Options
Calling Early/Bust Half Nuts.... 1794 Help Needed.
thecoinlook
Posts: 356 ✭
The coin exhibits the two of the reverse cracks on the O-101a, but shows an extra major reverse crack, a major obverse crack, and a couple minor cracks.
Can anyone shed some light on this? O-101B?
Crack between Stars 2-3 going to the hair.
2 Smaller cracks,
One going from rim, under star 1, under 17, back to the rim below 9
One going from the top of star 1 running above the date until it runs in to 9.
Another rim considerable crack below the S
Can anyone shed some light on this? O-101B?
Crack between Stars 2-3 going to the hair.
2 Smaller cracks,
One going from rim, under star 1, under 17, back to the rim below 9
One going from the top of star 1 running above the date until it runs in to 9.
Another rim considerable crack below the S
0
Comments
I looked in my second edition of Overton and there is a reverse die state, A-v3 that mentions a crack across the S but doesn't elaborate.
I have not studied this year's varieties enough to say with conviction, but that sure looks like an advanced die state beyond what is called the O-101a
I will wait for some guru's to weigh in.
Good luck.
Edited to add:
The reverse crack under the S from the rim to the leaves is normally seen on the "a" die state as is the 90 degree crack through the F that crosses over the berry. The heavy crack through the S though is interesting.
<< <i>Interesting coin.
I looked in my second edition of Overton and there is a reverse die state, A-v3 that mentions a crack across the S but doesn't elaborate.
I have not studied this year's varieties enough to say with conviction, but that sure looks like an advanced die state beyond what is called the O-101a
I will wait for some guru's to weigh in.
Good luck.
Edited to add:
The reverse crack under the S from the rim to the leaves is normally seen on the "a" die state as is the 90 degree crack through the F that crosses over the berry. The heavy crack through the S though is interesting. >>
There are not too many die state collectors for 1794 halves, but it is interesting.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
It actually extends across the wing.
Yeah, I figured they are not many Die State Collectors for this date... like it's not tough enough.
Just didn't know if this was known with the additional cracks.
I have the 4th ed... but don't seen anything about A-V3...?
Maybe I am not looking in the right spot.
Should this still be called an O-101A?
Thanks for the help!
So helpful, he took the time to provide some scans from the first edition!
Here's what the book says about the Av3:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. A-v3. Same as v2 except the die crack through F in OF is heavier,
extends to the middle of the upper leaf where it forms an angle to
the left of the berry, across the leaf and S to edge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds to me that it all that is still talking about that crack at F.
The picture is a little hard to see, but that crack does take a sharp right turn through the leaves, and heads to the rim through STATE(S).
So it's not mentioning about the heavy crack going through (S)TATES...
Unless the 2nd edition does mention something else?
Well I found 1!
It was unattributed on the old ANACS slab, but attributed as a 101a by Heritage.
And after comparing closer, it is the exact same coin :-/
So from what I have seen, this is still the only one with these extra cracks.
More intriguing are the obverse cracks. Again, it appears to be an unlisted die stage of O.101, BUT where is the crack through S7 shown on O.102 for the supposed late die stage of 1794 obverse #1, along with the OP coin obverse cracks? I checked all of the Heritage O.102's, and did not see any evidence of the OP obverse cracks. Perhap the cracks were lapped off in the next usage on O.102, although it seems unlikely that all of the evidence of the obverse cracks would be gone.
The Overton numbers do not match the emission order for 1794 (and most other years), O.101 is one of the last die pairings struck with that date, and were delivered on February 4, 1795 (Warrant 3). The old Redbooks show a mintage of 5300, until Robert Hilt concluded that the delivery of 18,164 half dollars for Warrant 3 were dated 1794, mostly from the more abundant O.101 die marriage.
The OP coin obverse certainly appears to match O.101 and O.102, but a photographic overlay should be done to verify this.
This information should be reported in the JR news. I will give a heads up to board member preturb, who does research on Flowing Hair half dollars.
Your knowledge of these early coins is awesome.
I will eagerly wait to hear more.
Thanks
Thanks!
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
I don't recall seeing these obverse or reverse die states, and I can't find a record of someone else recording them (Haseltine, Beistle, etc.). That being said, I've never paid a lot of attention to the 101's.
I second everything that Nysoto has said above. I also have not seen a clear S7 crack in the O.102 die marriage - even on the high-grade 9/2007 Heritage coin (which is the same as the 12/1963 New Netherlands piece). That is kind of a side issue, however. Sometimes what are referred to as "cracks" are more like "ridges" that are tough to see at most angles. In any case, the owner of the O.102 mentioned here should take a close look down in the date area...
There was definitely some die-juggling going on at the mint in the 1794-1795 time period. Remarriages and the like.
I have personally theorized that the 1794.102 was struck in 1795, after several 1795 DM's. This theory becomes quite unlikely after seeing this piece... unless there was a very funky and brief remarriage.
A very interesting piece, what would be called, at this point, a "terminal" die state. I hope some other folks will take the opportunity to comment...
There are two primary possibilties, either an unlisted late die stage of O.101, or a remarriage of O.101 after O.102. I think the more probable scenario is a LDS of O.101, which should be designated 1794 O.101b because of the obverse cracks. There are many cases of fine die cracks being lapped off, and the obverse cracks displayed are light and could have been lapped off before the O.102 usage of the obverse die.
I would recommend showing the coin to Sheridan Downey to get his opinion, if you are able to (contact him though "Sheridan's Coins" website). Also, if you can post your pictures to the JR news blog of the John Reich Collectors Society, you may get some other knowledgeable opinions.
If other experts believe it is also an unlisted LDS O.101, send it to PCGS or NGC (if you want it slabbed) and have them label it "1794 O.101b Discovery Coin." Congrats!
I came across the discussion of this thread in Steve Tompkins' book Early United States Half Dollars Vol. 1 1794-1807 . (with pictures there) The consensus - that this was a counterfeit and the extra cracks were from the fake die.
Pacific Northwest Numismatic Association
Tompkins' new book is superb! Extraordinary, really.
I anxiously await the capped bust half dollar volumes.
Lance.