adobe CS, I sent it out to a couple of researchers who took photos, did overlays, and told me it was an 8/8, not an 8/7. The variety has since been removed from the CPG and delisted.
Another time I thought I had a second 1956-D/ separated D RPM. I sent it to Researcher A who did not agree. I then sent it to Researcher B, who did. Not long after Researcher A posted examples from a different die state and credited someone else with the discovery. I took each of their photos, did some overlays, and proved to Researcher A that they were from the same die, and as a result I'm listed as the discoverer of 1956-D/D RPM#18.
Which is all to say, I know how it feels to be convinced of a significant discovery only to have it discredited. It isn't personal, and I'm not trying to hurt any feelings or cause any harm. As always I'm open to counterarguments, but honestly the evidence would need to be very compelling (and divested of emotional attachment) to convince me that this is anything more than some die gouges with a lot of character.
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>>>>Right. No thing has changed. Yet.
And there lies the problem. Faced with this kind of damning evidence, it seems a very good possibility that PCGS may, w/o warning, yank the variety from their list of "attributable FS varieties".
There is certainly precedent for this to occur.<<<
This is completely different than the 41-S DDR that was taken out. And it should NOT have been taken out. There reasoning was "it was minor"!
Well, this coin is NOT minor. You can see it without a glass. If this coin is taken out it would be a RIP!!! Plain and simple and I would blame all the nay sayers here who have made such a stink over something that does not even concern them.
The remnents around the 9 and 3 are clearly from the 92 of 1929. CLEARLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please just let this die so it doesn't cause PCGS to take an unwarrented action.
If this is an ego thing....LET IT GO!!! >>
The "naysayers" weren't the ones who started this thread about something, that in YOUR words, "does not even concern them".
And that which is so clear to you, isn't to many others, who are probably a lot less biased. Lastly, if the posted images prove your point, as you claimed previously, you shouldn't have to worry about any "unwarranted action", right?
<< <i>>>>Right. No thing has changed. Yet.
And there lies the problem. Faced with this kind of damning evidence, it seems a very good possibility that PCGS may, w/o warning, yank the variety from their list of "attributable FS varieties".
There is certainly precedent for this to occur.<<<
This is completely different than the 41-S DDR that was taken out. And it should NOT have been taken out. There reasoning was "it was minor"!
Well, this coin is NOT minor. You can see it without a glass. If this coin is taken out it would be a RIP!!! Plain and simple and I would blame all the nay sayers here who have made such a stink over something that does not even concern them.
The remnents around the 9 and 3 are clearly from the 92 of 1929. CLEARLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please just let this die so it doesn't cause PCGS to take an unwarrented action.
If this is an ego thing....LET IT GO!!! >>
It's not about ego for me and I don't really care in what direction PCGS goes with this piece. However, I am a scientist (and a darn good one at that) and I am simply employing analysis to the data available. The results are that I do not believe it is an overdate.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Pot, meet kettle!
It's odd how some are almost desperate to prove this is a legit overdate, and refuse to let things like analysis to the contrary get in the way of their beliefs.
Sean has me in the non-overdate camp. Even before that, common sense led me to think it unusual that the mint would keep a used 1929 die around for 7 years before deciding what to do with it....but I was willing to keep an open mind... until I saw the overlays. Laying aside the fact that the 2 wouldn't be in the location claimed, the second 9 in 1929 (or marks to indicate the remnants thereof) should be sticking out like a sore thumb to the right of the 6, and would still be even if Sean's alignment was off by half a millimeter (which it isn't). And even if the 2 was in the exact spot claimed, then the 1 (or remnants thereof) would be out of place to the left and traces theoretically visible. Nothing's there in either case. Nada. Zip.
I'm glad the winner is happy with his purchase; that's what collecting's all about. That said, $1300+ is a fair chunk to spend on a really big "maybe".
JMHO
Edit to add: Does anyone else have or know of an example of a 7-year removed confirmed overdate US coin? Lots of 1 and 2 year pieces, sure- but 7? Admittedly I haven't had time to research it, but nothing comes to mind right off. Anyone?
Also...to cmerlo-I don't see the relevance of using a 1928 as an example. The coin in question doesn't have a 1928 undertype and the alignment and spacing of the 1929 date is quite different. Unless you are saying it's actually a 1928 undertype rather than a 1929.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Not to blur things any further, but as the seller with a $1300+ deal in the works (and I will add that I have no reason to think that the buyer won't honor his bid), I decided to look at other dates. The idea that this is a 36/29 came from the CPG, where it was mentioned that overlay photographs seem to indicate that a 1929 date could be there. As Sean showed us, this is, in fact, not the case. I'm at work, and I did this with a couple of pics I swiped from eBay (apologies to the sellers) and PowerPoint. It seems to at least indicate that in at least 1 other year, the 3 and 2 do line up in a manner similar to what is seen on this coin. This is a 1928- maybe someone with more time and better software can confirm this:
>>
At your service, Christian, and I agree, this is a lot more interesting. I had to turn the opacity up to 65% to get the two dates to show:
Edited to add fcloud's image again for comparison
Full size high-resolution image here. I'd love to try 1926-S as the underdate also, but I'm short on time, if I can get to it tomorrow I'll upload those as well.
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>
It's not about ego for me and I don't really care in what direction PCGS goes with this piece. However, I am a scientist (and a darn good one at that) and I am simply employing analysis to the data available. The results are that I do not believe it is an overdate. >>
Well put and what I believe too but it should be noted that I love coins and would love for it to be true I just need a little more proof to pass my logic test then others.
When CONECA requested images from me they requested "EVERY" year in the 1920'S for their comparision.
For those clamoring for an image, you could have simply taken the time to look at my sets, as they are imaged.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Argue On!
Greg
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>You guys are funny as hell. I am building the best PCGS Merc Dime Complete Variety Set that I can. This coin is part of the set. I think it is a cool variety no matter what you call it. If PCGS were to remove it from the set I would be screwed but for me it would not be the end of the world...even though it would suck plenty. I consider the coin to be an interesting variety and that is all that matters. Feel free to fight over this thing for the next 20-30 years. In the end, if you are not a merc dime collector and do not think this is a cool variety...and you are spending so much of your time in here arguing then I think you might have bigger issues than myself.
Argue On!
Greg >>
Greg, I suspect that there would have been far fewer posts and considerably less arguing, had someone (and I'm not speaking of the OP). not proclaimed the variety, an obvious over-date, etc. Especially considering the strong evidence to the contrary.
Yea I was a variety weenie way back then.
I remember looking at the 55 poor mans doubled die and thinking just a little bit more and it would be doubled die.
Looking at machine doubled coins and thinking this one is soo close to a real doubled die.
Looking at a MAD coin and thinking it was almost a real error.
I think it was a series of articles in the mag "Coin Prices" in the 70's written by either Herbert or Wexler that got me really interested.
Then I decided to really try to understand the minting process.
It was nothing like I had imagined. Talk about an eye opener.
I remember picking up my first copy of a great read - Minting Varieties and Errors written by Alan Herbert.
Again - eye opening.
Listen to some of the info posted in this thread by RWB, Tom (both of them), and Sean. These guys understand the minting process.
I will always listen to someone who knows more than me and these guys are there.
I think a lot can be learned from this thread and a better appreciation of understanding the minting process.
This is what led me to early coinage and the inherent varieties due to the good old screw press.
Now that is a whole other story.
I assume you are speaking of me......and yes I still believe it is the 36/29. The so called evidence to the contrary actually shows that it is.
I don't know why you nay sayers feel that the dates should line up when the underlying digits are clearly outside the top digits.
The pics of the 29 and 36 clearly show the difference in the shapes of the first 9's. You can clearly see the remnints of the 9 from 29 date to the left of the 9 of 36 date.
It's clearly an overdate....those ARE NOT random die scratches...and the dates SHOULD NOT line up on an overlay.....and they don't.
I don't feel like argueing any more about it. This is my last reply to this post. I will not be swayed!!
Maybe we should petition Bill Fivaz to change the description to something like "Looks Like an Overdate," or "Die Gouged Date."
The detail on these fishing lures is hard to see, but this is one of the few varieties you can see with a low power glass (at least with my eyes).
The total pop for this coin is
1 Genuine (my second coin--not in pop reports)
1 xf45 (my first coin)
1 ms63fb
1 ms66fb
and the ms65fb in the NGC holder.
I would say if these were common they would be coming out of the woodwork. It took almost two years of local shows, two major shows, and a dealer allowing me to go through a 5 gallon bucket of Mercury Dimes to find my first one (I know it only took about another week to a month for me to find a second, but that is like being struck by lighting twice).
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>>>>Greg, I suspect that there would have been far fewer posts and considerably less arguing, had someone (and I'm not speaking of the OP). not proclaimed the variety, an obvious over-date, etc. Especially considering the strong evidence to the contrary. <<<
I assume you are speaking of me......and yes I still believe it is the 36/29. The so called evidence to the contrary actually shows that it is.
I don't know why you nay sayers feel that the dates should line up when the underlying digits are clearly outside the top digits.
The pics of the 29 and 36 clearly show the difference in the shapes of the first 9's. You can clearly see the remnints of the 9 from 29 date to the left of the 9 of 36 date.
It's clearly an overdate....those ARE NOT random die scratches...and the dates SHOULD NOT line up on an overlay.....and they don't.
I don't feel like argueing any more about it. This is my last reply to this post. I will not be swayed!! >>
I also don't feel much like beating this horse any more, but I feel the need to address the statement highlighted above.
You continue to think that this 20th century variety was created with a die produced by 19th century methods. After 1908 the date was was not punched onto individual dies, it was included on the master die, meaning the position of the date is the same on every die produced in a given year. All 1929-S dimes have the exact same date style in the exact same location on the die relative to the other design elements, and the same holds true for all 1936-S dimes.
The overlay photo shows the 1929 date was located much further to the right than the 1936 date, relative to the other design elements. Again, the location of the date is the same on every hub and every die produced that year. There is simply no possible way that fcloud's coins were struck by a die created in 1929 and reworked with a 1936 hub, because the location of the underlying date (accepting for the moment that the marks are an underdate) is not in the correct location. If you accept that the die was created using the normal hubbing process (and in 1929, why wouldn't it be?), then the two dates cannot move relative to each other because every hub and every die had the dates in the exact same location.
Now change the underdate to 1928, as Christian suggested and I illustrated in the second set of overlays, and things start to get a little interesting. The marks in the bottom of the 3 are very closely aligned with an underlying 2, and the first two digits of the date are perfectly aligned as well. I look at those images and I have to at least entertain the possibility that this could be a doubled die and an overdate. With that in mind, and acknowledging that I am far from an expert in 1920s US Mint die manufacturing techniques, I would make the following two suggestions:
- RWB in an earlier thread on this variety said that the basin (?) of the dies was changed between 1929 and 1936, and that the difference was notable in the fields. Has anyone examined the 1936/192?-S and evaluated if the basin matches that of a 1920s era die, as you would expect if it were struck by a die first manufactured in that era?
- John Wexler once floated a theory about modern "repunched dates" which he claimed could occur if a rejected master die were rehubbed and used as a working die. I can't think of any rational explanation for why this would occur, but given the uncanny alignment of the first two digits of the 1928 and 1936 dates, and knowing that in intervening years the date style had changed radically (see 1929), is it possible that an unsuccessful attempt was made to return to the earlier date style by salvaging or reworking an earlier master die, and that rather than discard it entirely it was put into use as a working die?
Even as I'm typing this it seems outlandish, I feel like I'm taking Occam's Razor and using it to cut my own throat. I do have to admit that the second set of overlays (1936 over 1928) are interesting enough to warrant some further exploration, and I can't dismiss the variety out of hand like I could when the underdate was said to be 1929.
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
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Sean, it's late and I will leave the boards soon, but I can tell you that I requested that fcloud send me the FS-101 coin and any other high grade Mercs he had from the 1920s so that I could take images under controlled conditions to attempt a more definitive overlay. My request for the coins was turned down, but fcloud sent me an image of his cleaned FS-101. It was not much use, but I took images from Heritage and did overlays for every year in the 1920s with a 1936 Merc and found not matches to the proposed overdate FS-101. The 1928 did not match, either. Perhaps I will write a thread on it since it seems the best we can do without actual coins in-hand. >>
Sounds great, I'll look forward to reading it. I tried at first to use fcloud's microphoto for my overlays but it is cropped so close that I could not use the bust and the rim to confirm the placement of the image. Maybe cmerlo has a big photo of the example he just sold that could be of use?
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>This will be my last post to this thread. >>
+14. So much for last posts.
Greg
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>Congrats, Greg! Now you'll need to do some updates and really watch your set jump! >>
I just added them up and I only have 9 coins to add to the set right now. It isn't enough to make a real dent. I probably need another 10 coins or so before I am update worthy...I just assume jump a few spots I guess.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>I can't believe this was a year ago already... I still vividly remember cherrypicking that coin! >>
And I still can't believe Tony created this thread. And I can't believe he just bumped it.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>
<< <i>Not to blur things any further, but as the seller with a $1300+ deal in the works (and I will add that I have no reason to think that the buyer won't honor his bid), I decided to look at other dates. The idea that this is a 36/29 came from the CPG, where it was mentioned that overlay photographs seem to indicate that a 1929 date could be there. As Sean showed us, this is, in fact, not the case. I'm at work, and I did this with a couple of pics I swiped from eBay (apologies to the sellers) and PowerPoint. It seems to at least indicate that in at least 1 other year, the 3 and 2 do line up in a manner similar to what is seen on this coin. This is a 1928- maybe someone with more time and better software can confirm this:
>>
At your service, Christian, and I agree, this is a lot more interesting. I had to turn the opacity up to 65% to get the two dates to show:
Edited to add fcloud's image again for comparison
Full size high-resolution image here. I'd love to try 1926-S as the underdate also, but I'm short on time, if I can get to it tomorrow I'll upload those as well.
Sean Reynolds >>
While your overlays clearly show the "possibility" of a match with the 1928, they do not address that line above the lower swoosh of the 1st 9 as alluded to by Dimeman's reply: "The remnents around the 9 and 3 are clearly from the 92 of 1929. CLEARLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Is that mark now to be dismissed as irrelevent?
The name is LEE!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.