This reverse die HAS BEEN RECORDED on 1873-CC T$ sent out by at least two TPGS's as "Questionable Authenticity" or "No Decision." Additionally, This reverse was unknown to me until the late 80's. Which means nothing as plenty have been certified genuine since then.
Recorded where? I'd be surprised if this was true, although the TPG tend to play it safe and sometimes get it wrong. Can you provide more details?
NGC and ICG that I have seen. Additionally, I have personally collected information on Trade dollar varieties and counterfeits for forty years condensed into a 15" diagnostic file containing records for each date, mint, hub, die marriage,and die state that I have encountered. I also have at least a thousand photo negatives, photographs, photo copies, and digital micrographs of these coins.
You young fellas have it easy with the wealth of photo's on the Internet to research!
PS: I STILL DO NOT consider myself an "expert" on this series. I'm always learning. Case in point: The 1874-CC Trade dollar here with the "hit" in the "D."
This reverse die HAS BEEN RECORDED on 1873-CC T$ sent out by at least two TPGS's as "Questionable Authenticity" or "No Decision." Additionally, This reverse was unknown to me until the late 80's. Which means nothing as plenty have been certified genuine since then.
Recorded where? I'd be surprised if this was true, although the TPG tend to play it safe and sometimes get it wrong. Can you provide more details?
NGC and ICG that I have seen. Additionally, I have personally collected information on Trade dollar varieties and counterfeits for forty years condensed into a 15" diagnostic file containing records for each date, mint, hub, die marriage,and die state that I have encountered. I also have at least a thousand photo negatives, photographs, photo copies, and digital micrographs of these coins.
You young fellas have it easy with the wealth of photo's on the Internet to research!
PS: I STILL DO NOT consider myself an "expert" on this series. I'm always learning. Case in point: The 1874-CC Trade dollar here with the "hit" in the "D" that stealer authenticated.
Wow, really? Do you have pictures of the coins that were rejected by NGC and ICG? This is really interesting to me. The OP coin and the matching Goldberg coin both look authentic to me.
I'm just a random guy who doesn't know anything about trade dollars, but I found an 1874-CC that looks like it has the same diagnostic on the D on the reverse.
It also has a bunch of cracks on the reverse, so perhaps this would be towards the end of life of the reverse die?
it's in Goldberg auction 62, lot 1550. Graded PCGS genuine.
Nice work, Zot. It appears to be the right reverse but the obverse is different from Bob's. So it's a different die pair, FWIW. But it does prove that the '73 reverse was indeed used in '74.
I'm sorry I have not yet learned how to quote correctly, add photos, etc. I will learn by trial and error eventually.
stealer: BTW insider, I was just busting your balls yesterday, I learned something - I didn't know that there was such a reverse diagnostic. I don't know anything about whether or not it was used in 74.
I deserved it! I hate to post misinformation and I assure you that I did not sleep very well last night thinking about missing an obvious "4." After a few more weeks, I hope to forget that "monkey" on my back.
Busting balls is good. I've been banned once for asking several poster's to back up their info in a sarcastic way. It's easy to post opinions and I have found a lot of ignorance posted (such as my comments above) on the websites I belong to.
And I learned something too - a new die marriage to research thanks to Zot.
OriginalDan: Wow, really? Do you have pictures of the coins that were rejected by NGC and ICG? This is really interesting to me. The OP coin and the matching Goldberg coin both look authentic to me.
Yes. Photos and diagnostics of the rejected die states. As you know, many deceptive fakes are made from transfer dies. Keeping a record of the marks on suspicious coins is one tool in authentication. BTW, NGC, and I'm sure PCGS and ICG have such photo files.
The Goldberg coin is genuine. Otherwise we are all in BIG TROUBLE
Nice work, Zot. It appears to be the right reverse but the obverse is different from Bob's. So it's a different die pair, FWIW. But it does prove that the '73 reverse was indeed used in '74.
Lance.
The obverse needs to be different as it is dated 1874. The real fun will be to match the obverse of the Goldberg coin with another CC reverse used after the reverse die from '73 broke completely.
Originally posted by: Insider2 The obverse needs to be different as it is dated 1874. The real fun will be to match the obverse of the Goldberg coin with another CC reverse used after the reverse die from '73 broke completely.
I believe it was concluded that the chopmarked coin in the original post was also dated 1874, so it does't need to be different
This would suggest that this was one sturdy reverse die that was used with at least 3 obverse dies (1873, and 2 dies dated 1874). Surely the Goldberg coin die marriage has to be its last hurrah?
Fun to contribute to mysteries like this. I don't think I'll have anything more to say now, but will observe with interest
Minelab: GPX 5000, Excalibur II, Explorer SE. White's: MXT, PI Pro
Nice work, Zot. It appears to be the right reverse but the obverse is different from Bob's. So it's a different die pair, FWIW. But it does prove that the '73 reverse was indeed used in '74.
Lance.
The obverse needs to be different as it is dated 1874. The real fun will be to match the obverse of the Goldberg coin with another CC reverse used after the reverse die from '73 broke completely.
The point is the '73 reverse is now paired with two different '74 obverses. Bob's T$ we've been discussing is not the same die marriage as the Goldberg coin.
The obverse needs to be different as it is dated 1874. The real fun will be to match the obverse of the Goldberg coin with another CC reverse used after the reverse die from '73 broke completely.
This would suggest that this was one sturdy reverse die that was used with at least 3 obverse dies (1873, and 2 dies dated 1874). Surely the Goldberg coin die marriage has to be its last hurrah?
Not quite. So far the "slash D" rev. was used with (need to check further) at least one 1873 obverse and at least one (need to check further) 1874 obverse. I'll get back if I have some info on this BUT REMEMBER, as of now, I had no record of this reverse die used in "74. Anyone here can get on the Internet and match that reverse with 1874 obverses long befor I get around to it.
Quick search: The "slash D" reverse was paired with the 1873 misplaced date obverse. This obverse was also paired with a different CC reverse.
This reverse was definitely used in 1873. The diagnostics described by Insider2 match at least one 1873 dated coin that I found photographed.
What's left of the date on the obverse sure looks like 1874 but there's a small chance that it isn't.
Is the 1874CC with this reverse really previously unreported? Do we have a new rare variety? Do any collectors of these collect by die varieties and would they care?
I'm not an expert in Trade Dollars but I'm good enough to recognize diagnostic die scratches.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
The point is the '73 reverse is now paired with two different '74 obverses. Bob's T$ we've been discussing is not the same die marriage as the Goldberg coin.
This reverse was definitely used in 1873. The diagnostics described by Insider2 match at least one 1873 dated coin that I found photographed.
What's left of the date on the obverse sure looks like 1874 but there's a small chance that it isn't.
Is the 1874CC with this reverse really previously unreported? Do we have a new rare variety? Do any collectors of these collect by die varieties and would they care?
I'm not an expert in Trade Dollars but I'm good enough to recognize diagnostic die scratches.
The short answer is no. Not a premium and I don't know of anyone who is trying to build a set of every die marriage. Of course there are always crazies out there.
The short answer is no. Not a premium and I don't know of anyone who is trying to build a set of every die marriage. Of course there are always crazies out there.
Yeah, good point! Like all the crazy Large cent collectors in EAC, Liberty Seated collectors in LSCC, Morgan dollar collectors of VAM's, and Bust Nut Club crazies! Next thing you know, some crazies will start to collect Trade dollars...but first they'll need a book.
Well, I never thought this thread would generate such debate and interest. It certainly does appear that this T$ is a 74-CC w/rev 73-CC. The questions that remains is its rarity and whether or not it's worth submitting. I never thought it would come this far.
Well, I never thought this thread would generate such debate and interest. It certainly does appear that this T$ is a 74-CC w/rev 73-CC. The questions that remains is its rarity and whether or not it's worth submitting. I never thought it would come this far.
Cheers
Bob
IMO, I would not submit it as it is too banged up. Save the money and look for a better example of this die marriage (with the rest of us crazies) before the "word" get's out
This is not even close...it is some people have stated a 1874 coin. The serif on the bottom of the "4" is clear from the image. Also stated in the several of the posts. And yes, I would put several of the respondents in the "expert" category. I have no idea what Ex-Pert is?
Sorry guys....finally read the entire post (my fault).
FWIW: There are at least 3 CC dies the were reused in 74 that were initially used in 73. They must have been frugal during these days?! In 1874, the number of CC reverses exploded! Whereas, 5 or 6 were used in 73, I see that (I don't have my notes) but at least 10+ were used in 74. The number might be larger, I just don't know.
Comments
This reverse die HAS BEEN RECORDED on 1873-CC T$ sent out by at least two TPGS's as "Questionable Authenticity" or "No Decision." Additionally, This reverse was unknown to me until the late 80's. Which means nothing as plenty have been certified genuine since then.
Recorded where? I'd be surprised if this was true, although the TPG tend to play it safe and sometimes get it wrong. Can you provide more details?
NGC and ICG that I have seen. Additionally, I have personally collected information on Trade dollar varieties and counterfeits for forty years condensed into a 15" diagnostic file containing records for each date, mint, hub, die marriage,and die state that I have encountered. I also have at least a thousand photo negatives, photographs, photo copies, and digital micrographs of these coins.
You young fellas have it easy with the wealth of photo's on the Internet to research!
PS: I STILL DO NOT consider myself an "expert" on this series. I'm always learning. Case in point: The 1874-CC Trade dollar here with the "hit" in the "D."
This reverse die HAS BEEN RECORDED on 1873-CC T$ sent out by at least two TPGS's as "Questionable Authenticity" or "No Decision." Additionally, This reverse was unknown to me until the late 80's. Which means nothing as plenty have been certified genuine since then.
Recorded where? I'd be surprised if this was true, although the TPG tend to play it safe and sometimes get it wrong. Can you provide more details?
NGC and ICG that I have seen. Additionally, I have personally collected information on Trade dollar varieties and counterfeits for forty years condensed into a 15" diagnostic file containing records for each date, mint, hub, die marriage,and die state that I have encountered. I also have at least a thousand photo negatives, photographs, photo copies, and digital micrographs of these coins.
You young fellas have it easy with the wealth of photo's on the Internet to research!
PS: I STILL DO NOT consider myself an "expert" on this series. I'm always learning. Case in point: The 1874-CC Trade dollar here with the "hit" in the "D" that stealer authenticated.
Wow, really? Do you have pictures of the coins that were rejected by NGC and ICG? This is really interesting to me. The OP coin and the matching Goldberg coin both look authentic to me.
I'm just a random guy who doesn't know anything about trade dollars, but I found an 1874-CC that looks like it has the same diagnostic on the D on the reverse.
It also has a bunch of cracks on the reverse, so perhaps this would be towards the end of life of the reverse die?
it's in Goldberg auction 62, lot 1550. Graded PCGS genuine.
That settles it...A new variety for me. THANKS
Lance.
stealer: BTW insider, I was just busting your balls yesterday, I learned something - I didn't know that there was such a reverse diagnostic. I don't know anything about whether or not it was used in 74.
I deserved it! I hate to post misinformation and I assure you that I did not sleep very well last night thinking about missing an obvious "4." After a few more weeks, I hope to forget that "monkey" on my back.
Busting balls is good. I've been banned once for asking several poster's to back up their info in a sarcastic way. It's easy to post opinions and I have found a lot of ignorance posted (such as my comments above) on the websites I belong to.
And I learned something too - a new die marriage to research thanks to Zot.
OriginalDan: Wow, really? Do you have pictures of the coins that were rejected by NGC and ICG? This is really interesting to me. The OP coin and the matching Goldberg coin both look authentic to me.
Yes. Photos and diagnostics of the rejected die states. As you know, many deceptive fakes are made from transfer dies. Keeping a record of the marks on suspicious coins is one tool in authentication. BTW, NGC, and I'm sure PCGS and ICG have such photo files.
The Goldberg coin is genuine. Otherwise we are all in BIG TROUBLE
Nice work, Zot. It appears to be the right reverse but the obverse is different from Bob's. So it's a different die pair, FWIW. But it does prove that the '73 reverse was indeed used in '74.
Lance.
The obverse needs to be different as it is dated 1874. The real fun will be to match the obverse of the Goldberg coin with another CC reverse used after the reverse die from '73 broke completely.
The obverse needs to be different as it is dated 1874. The real fun will be to match the obverse of the Goldberg coin with another CC reverse used after the reverse die from '73 broke completely.
I believe it was concluded that the chopmarked coin in the original post was also dated 1874, so it does't need to be different
This would suggest that this was one sturdy reverse die that was used with at least 3 obverse dies (1873, and 2 dies dated 1874). Surely the Goldberg coin die marriage has to be its last hurrah?
Fun to contribute to mysteries like this. I don't think I'll have anything more to say now, but will observe with interest
Nice work, Zot. It appears to be the right reverse but the obverse is different from Bob's. So it's a different die pair, FWIW. But it does prove that the '73 reverse was indeed used in '74.
Lance.
The obverse needs to be different as it is dated 1874. The real fun will be to match the obverse of the Goldberg coin with another CC reverse used after the reverse die from '73 broke completely.
The point is the '73 reverse is now paired with two different '74 obverses. Bob's T$ we've been discussing is not the same die marriage as the Goldberg coin.
Lance.
The obverse needs to be different as it is dated 1874. The real fun will be to match the obverse of the Goldberg coin with another CC reverse used after the reverse die from '73 broke completely.
This would suggest that this was one sturdy reverse die that was used with at least 3 obverse dies (1873, and 2 dies dated 1874). Surely the Goldberg coin die marriage has to be its last hurrah?
Not quite. So far the "slash D" rev. was used with (need to check further) at least one 1873 obverse and at least one (need to check further) 1874 obverse. I'll get back if I have some info on this BUT REMEMBER, as of now, I had no record of this reverse die used in "74. Anyone here can get on the Internet and match that reverse with 1874 obverses long befor I get around to it.
Quick search: The "slash D" reverse was paired with the 1873 misplaced date obverse. This obverse was also paired with a different CC reverse.
What's left of the date on the obverse sure looks like 1874 but there's a small chance that it isn't.
Is the 1874CC with this reverse really previously unreported? Do we have a new rare variety? Do any collectors of these collect by die varieties and would they care?
I'm not an expert in Trade Dollars but I'm good enough to recognize diagnostic die scratches.
]
The point is the '73 reverse is now paired with two different '74 obverses. Bob's T$ we've been discussing is not the same die marriage as the Goldberg coin.
Lance.
I see said the blind man...date placement.
This reverse was definitely used in 1873. The diagnostics described by Insider2 match at least one 1873 dated coin that I found photographed.
What's left of the date on the obverse sure looks like 1874 but there's a small chance that it isn't.
Is the 1874CC with this reverse really previously unreported? Do we have a new rare variety? Do any collectors of these collect by die varieties and would they care?
I'm not an expert in Trade Dollars but I'm good enough to recognize diagnostic die scratches.
The short answer is no. Not a premium and I don't know of anyone who is trying to build a set of every die marriage. Of course there are always crazies out there.
The short answer is no. Not a premium and I don't know of anyone who is trying to build a set of every die marriage. Of course there are always crazies out there.
Yeah, good point! Like all the crazy Large cent collectors in EAC, Liberty Seated collectors in LSCC, Morgan dollar collectors of VAM's, and Bust Nut Club crazies! Next thing you know, some crazies will start to collect Trade dollars...but first they'll need a book.
Cheers
Bob
Well, I never thought this thread would generate such debate and interest. It certainly does appear that this T$ is a 74-CC w/rev 73-CC. The questions that remains is its rarity and whether or not it's worth submitting. I never thought it would come this far.
Cheers
Bob
IMO, I would not submit it as it is too banged up. Save the money and look for a better example of this die marriage (with the rest of us crazies) before the "word" get's out
keoj
FWIW: There are at least 3 CC dies the were reused in 74 that were initially used in 73. They must have been frugal during these days?! In 1874, the number of CC reverses exploded! Whereas, 5 or 6 were used in 73, I see that (I don't have my notes) but at least 10+ were used in 74. The number might be larger, I just don't know.
keoj