1827 bust half (with planchet flaw)

lava

coin22lover

How about the reverse?

Meltdown

That's a great looking obverse!

Stupid

7 over 6?

lava

TomB

I really like the die crack. It makes it appear that when this coin was struck that the die was already forming two distinct planes.

lava

It is a 7/6, o-102. What puzzles me is the odd pattern? Does it look more like something spilled on it, or more like a die crack. I am not aware of any such cracks on the obverse for this marriage.

BustHalfBrian

lava - Actually, it's an O.101. Common mistake. All three marriages of the overdate resemble eachother greatly. 'T' to 'I' relationships are the keys to attributing this variety.

Although I am intrigued by what's going on the obverse, I'm thinking it's more of an issue with the planchet rather than the die that struck the coin - in other words, what a TPG would call a "planchet defect".

And it wouldn't make much sense since this same obverse die subsequently struck the O.103. If it were a die crack, the crack would be visible on coins of the die marriage, which it isn't.

GAB

Looks more like an O-101 to me. (Rev A instead of revB)
Not sure what that is on the obverse? It does look sort of like a die break, at least in the picture.

JRocco

Strange.
The emission order for this obverse die once overdated was the first usage on the O-101, then the O-102 and then a third time on the O-103.
The O-102 does not show this die break. Something else is going on with that obverse.
Here is my O-101 as a comp

lava

You guys are right -- its is a 101. It just got rarer -- R2 (versus R1 for the o-102).

Planchet defect -- that would explain it the appearance of the coin and account for why there is no die break in subsequent coins from that same die.

Thanks for your assistance.

It is a neat coin to see, and it motivated to get a photobcuket account, so now I have no excuse not to share more from my collection.

BustHalfBrian

Yup, "something else" is right, JRocco - although it might not be post-mint, I still don't think it is a die-related issue, and instead a planchet issue.

I have an example of the O.102 and O.103 - here they are, for comparison's sake. And neither exhibit any sort of obverse anomaly similar to yours.

O.102 obv



and my O.103's obv (with a terrible pic)

BustHalfBrian

<< <i>You guys are right -- its is a 101. It just got rarer -- R2 (versus R1 for the o-102).

Planchet defect -- that would explain it the appearance of the coin and account for why there is no die break in subsequent coins from that same die.

Thanks for your assistance.

It is a neat coin to see, and it motivated to get a photobcuket account, so now I have no excuse not to share more from my collection. >>



Sure thing, and yes, it is a neat coin!

PCGS would call it VF25/30... as long as they're thinking what I'm thinking regarding the obverse having a planchet issue and not PMD.

DIMEMAN

Nice coin. I really love those crusty Busties.

zap1111

That obverse is interesting and it reminds me of an 1831 O.112 that I bought a few years back. I picked it up at a shop (decent price due to grade) just to study more at home. What surely LOOKED like an interesting die crack in fact is an interesting toning line due to some kind of fluid on the coin in the past.







Thanks for posting. Nice coin!
zap

lava

Zap, maybe your 1831 is also a planchet flaw and the fluid-like appearance is simply crust settling along the planchet flaw. I'm guessing that is the case with the 1827. Maybe others have a thought on your 1831.

harveypb

Since there are no die cracks known on the 1827 O.101 in that area,
it has to be a planchet flaw.