A couple ?s re denticles, subject is a 1857 1/2 Dime

cucamongacoin

The half dime depicted is in a PCGS 62 holder, recently graded. In regards to the denticles;
1) Are the indistinct areas due to misaligned strike?
2) Were the rims "upset" prior to striking?
3) How much should this condition influence the grade?
4) How much DOES this condition influence the grade given by the TPG?
In hand , the coin is original, lustrous, well struck, and quite mark free. There is an area of die clash on the reverse through and below the "ME" in DIME. At a glance, this could be mistaken for contact marks or a defect.

yosclimber

Yours looks like a Closed 5 (ball of 5 touches upright).
If so, Breen's Encyclopedia says: "Business strikes have weak dentils".
So it should not affect the grading in terms of state of preservation and marks.

golden

Nice coin.

CaptHenway

The late-date "Stars Obverse" half dimes normally have weak denticles, which is probably one of the reasons they made a new obverse hub in 1859.

commoncents05

<< <i>The late-date "Stars Obverse" half dimes normally have weak denticles, which is probably one of the reasons they made a new obverse hub in 1859. >>



I agree, very common to see these with weak or no denticles.

-Paul

LoveMyLiberty

By 1855-1857 the Half Dime hub was very worn and the dies were often
rusted.
If you look at these years on CoinFacts nearly all examples, even MS-67
on down show extremely poor dentils, poor head detail & other features.

Ron Guth states "Fully struck examples are surprisingly scarce. Many examples
show weakness on the denticles. On some examples the denticles are so
flat as to be non existent."

Doug Winter wrote a monograph for the 1984 reprint of "The United States Half Dimes"
by D.W. Valentine entitled, "Half Dimes 1794-1873" where he states,
"The "Stars Obverse" type was resumed in 1856. The Half Dimes of this era are
amongst the most poorly struck of all coins ever struck by the U.S. Mint.

In 1858 the hubs were retouched to correct some of these problems. During 1859 a
new obverse hub was made, but Valentine states it was only used on coins struck
at Philadelphia, while dies for N.Orl. were made from the old hub.

I own an 1855-O Half Dime that exhibits the same weak dentils & is graded MS-65.

MrHalfDime

As correctly described here by others, the dentils on most dates of Liberty Seated half dimes of the “Arrows Removed” (post-1853) design are very weakly struck. Indeed, in reading the OP’s post, I was amused by his comment that the dentils were ‘indistinct’. As a serious student of the series, I was actually quite impressed with the relative strength of the dentils on his coin.

While known and recognized primarily as an expert in gold coins, as LoveMyLiberty stated, Doug Winter wrote a masterful monograph on the half dimes, included in the 1984 Sanford Durst reprint of the Valentine half dime reference, in which he makes numerous observations about the series which cannot be found elsewhere. His expertise obviously extends well beyond the field of gold coins.

Dr. Daniel W. Valentine, in his 1931 reference “The United States Half Dimes”, refers to the weakness of strike, and wear to the hub due to the high volume of coins struck and corresponding large number of working dies, when he states “Early in 1857 the hub, having become badly worn, was ‘retouched’.” He continues, “The most noticeable differences are in the drapery between the figure of Liberty and the flagpole, and a dent on the inside point of the third star. The coins struck from dies before the changes were made, are No. 1, and Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the New Orleans Mint.” He then identifies nine (9) die marriages for the Philadelphia Mint, and another six (6) for the New Orleans Mint for the year 1857. We now know that the actual number of marriages for the year is much larger, but the distinction of his V1 as the only Philadelphia die marriage minted prior to the reworking of the hub remains valid.

It has always remained a mystery to me why the old time students and researchers of the half dime series chose the identification points they did, and therefore gave the descriptions they used, to identify the various ‘varieties’ in the series, giving us such improbable descriptions as “1837 Large Date” and “1837 Small Date”, when it was the font and not the font size that differed. Even the 1840 “No Drapery” and “With Drapery” descriptions seem a bit unusual, almost misleading, as the addition of the drapery fold at the elbow was just one of over twelve changes to the obverse device, and certainly not the most noticeable one. For the ‘retouched’ hub in 1857, it is true that most examples for the date exhibit a small ‘dent’ on the innermost point of star 3 (third star up from the bottom on the left hand side), but that is hardly the most noticeable pick-up-point for the design change. Look closely at the base of the rock, above the date, on the OP’s coin. The shape of the base of the rock can best be described as a smooth, regular curve, or semi-circular arc. However, for most 1857 half dimes (those struck from working dies after the hub was ‘retouched’), the base of the rock is anything but a smooth curve, but is a broken, irregular, and roughly straight line. One only needs to study just a few 1857 half dimes, and compare them to the OP’s coin, to see the dramatic difference. Another difference between the ‘old hub’ (V1) coins and the ‘retouched hub’ coins is the presence of the chevron-shaped hub defect between star 10 and star 11, present on many/most examples of pre-1857 half dimes, at least back to 1841. This was a hub defect, and as such appeared on all coins struck from dies made from that hub. This defect was removed on the 1857 ‘retouched hub’.

The OP’s coin is an example of the somewhat scarce 1857 V1, ironically struck before the hub was ‘improved’. Examples of the V1 typically exhibit a quality of strike vastly superior to any other die marriage for the year. In my experience, the 1857 V1 is scarce in all grades, but very difficult to find above EF. In my opinion, the OP’s coin is a significant coin, and is noteworthy because of the relatively strongly struck dentils, contrary to his opinion. Oh, and it is also gorgeous.

There is one other ‘variety’ for the 1857 half dime, not mentioned by Valentine, but designated V10 by Al Blythe in his “Complete Guide to the United States Half Dimes”. This ‘variety’ is best known for its 170º rotation of the dies, approximating medal rotation. Interestingly, the V10 should never have been given a unique designation in the Valentine numbering sequence, as it has been determined, after careful study, to be the V1, only with the dies rotated. It may have been that all normal rotation V1’s were struck during one coin press run, and the 170º rotated die “V10’s” were struck on a different day. It was the practice of the coiners to remove the working dies from the coinage press at the end of each work day and store them in a safe for the night. When production resumed the following day, the die was apparently installed in the coin press with nearly 180º rotation – an easily understandable error.

For an even greater understanding of the problems encountered in weakly struck dentils for half dimes of this era, take a look at almost any 1856 half dime, and see if you can find even one with complete obverse dentils. There is only one, perhaps just two, die marriages for 1856 with fully struck obverse dentils.

And to answer the OP’s question 2, yes, the rims were upset before the coin was struck.