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'm trying to believe (maybe convinced) that this is an example of an overdate, but I'm having feelings that what I'm looking at are die gouges from a mishandled die. Convince me otherwise.
<< <i>This "variety" has been discussed quite lively a few times on the boards already. I am in the camp of those who believe these are stray marks and that some are seeing what they might like to see. >>
Weakly punched S mintmark, so they sent it to Denver where Mint Employees were known to swing a bigger hammer? Yeah, I'm having trouble grasping that concept.
A more likely explanation is that this die had an S mint mark deeply struck and the die couldn't be polished deep enough without ruining the die thus leaving some remnants of the S. Why would San Fransisco ship Denver this die if it couldn't be used? Unless of course, these are just errant die gouges in a circular pattern resembling an S. It's a shame we don't have a former Mint Employee on these boards to explain how all of this really occurs. Shag
<< <i>Below are the pics of another controversial Cherry Pickers variety. I have handled all 5 mint state examples in the PCGS pops. Do we consider these to be errant die gouges? They don't really look like a number. What are our thoughts on this variety? >>
I can understand a valid argument being made that this is a 1934/34 or a 1934/1934. The die right in front of the engraver was mis-struck the first time and quickly filed down and the correction attempted. Now if you tell me you think this might be a 1934 over 1927 Lincoln then I am going to ask for more than "it looks like". My thought here if you claimed that would be..."Lucy, you got some splainin to do " Varieties are really interesting....but they still have to be explained. Same with the D/S you show in this thread also. Kind of understandable that the working die was first punch with an S then filed down and re-punched with a D. Nothing to far out with that one. Edited to add - All the dies in 44 were produced and stored at the Philly mint where the mint marks were punched then shipped to the branch mints. So if an S was punched into a die being sent to Denver it was corrected, re-punched with the proper mint mark then shipped out. Easy to understand how a D/S could happen.
I hate to reply to myself, but the image showing the 1934 doubled die above shows design elements of the 9 and the 3 below the date, not the 3 and a 4 as my response may imply. Nice coin by the way that I wish I cherrypicked.
<< <i>Weakly punched S mintmark, so they sent it to Denver where Mint Employees were known to swing a bigger hammer? Yeah, I'm having trouble grasping that concept.
A more likely explanation is that this die had an S mint mark deeply struck and the die couldn't be polished deep enough without ruining the die thus leaving some remnants of the S. Why would San Fransisco ship Denver this die if it couldn't be used? Unless of course, these are just errant die gouges in a circular pattern resembling an S. It's a shame we don't have a former Mint Employee on these boards to explain how all of this really occurs. Shag >>
Ever consider the fact that Philadelphia punched the Mintmark and sent it to Denver?
Ever consider the fact that if, as you postulate, the S was so deep that it could not be polished off that perhaps the date would have been affected?
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.
Not quite buying the depression era logic and trying to save money in 1936 San Francisco.
1. Why just in San Francisco and not Denver or Philly? 2. Why not use dies from 1935, 1934, etc. that were probably more available? 3. The worst part of the depression was from 1931-1933, why wasn't it done then when money was much more critical? There was actually a semi-recovery in the markets from 1934-1937 following the 1934 gold reserve act and a round of unbacked monetary printing.
There would have to be a better reason than already suggested for a 1936/29 overdate. With all the economic calamaties that occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries, I don't think there's a single instance of a silver coin jumping 7 yrs for a production run overdate. If the mint never considered it before, why then in 1936? Why not since? If it's all about saving money then overdates of several years earlier, and even the year before should have been routine throughout the US mint's history....but they aren't. And while they occasionally show up in the 19th century, you rarely see them in the 20th century....and always just one year difference. The 7 yr "depression" theory stretches the imagination.
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.
<< <i>And I personally can't wait for that to happen because this subject matter is getting on my nerves! >>
That is one of the things that I think is funny about this subject. Why sould it get on anyone's nerves or bother them. Nobody forces anyone to open an read a thread, believe it is an over date, or cool placed die gouges.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
I KNOW I SAID I WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THIS THREAD NO MATTER HOW STUPID IT GOT...........
WELL I COULDN'T STAND IT ANY LONGER......I WRITING THIS UPPER CASE AND DOUBLE SPACED SO THAT YOU SLOW KNOW IT ALL ONES CAN
MAYBE UNDERSTAND!!!! I ESPECIALLY LOVE THE WAY JROCCO AND SEANQ THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!
I ESPECIALLY LIKED WHEN ONE OF THEM SAID THERE WAS ZERO PER CENT CHANCE OF IT BEING 1936 OVER 1929!! LIKE WE SHOULD TAKE
YOUR WORD OF IT........WRONG!! YOU GUYS ARE SOMETHING ELSE, BUT WE WON'T GET INTO THAT HERE!!
LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PIC IN A PREVIOUS REPLY SHOWING THE 1936 OVER THE 1929....THIS PROVES IT.
If you move the 1929 over so that the 1 is on top of the other 1, which is the way the coin is. No repunching on the 1. This puts the reminents of the 2 inside the 3 and the part of the leg of the 9 above the leg of the other 9 because of the difference of the curve in the the leg of the 9. And they always try to some degree to get what they can off. They got all but the leg of 9 and the 2 inside the three. They didn't leave any of the 9 that shows, which could be to the die state of coins viewed.
THIS EXTRA DATE:
IS NOT DIE SCRATCHES
IS NOT DIE GOUGES
AND IS NOT CLASHING
IF YOU CAN NOT SEE THIS YOU NEED TO BE IN ANOTHER HOBBY!!!
LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PIC IN A PREVIOUS REPLY SHOWING THE 1936 OVER THE 1929....THIS PROVES IT.
That overlay only proves it is possible scenario of what may have occurred here, it is not the definitive answer. Since dates were hand punched into the working dies, the positioning of the numbers can vary from one die to the next, so an example of an overlay is just that, one example out of hundreds of possibilities.
Example:
Forensics of the bullet indicate the victim was shot with a .38 caliber.
John Doe owns a .38 caliber so naturally he is the killer.
Now, there is a small chance that John Doe is the killer, but there is not yet enough evidence to prove that.
<< <i>Come on all forum members that are capable of putting together high quality overdates your help is needed. I am asking for little help here, if I was tech enough to do it I would but unfortunately i am not. I have worked with a couple of members here and they know who they are to prove and disprove projects that I was were working on. This is also a worthwhile project, a lot of emotions here, and we need to put this to bed once and for all. Lets all start over with one and gather some high quality pics and do the overlays the right way, the way it deserves to be done to see if it is or it isn't. I am hopiing it will be done, the project deserves the right kind of overlays. >>
It will never be proved or disproved. The people trying to disprove it have an agenda, so no matter what they come up with they will simply state it is not. The people who have seen, and studied these know the underlying 2 is blatantly obvious.
I stated in an earlier post I had sent imaged to CONECA. I believe their agenda was to disprove it. They simply never came back with an answer. I do find it ironic, though, they did look at one I had with me at the ANA in Chicago, and said yes that’s the coin. They didn’t go into it any further than that. DIMEMAN happened to be at their booth while I was having it checked.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>Didn't the 1943/2 jefferson nickel have the same uncertainties? >>
That is what I was trying to say...a couple of times. Others tend to disagree with me for some reason. Whatever. I think the 2 under the 3 looks like the exact same thing is going on...kinda crazy to claim "DIE GOUGES" when there is another coin from another series just a few years later with the exact same look. That one is accepted but this one is not.
"POSSIBLE" is fine with me. Regardless, I think the darn thing is cool. It seems there are plenty of people that feel the same way since auction/sale prices are always pretty freaking high on the darn things.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PIC IN A PREVIOUS REPLY SHOWING THE 1936 OVER THE 1929....THIS PROVES IT.
That overlay only proves it is possible scenario of what may have occurred here, it is not the definitive answer. Since dates were hand punched into the working dies, the positioning of the numbers can vary from one die to the next, so an example of an overlay is just that, one example out of hundreds of possibilities.
Example:
Forensics of the bullet indicate the victim was shot with a .38 caliber.
John Doe owns a .38 caliber so naturally he is the killer.
Now, there is a small chance that John Doe is the killer, but there is not yet enough evidence to prove that. >>
I've highlighted the fatal flaw in your logic. The dates were not hand-punched in working dies in 1929 or 1936. The practice was discontinued at the U.S. Mint in 1908. Any U.S. overdates after 1909 are doubled dies, not repunched dates. As such, the date position on every 1929 dime is identical, and unlike another poster suggested, you can't "move it over" to make it line up with the marks on a die dated 1936.
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>Didn't the 1943/2 jefferson nickel have the same uncertainties? >>
No. The two discovery specimens of the 1943/42-P nickel were both well worn, in roughly VG condition. I published pictures of them in Coin World and said that they appeared to be overdates, but that I would like to see a higher grade specimen to confirm it. Somebody saw the pictures and went to a show that weekend and cherrypicked a nice BU. He gave it to me to photograph and that proved that it was indeed an overdate.
The 1936-S dime in question is available in high grade. It was proven months ago, via overlays, that it could not be a 1936/1929 because the dates in the two years are in different positions relative to the truncation of the neck. Nevertheless, people continue to beat the dead horse because they want fantasy to become reality.
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.
I cannot see the underdate, even if I use an extraordinary amount of imagination, and then I have to ignore some of the apparently irrelevant marks I do see.
then again, I do not own one of these. If I owned one, perhaps I could summon sufficient imagination to see it, and could at the same time ignore the other stray die marks
<< <i>I KNOW I SAID I WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THIS THREAD NO MATTER HOW STUPID IT GOT...........
WELL I COULDN'T STAND IT ANY LONGER......I WRITING THIS UPPER CASE AND DOUBLE SPACED SO THAT YOU SLOW KNOW IT ALL ONES CAN
MAYBE UNDERSTAND!!!! I ESPECIALLY LOVE THE WAY JROCCO AND SEANQ THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!
I ESPECIALLY LIKED WHEN ONE OF THEM SAID THERE WAS ZERO PER CENT CHANCE OF IT BEING 1936 OVER 1929!! LIKE WE SHOULD TAKE
YOUR WORD OF IT........WRONG!! YOU GUYS ARE SOMETHING ELSE, BUT WE WON'T GET INTO THAT HERE!!
LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PIC IN A PREVIOUS REPLY SHOWING THE 1936 OVER THE 1929....THIS PROVES IT.
If you move the 1929 over so that the 1 is on top of the other 1, which is the way the coin is. No repunching on the 1. This puts the reminents of the 2 inside the 3 and the part of the leg of the 9 above the leg of the other 9 because of the difference of the curve in the the leg of the 9. And they always try to some degree to get what they can off. They got all but the leg of 9 and the 2 inside the three. They didn't leave any of the 9 that shows, which could be to the die state of coins viewed.
THIS EXTRA DATE:
IS NOT DIE SCRATCHES
IS NOT DIE GOUGES
AND IS NOT CLASHING
IF YOU CAN NOT SEE THIS YOU NEED TO BE IN ANOTHER HOBBY!!! >>
I've highlighted the incorrect assumption in your explanation above. You can't just "move" the date to make it line up. Dies in 1929 (and 1936) did not have the date hand-applied with punches, the date was on the master hub and the position did not change from working die to working die. This was the case at the U.S. Mint since 1909. You keep trying to explain a 20th century variety with assumptions based in 19th century die manufacturing techniques.
If your assumption is that this coin was created when the Mint reused a 1929 die and repunched the date (or rehubbed the die) with a 1936 date, then the underlying date should be in the same position as every dime struck in 1929. My overlays prove this was not the case. The overlay showing the 1928 date does align closely with the marks, which is why I'm unwilling to dismiss it completely.
I've backed my argument with photos, facts and logic. I've yet to see any of these from the folks backing the 36/29 theory. I have heard lots of yelling, name calling and ad hominem attacks. Instead of making a louder argument (SKIP THE CAPSLOCK), how about presenting a better one?
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>Come on all forum members that are capable of putting together high quality overdates your help is needed. I am asking for little help here, if I was tech enough to do it I would but unfortunately i am not. I have worked with a couple of members here and they know who they are to prove and disprove projects that I was were working on. This is also a worthwhile project, a lot of emotions here, and we need to put this to bed once and for all. Lets all start over with one and gather some high quality pics and do the overlays the right way, the way it deserves to be done to see if it is or it isn't. I am hopiing it will be done, the project deserves the right kind of overlays. >>
Can you explain what was wrong with the overlays I already made?
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> It will never be proved or disproved. The people trying to disprove it have an agenda, so no matter what they come up with they will simply state it is not. The people who have seen, and studied these know the underlying 2 is blatantly obvious.
I stated in an earlier post I had sent imaged to CONECA. I believe their agenda was to disprove it. They simply never came back with an answer. I do find it ironic, though, they did look at one I had with me at the ANA in Chicago, and said yes that’s the coin. They didn’t go into it any further than that. DIMEMAN happened to be at their booth while I was having it checked. >>
Please explain what you think my agenda is. Please tell me what arguments the supporters of this variety have given other than "I looked at one in person." Please share what "they came up with" that I have dismissed out of hand? Could one person who has studied it and concluded that it is blatantly obvious provide a shred of proof to this thread that does not involve owning an example?
I honestly think the part of your post highlighted above applies more to the people who insist this is an overdate than those who are trying to disprove it.
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>Didn't the 1943/2 jefferson nickel have the same uncertainties? >>
That is what I was trying to say...a couple of times. Others tend to disagree with me for some reason. Whatever. I think the 2 under the 3 looks like the exact same thing is going on...kinda crazy to claim "DIE GOUGES" when there is another coin from another series just a few years later with the exact same look. That one is accepted but this one is not.
"POSSIBLE" is fine with me. Regardless, I think the darn thing is cool. It seems there are plenty of people that feel the same way since auction/sale prices are always pretty freaking high on the darn things. >>
I'm not going to sit here and provide overlays for all of the varieties you brought into question with your post. Specifically addressing the 1943/2 nickel, the coin is a doubled die obverse with doubling evident on the entire motto, exactly what you would expect on a modern overdate. The variety has been proved with overlay photographs. As a matter of fact, there is another die with gouges in the bottom of the 3 which was initially believed to be another overdate, but overlays disproved it. If you look in the Red Book it even mentions the die gouges.
Really, other than the fact that the underlying digit is a 2, there is nothing in common between the two varieties, especially if you listen the the explanation offered for how the 36/29 could exist.
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
Baley - If you can't see the 2 inside the 3 you are blind!
seanq - When I said move the 1 over I meant (and thought understood) moving the complete date over until the 1's were aliegned. This would put every digit in the date in the correct place for the 1936/1929. I don't know why you are so dead set on disproving this variety. I put much more faith in what Bill Fivaz and those who researched the coins and put them in the CPG than you. FRANKLY I AM TIRED OF YOU AND YOUR KNOW IT ALL ATTITUDE!!!!!!!!!
<< <i>LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PIC IN A PREVIOUS REPLY SHOWING THE 1936 OVER THE 1929....THIS PROVES IT.
That overlay only proves it is possible scenario of what may have occurred here, it is not the definitive answer. Since dates were hand punched into the working dies, the positioning of the numbers can vary from one die to the next, so an example of an overlay is just that, one example out of hundreds of possibilities.
Example:
Forensics of the bullet indicate the victim was shot with a .38 caliber.
John Doe owns a .38 caliber so naturally he is the killer.
Now, there is a small chance that John Doe is the killer, but there is not yet enough evidence to prove that. >>
I've highlighted the fatal flaw in your logic. The dates were not hand-punched in working dies in 1929 or 1936. The practice was discontinued at the U.S. Mint in 1908. Any U.S. overdates after 1909 are doubled dies, not repunched dates. As such, the date position on every 1929 dime is identical, and unlike another poster suggested, you can't "move it over" to make it line up with the marks on a die dated 1936.
Sean Reynolds >>
I stand corrected, but are not the Master Dies sunk with dates?
<< <i>Baley - If you can't see the 2 inside the 3 you are blind!
seanq - When I said move the 1 over I meant (and thought understood) moving the complete date over until the 1's were aliegned. This would put every digit in the date in the correct place for the 1936/1929. I don't know why you are so dead set on disproving this variety. I put much more faith in what Bill Fivaz and those who researched the coins and put them in the CPG than you. FRANKLY I AM TIRED OF YOU AND YOUR KNOW IT ALL ATTITUDE!!!!!!!!! >>
You can't move anything, it is in the master die. I don't even dispute that it might be an overdate, but if it is, then the underdate is 1928, not 1929. I'll tell Bill Fivaz that it's not a 1929 too, someone get me his email address and I'll send him the overlays. I'll CC Tom Delorey on the email, too.
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
Here's the link to the original thread with my overlays and more detailed explanation of what they show.
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 can try if fcloud is okay with it, but the problem is that the close-up is cropped so close that there are not any other elements to tell me the images are aligned properly. On the earlier photo overlays I did the rim, bust, and designers initials were all used to make sure the images were precisely aligned. I have Photoshop on my work computer so I won't be able to try anything until later in the week.
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 actually wrote what I consider to be an interesting thread about this coin and I have many images to share with those interested. However, of all the dumb luck, Network Solutions is having issues with their editing suite and I cannot upload the images to my site. The text is saved as a Word document, but it wouldn't do too much good without images. I hope that tonight Network Solutions has its issues resolved and I can post the thread.
Comments
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>This "variety" has been discussed quite lively a few times on the boards already. I am in the camp of those who believe these are stray marks and that some are seeing what they might like to see. >>
<< <i>Cue the dead horse icon........ >>
A more likely explanation is that this die had an S mint mark deeply struck and the die couldn't be polished deep enough without ruining the die thus leaving some remnants
of the S. Why would San Fransisco ship Denver this die if it couldn't be used? Unless of course, these are just errant die gouges in a circular pattern resembling an S. It's a shame
we don't have a former Mint Employee on these boards to explain how all of this really occurs. Shag
<< <i>Below are the pics of another controversial Cherry Pickers variety. I have handled all 5 mint state examples in the PCGS pops. Do we consider these to be errant die gouges? They don't really look like a number. What are our thoughts on this variety?
I can understand a valid argument being made that this is a 1934/34 or a 1934/1934. The die right in front of the engraver was mis-struck the first time and quickly filed down and the correction attempted.
Now if you tell me you think this might be a 1934 over 1927 Lincoln then I am going to ask for more than "it looks like".
My thought here if you claimed that would be..."Lucy, you got some splainin to do "
Varieties are really interesting....but they still have to be explained.
Same with the D/S you show in this thread also. Kind of understandable that the working die was first punch with an S then filed down and re-punched with a D. Nothing to far out with that one.
Edited to add - All the dies in 44 were produced and stored at the Philly mint where the mint marks were punched then shipped to the branch mints. So if an S was punched into a die being sent to Denver it was corrected, re-punched with the proper mint mark then shipped out. Easy to understand how a D/S could happen.
design elements of the 9 and the 3 below the date, not the 3 and a 4 as my response may imply.
Nice coin by the way that I wish I cherrypicked.
<< <i>Weakly punched S mintmark, so they sent it to Denver where Mint Employees were known to swing a bigger hammer? Yeah, I'm having trouble grasping that concept.
A more likely explanation is that this die had an S mint mark deeply struck and the die couldn't be polished deep enough without ruining the die thus leaving some remnants
of the S. Why would San Fransisco ship Denver this die if it couldn't be used? Unless of course, these are just errant die gouges in a circular pattern resembling an S. It's a shame
we don't have a former Mint Employee on these boards to explain how all of this really occurs. Shag >>
Ever consider the fact that Philadelphia punched the Mintmark and sent it to Denver?
Ever consider the fact that if, as you postulate, the S was so deep that it could not be polished off that perhaps the date would have been affected?
The name is LEE!
1. Why just in San Francisco and not Denver or Philly?
2. Why not use dies from 1935, 1934, etc. that were probably more available?
3. The worst part of the depression was from 1931-1933, why wasn't it done then when money was much more critical? There was
actually a semi-recovery in the markets from 1934-1937 following the 1934 gold reserve act and a round of unbacked monetary printing.
There would have to be a better reason than already suggested for a 1936/29 overdate. With all the economic calamaties that occurred in the
18th and 19th centuries, I don't think there's a single instance of a silver coin jumping 7 yrs for a production run overdate. If the mint never
considered it before, why then in 1936? Why not since? If it's all about saving money then overdates of several years earlier, and even the year
before should have been routine throughout the US mint's history....but they aren't. And while they occasionally show up in the 19th century, you
rarely see them in the 20th century....and always just one year difference. The 7 yr "depression" theory stretches the imagination.
<< <i>
<< <i>Cue the dead horse icon........ >>
Then do you mind sharing what the general consensus is on this matter or perhaps what you think it is? >>
Apparently he has nothing constructive to add to the conversation. Perhaps he could start yet another "why dealers drink" post.
<< <i>And I personally can't wait for that to happen because this subject matter is getting on my nerves! >>
That is one of the things that I think is funny about this subject. Why sould it get on anyone's nerves or bother them. Nobody forces anyone to open an read a thread, believe it is an over date, or cool placed die gouges.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
WELL I COULDN'T STAND IT ANY LONGER......I WRITING THIS UPPER CASE AND DOUBLE SPACED SO THAT YOU SLOW KNOW IT ALL ONES CAN
MAYBE UNDERSTAND!!!! I ESPECIALLY LOVE THE WAY JROCCO AND SEANQ THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!
I ESPECIALLY LIKED WHEN ONE OF THEM SAID THERE WAS ZERO PER CENT CHANCE OF IT BEING 1936 OVER 1929!! LIKE WE SHOULD TAKE
YOUR WORD OF IT........WRONG!! YOU GUYS ARE SOMETHING ELSE, BUT WE WON'T GET INTO THAT HERE!!
LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PIC IN A PREVIOUS REPLY SHOWING THE 1936 OVER THE 1929....THIS PROVES IT.
If you move the 1929 over so that the 1 is on top of the other 1, which is the way the coin is. No repunching on the 1. This puts the reminents of the 2 inside the 3 and the part of the leg of the 9 above the leg of the other 9 because of the difference of the curve in the the leg of the 9. And they always try to some degree to get what they can off. They got all but the leg of 9 and the 2 inside the three. They didn't leave any of the 9 that shows, which could be to the die state of coins viewed.
THIS EXTRA DATE:
IS NOT DIE SCRATCHES
IS NOT DIE GOUGES
AND IS NOT CLASHING
IF YOU CAN NOT SEE THIS YOU NEED TO BE IN ANOTHER HOBBY!!!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>I KNOW I SAID I WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THIS THREAD NO MATTER HOW STUPID IT GOT...........
WELL I COULDN'T STAND IT ANY LONGER......I WRITING THIS UPPER CASE AND DOUBLE SPACED SO THAT YOU SLOW KNOW IT ALL ONES CAN
MAYBE UNDERSTAND!!!! I ESPECIALLY LOVE THE WAY JROCCO AND SEANQ THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!
I ESPECIALLY LIKED WHEN ONE OF THEM SAID THERE WAS ZERO PER CENT CHANCE OF IT BEING 1936 OVER 1929!! LIKE WE SHOULD TAKE
YOUR WORD OF IT........WRONG!! YOU GUYS ARE SOMETHING ELSE, BUT WE WON'T GET INTO THAT HERE!!
LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PIC IN A PREVIOUS REPLY SHOWING THE 1936 OVER THE 1929....THIS PROVES IT.
>>
Maybe you should try to keep personal feelings aside.
This is like the CU equivalent of road rage.
That overlay only proves it is possible scenario of what may have occurred here, it is not the definitive answer. Since dates were hand punched into the working dies, the positioning of the numbers can vary from one die to the next, so an example of an overlay is just that, one example out of hundreds of possibilities.
Example:
Forensics of the bullet indicate the victim was shot with a .38 caliber.
John Doe owns a .38 caliber so naturally he is the killer.
Now, there is a small chance that John Doe is the killer, but there is not yet enough evidence to prove that.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>Come on all forum members that are capable of putting together high quality overdates your help is needed. I am asking for little help here, if I was tech enough to do it I would but unfortunately i am not. I have worked with a couple of members here and they know who they are to prove and disprove projects that I was were working on. This is also a worthwhile project, a lot of emotions here, and we need to put this to bed once and for all. Lets all start over with one and gather some high quality pics and do the overlays the right way, the way it deserves to be done to see if it is or it isn't. I am hopiing it will be done, the project deserves the right kind of overlays. >>
It will never be proved or disproved. The people trying to disprove it have an agenda, so no matter what they come up with they will simply state it is not. The people who have seen, and studied these know the underlying 2 is blatantly obvious.
I stated in an earlier post I had sent imaged to CONECA. I believe their agenda was to disprove it. They simply never came back with an answer. I do find it ironic, though, they did look at one I had with me at the ANA in Chicago, and said yes that’s the coin. They didn’t go into it any further than that. DIMEMAN happened to be at their booth while I was having it checked.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>Didn't the 1943/2 jefferson nickel have the same uncertainties? >>
That is what I was trying to say...a couple of times. Others tend to disagree with me for some reason. Whatever. I think the 2 under the 3 looks like the exact same thing is going on...kinda crazy to claim "DIE GOUGES" when there is another coin from another series just a few years later with the exact same look. That one is accepted but this one is not.
"POSSIBLE" is fine with me. Regardless, I think the darn thing is cool. It seems there are plenty of people that feel the same way since auction/sale prices are always pretty freaking high on the darn things.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
to show the similarities.What i can remember it sure looks the same.
<< <i>LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PIC IN A PREVIOUS REPLY SHOWING THE 1936 OVER THE 1929....THIS PROVES IT.
That overlay only proves it is possible scenario of what may have occurred here, it is not the definitive answer. Since dates were hand punched into the working dies, the positioning of the numbers can vary from one die to the next, so an example of an overlay is just that, one example out of hundreds of possibilities.
Example:
Forensics of the bullet indicate the victim was shot with a .38 caliber.
John Doe owns a .38 caliber so naturally he is the killer.
Now, there is a small chance that John Doe is the killer, but there is not yet enough evidence to prove that. >>
I've highlighted the fatal flaw in your logic. The dates were not hand-punched in working dies in 1929 or 1936. The practice was discontinued at the U.S. Mint in 1908. Any U.S. overdates after 1909 are doubled dies, not repunched dates. As such, the date position on every 1929 dime is identical, and unlike another poster suggested, you can't "move it over" to make it line up with the marks on a die dated 1936.
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>Didn't the 1943/2 jefferson nickel have the same uncertainties? >>
No. The two discovery specimens of the 1943/42-P nickel were both well worn, in roughly VG condition. I published pictures of them in Coin World and said that they appeared to be overdates, but that I would like to see a higher grade specimen to confirm it. Somebody saw the pictures and went to a show that weekend and cherrypicked a nice BU. He gave it to me to photograph and that proved that it was indeed an overdate.
The 1936-S dime in question is available in high grade. It was proven months ago, via overlays, that it could not be a 1936/1929 because the dates in the two years are in different positions relative to the truncation of the neck. Nevertheless, people continue to beat the dead horse because they want fantasy to become reality.
TD
then again, I do not own one of these. If I owned one, perhaps I could summon sufficient imagination to see it, and could at the same time ignore the other stray die marks
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>I KNOW I SAID I WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THIS THREAD NO MATTER HOW STUPID IT GOT...........
WELL I COULDN'T STAND IT ANY LONGER......I WRITING THIS UPPER CASE AND DOUBLE SPACED SO THAT YOU SLOW KNOW IT ALL ONES CAN
MAYBE UNDERSTAND!!!! I ESPECIALLY LOVE THE WAY JROCCO AND SEANQ THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!
I ESPECIALLY LIKED WHEN ONE OF THEM SAID THERE WAS ZERO PER CENT CHANCE OF IT BEING 1936 OVER 1929!! LIKE WE SHOULD TAKE
YOUR WORD OF IT........WRONG!! YOU GUYS ARE SOMETHING ELSE, BUT WE WON'T GET INTO THAT HERE!!
LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PIC IN A PREVIOUS REPLY SHOWING THE 1936 OVER THE 1929....THIS PROVES IT.
If you move the 1929 over so that the 1 is on top of the other 1, which is the way the coin is. No repunching on the 1. This puts the reminents of the 2 inside the 3 and the part of the leg of the 9 above the leg of the other 9 because of the difference of the curve in the the leg of the 9. And they always try to some degree to get what they can off. They got all but the leg of 9 and the 2 inside the three. They didn't leave any of the 9 that shows, which could be to the die state of coins viewed.
THIS EXTRA DATE:
IS NOT DIE SCRATCHES
IS NOT DIE GOUGES
AND IS NOT CLASHING
IF YOU CAN NOT SEE THIS YOU NEED TO BE IN ANOTHER HOBBY!!! >>
I've highlighted the incorrect assumption in your explanation above. You can't just "move" the date to make it line up. Dies in 1929 (and 1936) did not have the date hand-applied with punches, the date was on the master hub and the position did not change from working die to working die. This was the case at the U.S. Mint since 1909. You keep trying to explain a 20th century variety with assumptions based in 19th century die manufacturing techniques.
If your assumption is that this coin was created when the Mint reused a 1929 die and repunched the date (or rehubbed the die) with a 1936 date, then the underlying date should be in the same position as every dime struck in 1929. My overlays prove this was not the case. The overlay showing the 1928 date does align closely with the marks, which is why I'm unwilling to dismiss it completely.
I've backed my argument with photos, facts and logic. I've yet to see any of these from the folks backing the 36/29 theory. I have heard lots of yelling, name calling and ad hominem attacks. Instead of making a louder argument (SKIP THE CAPSLOCK), how about presenting a better one?
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>Come on all forum members that are capable of putting together high quality overdates your help is needed. I am asking for little help here, if I was tech enough to do it I would but unfortunately i am not. I have worked with a couple of members here and they know who they are to prove and disprove projects that I was were working on. This is also a worthwhile project, a lot of emotions here, and we need to put this to bed once and for all. Lets all start over with one and gather some high quality pics and do the overlays the right way, the way it deserves to be done to see if it is or it isn't. I am hopiing it will be done, the project deserves the right kind of overlays. >>
Can you explain what was wrong with the overlays I already made?
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
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>
It will never be proved or disproved. The people trying to disprove it have an agenda, so no matter what they come up with they will simply state it is not. The people who have seen, and studied these know the underlying 2 is blatantly obvious.
I stated in an earlier post I had sent imaged to CONECA. I believe their agenda was to disprove it. They simply never came back with an answer. I do find it ironic, though, they did look at one I had with me at the ANA in Chicago, and said yes that’s the coin. They didn’t go into it any further than that. DIMEMAN happened to be at their booth while I was having it checked. >>
Please explain what you think my agenda is. Please tell me what arguments the supporters of this variety have given other than "I looked at one in person." Please share what "they came up with" that I have dismissed out of hand? Could one person who has studied it and concluded that it is blatantly obvious provide a shred of proof to this thread that does not involve owning an example?
I honestly think the part of your post highlighted above applies more to the people who insist this is an overdate than those who are trying to disprove it.
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>Didn't the 1943/2 jefferson nickel have the same uncertainties? >>
That is what I was trying to say...a couple of times. Others tend to disagree with me for some reason. Whatever. I think the 2 under the 3 looks like the exact same thing is going on...kinda crazy to claim "DIE GOUGES" when there is another coin from another series just a few years later with the exact same look. That one is accepted but this one is not.
"POSSIBLE" is fine with me. Regardless, I think the darn thing is cool. It seems there are plenty of people that feel the same way since auction/sale prices are always pretty freaking high on the darn things. >>
I'm not going to sit here and provide overlays for all of the varieties you brought into question with your post. Specifically addressing the 1943/2 nickel, the coin is a doubled die obverse with doubling evident on the entire motto, exactly what you would expect on a modern overdate. The variety has been proved with overlay photographs. As a matter of fact, there is another die with gouges in the bottom of the 3 which was initially believed to be another overdate, but overlays disproved it. If you look in the Red Book it even mentions the die gouges.
Really, other than the fact that the underlying digit is a 2, there is nothing in common between the two varieties, especially if you listen the the explanation offered for how the 36/29 could exist.
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
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
seanq - When I said move the 1 over I meant (and thought understood) moving the complete date over until the 1's were aliegned. This would put every digit in the date in the correct place for the 1936/1929. I don't know why you are so dead set on disproving this variety. I put much more faith in what Bill Fivaz and those who researched the coins and put them in the CPG than you. FRANKLY I AM TIRED OF YOU AND YOUR KNOW IT ALL ATTITUDE!!!!!!!!!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>
<< <i>LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PIC IN A PREVIOUS REPLY SHOWING THE 1936 OVER THE 1929....THIS PROVES IT.
That overlay only proves it is possible scenario of what may have occurred here, it is not the definitive answer. Since dates were hand punched into the working dies, the positioning of the numbers can vary from one die to the next, so an example of an overlay is just that, one example out of hundreds of possibilities.
Example:
Forensics of the bullet indicate the victim was shot with a .38 caliber.
John Doe owns a .38 caliber so naturally he is the killer.
Now, there is a small chance that John Doe is the killer, but there is not yet enough evidence to prove that. >>
I've highlighted the fatal flaw in your logic. The dates were not hand-punched in working dies in 1929 or 1936. The practice was discontinued at the U.S. Mint in 1908. Any U.S. overdates after 1909 are doubled dies, not repunched dates. As such, the date position on every 1929 dime is identical, and unlike another poster suggested, you can't "move it over" to make it line up with the marks on a die dated 1936.
Sean Reynolds >>
I stand corrected, but are not the Master Dies sunk with dates?
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>Baley - If you can't see the 2 inside the 3 you are blind!
seanq - When I said move the 1 over I meant (and thought understood) moving the complete date over until the 1's were aliegned. This would put every digit in the date in the correct place for the 1936/1929. I don't know why you are so dead set on disproving this variety. I put much more faith in what Bill Fivaz and those who researched the coins and put them in the CPG than you. FRANKLY I AM TIRED OF YOU AND YOUR KNOW IT ALL ATTITUDE!!!!!!!!! >>
You can't move anything, it is in the master die. I don't even dispute that it might be an overdate, but if it is, then the underdate is 1928, not 1929. I'll tell Bill Fivaz that it's not a 1929 too, someone get me his email address and I'll send him the overlays. I'll CC Tom Delorey on the email, too.
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
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
Still I can't believe that those lumps are really an 'underdate'
I think it's just coincidental randomness.
I apologize in advance for editing this image, but I do not have an image of my own to edit.
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 will PM you a uber large image of my 66FB (PCGS' image). Once you get it let me know it that works.
Tony
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay