Options
Is the 1831 o-106 CBH with die lines deserving of a o-106a attribution? Rarity?
lava
Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭
I had the opportunity to pick up an au CBH 1831 o-106 with die lines at the left of the bust, which prompted me to do some research.
According to the 3rd edition of the Overton/Parsley book on die varieties, "[l]ight defect lines from end of bust and above cap have been visible on all well preserved specimens noted, they [sic] may show only in part or not at all on worn coins." No change in the 4th edition.
This conflicts with Peterson's attribution guide, which notes with respect to both the o-107 and some o-106 specimens "[a]pparently they [the die lines] were lapped off early in the life of the o-106."
Archived images such as those at Heritage suggest Peterson is correct, and that the majority of o-106 specimens lack the die lines, regardless of wear. Heritage has described several of the sold mint state specimens as lacking the die lines due to subsequent lapping of the dies.
Of the approximate 20+ examples of the o-106 found in various archives, 2 were known to have the die lines.
So this brings me to my two questions.
First, is the o-106 variety with die lines worthy of its own attribution (o-106a)?
Second, if the o-106 is a rarity 3, and the o-106 with die lines only shows up only in the early specimens, what do you think would be the rarity of such an o-106a?
According to the 3rd edition of the Overton/Parsley book on die varieties, "[l]ight defect lines from end of bust and above cap have been visible on all well preserved specimens noted, they [sic] may show only in part or not at all on worn coins." No change in the 4th edition.
This conflicts with Peterson's attribution guide, which notes with respect to both the o-107 and some o-106 specimens "[a]pparently they [the die lines] were lapped off early in the life of the o-106."
Archived images such as those at Heritage suggest Peterson is correct, and that the majority of o-106 specimens lack the die lines, regardless of wear. Heritage has described several of the sold mint state specimens as lacking the die lines due to subsequent lapping of the dies.
Of the approximate 20+ examples of the o-106 found in various archives, 2 were known to have the die lines.
So this brings me to my two questions.
First, is the o-106 variety with die lines worthy of its own attribution (o-106a)?
Second, if the o-106 is a rarity 3, and the o-106 with die lines only shows up only in the early specimens, what do you think would be the rarity of such an o-106a?
I brake for ear bars.
0
Comments
First off, are you talking about a Capped Bust half dollar here, or something entirely different? What in the world is a "CPH"?
If you are indeed talking about a Capped Bust half dollar, there is no LDS (106a) listed for the O.106 according to all reliable sources I have checked.
As for the O.106 die marriage, the defect lines are typically only visible on higher grade examples. If your coin is... oh let's say... XF or lower, it probably won't show the die lines.
Since these lines appear on both EDS and LDS examples of this die marriage, it's safe to say they don't have anything to do with die progression (to answer your first and second in one fell swoop).
I am aware there is currently no 1831 o-106a variety, but I was wondering if such a designation should be assigned to those specimens with the die lines appearing. Most examples do not have the lines.
"Since these lines appear on both EDS and LDS examples of this die marriage, it's safe to say they don't have anything to do with die progression." Although you have stated the Overton/Parsely position, that is contrary, however, to what Peterson's book states, and the examples at Heritage seem to support Peterson. If you have a mint state o-106, you'd expect the die lines to be there UNLESS Peterson is correct, and the die lines were lapped early on. According to Peterson, the die lines will not show up in LDS examples of the die marriage, and my review of various archives suggests he is correct.
I was hoping for more input on the subject.
In the meantime, I'll try and post some links and/or pictures.
I like the idea that the O.106 was lapped and only unworn EDS's show the die lines. What condition is yours?
I would agree that the O.106 with the die lines is scarcer but I can't see a different attribution for it. Not now. O.106a should be a later die state, not an early one. If things could be rewritten maybe the die-lined one should be O.106 and the lapped one, O.106a.
Let's see the coin!
Lance.
zap
102 capped bust half dollars - 100 die marriages
BHNC #198
Lance.
The O-107 was struck before the O-106.
The O-107 marriage is the first use of this obverse die.
The die lines appear on all examples of the O-107
The obverse die was re-used to strike the O-106 marriage
The die lines only appear on a small number of O-106 examples before being lapped off and then showing an obverse die without the die lines.
If there were to be an O-106 and O-106a, which there is not, the O-106 would show the die lines and the O-106a would show no die lines.
As it now stands, there is only an O-106 designated which covers both die states, with and without the die lines.
<< <i>Here is my example of 1831 O-106, P58 CAC. No die lines, so I guess it is not high enough grade to show them? Makes no difference to me at all one way or the other, the die lines tending to show up on a number of marriages over the years.
I like this coins a lot. I think coins like this prove the premise advanced by Peterson -- the lines were lapped off, so your specimen is simply a later die state, has no nothing to do with wear, since obviously it is all there.
I get that the o-106 with the die lines should technically be the 0-106 and the lapped version should be the o-106a, but since we can't rewrite things without causing major confusion as to all existing coins, I'm for giving some distinction to the designation of the o-106 with die lines, to help us attribute it and determine its rarity.
<< <i>
I still haven't totally figured out this one. The detail of the stars is significantly better than average suggesting this may be an early die state, as also suggested by Peterson's theory on lapped dies, but notice the clashing -- the ear bars. Maybe that has something to do with the die having been used in the o-107. Thoughts?
<< <i>I still haven't totally figured out this one. The detail of the stars is significantly better than average suggesting this may be an early die state, as also suggested by Peterson's theory on lapped dies, but notice the clashing -- the ear bars. Maybe that has something to do with the die having been used in the o-107. Thoughts? >>
Who knows how many 107's were minted. The 107 is an R3 so perhaps not many?
We know the die continued to be used for the 106 so it must have been in good shape.
My guess is the die was lapped but not to the point where it fully erased die lines. And yours was struck. Partial lines. Maybe it was polished again.
As for the clash...that's hard to see.
Lance.
if a supplement were to ever be issued addressing this, the 106 and the 106a, you may as well address the 107 too.
other coin series have added, removed, redone etc listings for coins, so don't let the sanctity of the fact just because it was labeled that way yesterday discourage you from redoing it so it can be accurate for tomorrow.
a good time for this quote, "don't let tomorrow be plagued by the problems of yesterday"
of course one must exhaust all possibilities to ensure that the change is accurate. pretty tough making a revision and finding out later some obscure and/or abstract explanation negates the new change.
.