1918/7-S Standing Liberty Quarter--Jay Cline
giorgio11
Posts: 3,921 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hi all. I got my recent CDN Monthly Supplement and saw the article by Jay Cline on SLQs. He mentions the overdate quarter and still maintains that the overdate was created on the die rather than being a dual-hub error, same as he maintains in his fourth edition SLQ reference. Is there anyone who seriously believes this was a man-made alteration of one die rather a dual-hub error like all the other modern (mostly) wartime overdates? (1943/2-P 5c, 1942-1 dimes, 1918/7-D 5c, 1909/8 $20 etc).
From his fourth edition:
"This overdate was caused by the recutting of a 1917 die. This recutting was practiced by all mints in the late 1880s to 1890s; especially the silver dollars, such as the 1879 over 80, ...
"When a die was left over from previous years, rather than throw it away, it was reworked iwth the next year's date. This is not a dual hubbing, as this would result in doubled obverse or reverse, or both. ...
"This practice was supposed to have been abandoned around the turn of the century, but once in a while it is still practiced (such as the 1954-D/S Jefferson Nickel) and this usually results in a very low mintage,"
Discuss amongst yourselves.
From his fourth edition:
"This overdate was caused by the recutting of a 1917 die. This recutting was practiced by all mints in the late 1880s to 1890s; especially the silver dollars, such as the 1879 over 80, ...
"When a die was left over from previous years, rather than throw it away, it was reworked iwth the next year's date. This is not a dual hubbing, as this would result in doubled obverse or reverse, or both. ...
"This practice was supposed to have been abandoned around the turn of the century, but once in a while it is still practiced (such as the 1954-D/S Jefferson Nickel) and this usually results in a very low mintage,"
Discuss amongst yourselves.
VDBCoins.com Our Registry Sets Many successful BSTs; pls ask.
0
Comments
Date punches went the way of the dodo in 1909. Comparing 19th century practices with those in place in 1918 doesn't work. Given the absence of a date punch, modifying a 1917 die without rehubbing would require someone to hand-engrave an 8 over the 7. Why would someone spend the time to do that, risking making the die unusable, if there is a 1918 hub in service that could be used to fix the die, just like there was for the buffalo nickel? Were there any other very minor design modifications between 1917 and 18 that would manifest themselves as class III doubling elsewhere on the obverse design?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>Maybe he has a source for that information? Virtually all the recut dates in silver dollars occurred in all 4 mints in 1880. Is there any example of that after 1880 in any denomination? >>
Yes, there are later recut dates. The 1887/6 both P and O do come to mind. The mint mark CC was over
marked with an O in 1900. Perhaps other examples exist.
bob
You got me on that one Bob.
but for years I was lead to believe that the actual Die for the 1917-S
Type 2 Standing Liberty Quarter was "annealed" [ heated to a point
that it was receptive to a modification ] or in this case another date,
ie: 1918.
Exactly how it was done is better known to someone who has actually
worked with coin dies. All else would be supposition. As Messydesk
mentioned date punches went out in 1909. If that's the case, how did
this over date occur. You can't call it a double die. It must have occured
in the same manner as the 1918/7-D Buffalo Nickel.
I can see no other explanation for it.
EDIT: Thanks for the edification. I knew some of the processes and as I mentioned
I wasn't too sure of the exact terminologies. It also helped redefine the true meaning
of a doubled-die. I always thought a doubled-die was basically an error - ie: 1955/55 DDO.
Here is an 18/7-S Quarter - PCGS 63 FH - for your viewing pleasure:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
quarter. You will notice that all 4 digits are uniform in size and relief. This would not be
the case if the last digit was "reworked."
<< <i>I'm not that familiar with the exact terminology of what happened,
but for years I was lead to believe that the actual Die for the 1917-S
Type 2 Standing Liberty Quarter was "annealed" [ heated to a point
that it was receptive to a modification ] or in this case another date,
ie: 1918.
Exactly how it was done is better known to someone who has actually
worked with coin dies. All else would be supposition. As Messydesk
mentioned date punches went out in 1909. If that's the case, how did
this over date occur. You can't call it a double die. It must have occured
in the same manner as the 1918/7-D Buffalo Nickel.
I can see no other explanation for it. >>
All dies are annealed, and in until the late 1990s all dies were hubbed more than once and annealed between hubbings. This is how all doubled dies prior to the late 1990s occurred, misalignment of the impressions of the different hubbings.
All overdates dated 1909 and later were the result of a die being impressed with hubs bearing two different dates. In some cases (1943/2-P nickels, for example) the coin exhibits hub doubling on other parts of the design as well. In most, the hubs were aligned properly and no doubling of the design is present. The 1918/7-D nickel and the 1918/7-S quarter are both "class III doubled dies" by the strict definition of the term - class III is "design hub doubling", where the design of the hub changes between impressions (rather than the alignment of the hub). The 1963/3-D cent is another example of a class III doubled die, as is the 1970-S small over large date cent.
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
WTF?? Is this common internet courtesy??
<< <i>WTF?? Is this common internet courtesy?? >>
Don't know about "common internet courtesy", but it's common enough on this forum.