1849 H10C - Am I wanting to see the overdate? NGC "Specialist" does not... (Brief reply from NGC)

oih82w8

I was dropping off a coin (1849 H10C) to the NGC table for variety attribution while I was at Denver for the ANA World's Fair of Money. The representative asked me if I wanted same day service or have it mailed back to me. Without asking, he mentioned that it would cost less to have it done "on-site" versus having it mailed back. I informed him that I was leaving Friday morning and could he tell me when it would be ready tomorrow. He stepped aside to ask one of the other personnel, who apparently is a "variety specialist" he asked what variety I was having verified, I told him it was a FS-302. He looked at it briefly under magnification and said that he did not see it. I mentioned that the pick-up point was the diagonal portion and upright of the 4 was very pronounced in addition with the overdate 9. He moved to a closer light source and shook his head and said that it is barely there and not to waste my time and money.

I had some images taken by blucc of this coin and looked at them once I got to my room and...it is there...or am I seeing things and I want to see it?

Thank you for your interest and comments.

1849/48 H10C FS-302 Variety Diagnostics

Breen describes this die as 9/8/6, but the six is not visible. The exact nature of this repunched date is not certain, but it has traditionally been described as 9 over 8. The diagonal stroke of the 4 is distinctly doubled, too.

https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-varieties/details.aspx?coinid=4107&

CaptHenway

Definitely one of the 1849/46 dies but a late die state.

roadrunner

So many of the 1849's have other digits under there that it's possibly the norm. I never looked for any of the 1849 varieties. I agree with CaptHenway though. The 1848 Large Date 1/2 dime always intrigued me.

Voyageur

Agree with CaptHenway on the LDS and vote for FS-302. Looking at my FS-301, the diagnostics are substantially different. Unfortunately I do not have an image to post. Believe your attribution is correct ~ sometimes the TPG "variety specialists" are not all that special. Wish I could take pictures like Todd !

yosclimber

From a previous thread, here are images of both sides of your coin:

Your coin is a V-6.
The obverse is a later die state of the same obverse die that struck the V-2.
This obverse die is also called FS-302. (The FS designation ignores the two different reverses, I believe).

Your coin is attributed as V-6 because:
The obverse has the correct date position and raised bumps on 849 in this later die state with the field underdigits very faint.
The reverse distinguises V-6 from V-2.
V-2 reverse has a large network of cracks (UN, ST, ME).
V-6 reverse has a primary crack at the middle of the top of R.

You can read more about all the 1849 die varieties in my photo study:
https://web.stanford.edu/~clint/hdag/1849_half_dime_guide.pdf

Or see the original source on V-2 and V-6 by CaptHenway in Gobrecht Journal #33 (1985).
https://archive.org/stream/gobrechtjournalfn033libe#page/2/mode/2up

V-6 is scarcer than V-2 (10 examples vs. 32 in my study), if that helps.
Your coin is the 3rd finest known V-6 (of the coins which have appeared at major auctions since 2010); its auction history is listed in my PDF.

Here are high resolution photos of the finest known V-6, when it sold in December 2009:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half-dimes/1849-h10c-ms67-and-9733-ngc/a/1132-333.s
(It is incorrectly attributed as V-2, but at least they attributed the obverse correctly, and theorized that it was an early state of the V-2 reverse).

oih82w8

Thanks yosclimber for the redirect, I thought that I posted something on it earlier.

I sent NGC Customer Service an email expressing my infuriation about being dismissed on this coins attribution.

yosclimber

Variety attribution for the 1849 by third party graders is a mess, partly because of conflicting articles by half dime experts in the past, when they were debating about the nature of the underdigits.
My PDF linked above could help solve this mess, but it could use some validation by independent half dime experts.

I feel the best solution is to attribute the V- number on the label, rather than the FS- which ignores the reverse, or the 9/6, 9/8, etc. which are used differently by PCGS and NGC!

For those collectors who are interested in obtaining examples of dramatic overdates, they will probably be looking for early die states of the V-2 and V-4, with the underdigits clearly visibly in the fields. In particular, the field right of the 9.
For this reason, the NGC Variety Specialist's comments were reasonable (though I can see how they could be infuriating).

oih82w8

I wish that I would have thought of showing the "variety specialist" Todd's images of the coin, may be he would have seen it then.

Insider2

AFAIK, there is only one "variety specialist" behind the NGC table at major shows and that is David Lange. Looking at coins with a hand lens under show lighting is challenging. Rather than be upset, send the coin in on normal service with the images above. The LDS is difficult without seeing some before.

oih82w8

Thanks Insider2, I am going to just that, with the images included.

oih82w8

I just received a response from NGC;

"It was determined that the variety was just too weak to note"

Is this saying that it is there, just weak, in other words "late die state"?

I still say hogwash. It may be time to "reach out and touch someone".

Voyageur

Perhaps those NGC variety specialists are not aware of the term "late die state". After all, it is a rather difficult numismatic concept to understand.

coindeuce

I would have submitted it to PCGS initially, with a request for the V-6 attribution. I believe that Ryan Moretti is much more proactive in assuring minor variety designations.

oih82w8

@coindeuce said:
I would have submitted it to PCGS initially, with a request for the V-6 attribution. I believe that Ryan Moretti is much more proactive in assuring minor variety designations.

I did that initially with a crossover order with a minimum grade of MS64...it did not cross. I then figured send it ATS to keep the grade and have the variety attributed. Some forum members suggested to crack it and send it to PCGS and see where it goes from there. I am reluctant to crack it, thinking that it may come back in a details holder. It is just a fear of mine, but I may wind up doing just that. MS63 vs. MS64 is quite a jump (1200 vs. 1950) in the PCGS Price guide (just a reference), I figured it was worth the chance to cross it at MS64.

coindeuce

IMHO, the level of toning may be what kept PCGS from crossing at grade. They seem to have a bug about crossing moderately toned silver coins at grade. Sometimes it just takes persistence to get the desired result.

Insider2

Obviously, your coin is what it is. I prefer to believe the "expert" at the show could not see the overdate as even the image above would be hard w/o the EDS. Their response was a CYA but who knows for sure..

The TPGS's walk a line. LDS coins are often not WORTH AS MUCH as EDS coins. By attributing it for what it is will put an unrealistic value on the coin (in their opinion). AFAIK, the only TPGS to do what CONECA does early, middle, late die states is ANACS.

Another example of this that I just learned about recently is the way the 1858/7 FE 1c are now treated. You need the EDS or no dice!

DIMEMAN

They need to have people there that know the varieties!! And know what they are doing!!

Insider2

@DIMEMAN said: "They need to have people there that know the varieties!! And know what they are doing!!"

READ MY POST. Some TPGS don't do all the varieties. Furthermore any YN I've taught is capable of looking up virtually any variety you can throw at them on the Internet or in a reference book. The folks doing the variety tier are not YN's. Get my point?

The coin is a valid OD; however, unless it was sent to ICG or ANACS where the graders routinely attribute coins like this FOR FREE, I'll guarantee there is a 98% chance it would go out as a normal coin at the other services UNLESS it was input as an OD on the grading screen.

Insider2

PS All I saw on the first image (MAGNIFIED FAR GRATER than in a grading room) were some lumps on the tops of the numerals. With out checking what they were from (second image) I would not have "seen" the overdate if I were behind the grading table. And at one time I actively collected half dimes (way before the Internet and reference books).

DIMEMAN

Given the coin and the book and a 16 power loop I believe I could attribute any variety known.

yosclimber

@DIMEMAN said:
Given the coin and the book and a 16 power loop I believe I could attribute any variety known.

Given this coin and my PDF and a 16 power loop, I agree you would attribute this as a V-6.

Given this coin and some other book, I'm much less sure. Not with the Valentine or Blythe books.
Maybe with the Cherrypicker's Guide, though. (I don't have a copy to evaluate this).

In general, there will be ambiguous coins, which have sufficient toning or wear to obscure tiny key details for some varieties.
I wasn't able to attribute all the 1849 images I downloaded for this reason.
My chances would have been better with the coin in hand and a 16 power loupe, though!

DIMEMAN

@yosclimber said:

@DIMEMAN said:
Given the coin and the book and a 16 power loop I believe I could attribute any variety known.

Given this coin and my PDF and a 16 power loop, I agree you would attribute this as a V-6.

Given this coin and some other book, I'm much less sure. Not with the Valentine or Blythe books.
Maybe with the Cherrypicker's Guide, though. (I don't have a copy to evaluate this).

In general, there will be ambiguous coins, which have sufficient toning or wear to obscure tiny key details for some varieties.
I wasn't able to attribute all the 1849 images I downloaded for this reason.
My chances would have been better with the coin in hand and a 16 power loupe, though!

I agree that I would have to have the correct documentation to do the job right. Would be fun....wouldn't it.

Raybo

I kinda see the OD in OIH's images but it looks like a tough call to me (but I DO see it).
Maybe ANACS? I really like ANACS for their.........?

cameonut2011

@oih82w8 said:
I just received a response from NGC;

"It was determined that the variety was just too weak to note"

Is this saying that it is there, just weak, in other words "late die state"?

I still say hogwash. It may be time to "reach out and touch someone".

How hard would it be to include the words "late die state" on the label? It isn't like NGC guarantees variety attributions - It does not.

kevinj

Interesting
If V-6 is an later die state of V-2, comparing the two photos above, you see remnants on top of the lower inside of the ball of the 9, which would have been deeper than the depth of the 9 on the working die.
The digits of the on the V-6 appear shallower than the V-2. If the Engraver polished the face of the working die down to remove remnants of the overdate, then this is why we do not see the shallow remnants of the extra 6, but see remnants of the 6 on top of the 9.

I have seen late die states of V-2 that had remnants of the 6 inside the 9, and nothing below or to the right of the 9.

There is absolutely no such 1849/8 overdate, there are three 1849/6 overdates and one 1848/6 overdate.
These left over 1846 half dime working dies came from Philadelphia, and not from New Orleans as suggested by Breen.

Kevin

In 2014, I wrote the Authoritative Reference on the Liberty Seated Half Dimes

As part of this, I did a full analysis of the overdates, including overlays and very detailed micro photos

There is one 1848/6 HD overdate

1848/6 - OVD-001 - V-7a - The bottom of a 6 protrudes from the bottom left of the second 8, curves, and extends upward through the right side of the serif of the 4 then back to the top of the 8 right below the die gouge. The top loop of the 6 is seen inside the top of the 8. The bottom loop of the 6 is seen inside the lower loop of the 8.
Repunching of the 4 is seen to the left of the base, lower bar, center left side of the triangle, and serif. The right serif of the repunched 4 is larger than that used on the 4 for the 1848 date punch.

There are three 1949/6 overdates

1949/6 - OVD-001 - V-4, V-5, Breen 3051 - The top right of a 6 is seen protruding from the top right of the 9. The lower right loop of the 6 is seen protruding from the lower half left side of the 9. The left center of the 6 is seen connecting the lower ball and middle of the 9. The upper left side of the 6 is seen on the inside of the left side of the upper loop. The metal above the middle of the 9 is part of the center crossbar of the 6. In later die states, the top right of the 6 is not seen to the right of the 9 (paired with LDS reverse).
Repunched 4 seen below the base, to the right on the base, to the right of the serif, above the middle, and about the top. This is either a triple punched 4 or the remnants of a different sized 4. The 4 on the 1846 date punch has a larger serif.

1849/6 - OVD-002 - V-2, Breen 3052 - Early die state - The top left of the 6 is seen curving through the top loop of the 9. The center left of the 6 extends from the knob to the center of the 9. The top of the lower loop of the 6 extends over the middle of the 9. The lower loop of the 6 extends from the right middle of the 9 to the bottom center of the 9.
Late die states, no part of the 6 is seen on the right or below the 9.
Repunched Date: 1849/84
Repunched 8 west seen to right of the top of the 8.
Repunched 4 west seen to the right of the 4 and through the triangle. Repunching on these digits not seen on late die states.

1849/6 - OVD-003 - V-1 - Early die state - The top left of the 6 is seen curving through the top loop of the 9. The center left of the 6 extends from the knob to the center of the 9. The lower loop of the 6 extends from the right middle of the 9 to the bottom, slightly to the right of the center of the 9.
Late die states, only small remnants of the 6 is seen on the right or below the 9.
Repunched Date: 1849/84
Repunched 8 west seen to right of the top of the 8.
Repunched 4 west seen to the right of the 4 and through the triangle. Repunching on these digits not seen on late die states.

There is no 1849/8, the overlays absolutely prove this

Kove

@cameonut2011 said:

@oih82w8 said:
I just received a response from NGC;

"It was determined that the variety was just too weak to note"

Is this saying that it is there, just weak, in other words "late die state"?

I still say hogwash. It may be time to "reach out and touch someone".

How hard would it be to include the words "late die state" on the label? It isn't like NGC guarantees variety attributions - It does not.

Maybe a "late die state" notation is a good compromise...while the variety is technically there, it's very weak in the OP photo.

When I buy an overdate or RPM, I want to SEE the originally punched date or mintmark, not just a hint or a whiff of something that was there 2,000 coins ago.

In this case, the hint of the prior numerals is so weak that it would be a disappointment to buy this coin as a normal FS-302. But, it is there...

messydesk

@oih82w8 said:
I just received a response from NGC;

"It was determined that the variety was just too weak to note"

Is this saying that it is there, just weak, in other words "late die state"?

I still say hogwash. It may be time to "reach out and touch someone".

The die is the die. If NGC chose not to note the variety since it's a weak late die stage, that's their prerogative, but it doesn't change what it is. There are alternatives to having TPGs attribute your coins.

yosclimber

@kevinj said:
...
These left over 1846 half dime working dies came from Philadelphia, and not from New Orleans as suggested by Breen.

Thanks for the correction. Is this info from mint records?

kevinj

@yosclimber said:

@kevinj said:
...
These left over 1846 half dime working dies came from Philadelphia, and not from New Orleans as suggested by Breen.

Thanks for the correction. Is this info from mint records?

Yes, from the Mint records, it shows how many for each denomination, dies received for each year, used, destroyed, and held over (reverses). When I get home tonight, will upload those figures for the 1846 half dimes.

The entire list is included in the back of my half dime book. These records came from the Philadelphia National Archives, Record 11 I believe, which are the branch mint records. If I remember right, it showed from 1840 through 1853 for New Orleans.

Kevin

stash

The last coin show I was at, Anacs was charging 7 dollars extra for varieties .
Even if you knew what variety it was .

stash

@stash said:
The last coin show I was at, Anacs was charging 7 dollars extra for varieties .
Even if you knew what variety it was .

Now it's 12 bucks .
http://www.anacs.com/PDFFiles/submissionform.pdf

Insider2

@stash said:

@stash said:
The last coin show I was at, Anacs was charging 7 dollars extra for varieties .
Even if you knew what variety it was .

Now it's 12 bucks .
http://www.anacs.com/PDFFiles/submissionform.pdf

LOL, submissions down ? = lower general grading fees to $8 special and raise the attribution fee. Gotta pay the light bills. I should hate to see them close their doors.

stash

@Insider2 said:

@stash said:

@stash said:
The last coin show I was at, Anacs was charging 7 dollars extra for varieties .
Even if you knew what variety it was .

Now it's 12 bucks .
http://www.anacs.com/PDFFiles/submissionform.pdf

LOL, submissions down ? = lower general grading fees to $8 special and raise the attribution fee. Gotta pay the light bills. I should hate to see them close their doors.

their just keeping up with the Jones's ... Lol ...

Insider2

Jones's? PCGS and NGC? ICG charges only $7 for attributions and $5 for them at shows. Perhaps that company should increase their price also. Competition is usually good. Good for the customers if a price war between the TPGS ever happens; but mostly the second tier services will suffer.

kevinj

I would suggest having NGC/Dave certify as an 1849 V-6, and if possible 1849/6 Late Die State

There are clear remnants of the 6 on top of the 9 and the date is in the same position of the V-2.
I would probably include letters from those in the hobby who are experts on the half dimes,
I am sure this would carry credibility in your request.

As CP shows a photo of a clear overdate, and the objective IMO in attributing a variety from a
reference, is to verify/assert it is what they are listing on the slab. Even though technically it
is the same obverse, and therefore the same die variety, IMO, it might be perceived as deceptive
if they included. If as a collector, I purchased this sight unseen, I would question their choice
to list this as the CP variety when the overdate in CP is not reflective on the coin.......

Kevin

stash

@Insider2 said:
Jones's? PCGS and NGC? ICG charges only $7 for attributions and $5 for them at shows.

Yes, but Anacs does all varieties .
Pcgs & Ngc, only do cherrypicker numbers ..
Don't know what Icg does ...

kevinj

The following is from the National Archives, Record 104, Register of Dies for the Philadelphia and Branch Mints, 1839 through 1854. These totals are for the New Orleans Mint

Half Dimes Obverse Reverse
1846 Delivered 1 1
1846 Total 1 11
1846 Defaced 1 0
1846 Reserved 0 11

There could not have been four 1846 obverses used for 1848 and 1849 overdates
There was only one 1846 obverse delivered to New Orleans in 1846, and that was defaced

Kevin

Insider2

@stash said:

@Insider2 said:
Jones's? PCGS and NGC? ICG charges only $7 for attributions and $5 for them at shows.

Yes, but Anacs does all varieties .
Pcgs & Ngc, only do cherrypicker numbers ..
Don't know what Icg does ...

ICG does all the varieties. They even will do it for free if it is something good like a TOP 100 Vam that the submitter didn't know he had. It's called good customer service. An informed collector/dealer makes the best customer for all the TPGS's.

Look to the future. In 2000 one of the big two located in NJ sent out body bags and only did varieties listed in the Red Book or considered "important" by their head of research. Now, they have expanded greatly and even slab problem coins. In the future, they will need to do all varieties in order to compete.

CaptHenway

@kevinj said:
The following is from the National Archives, Record 104, Register of Dies for the Philadelphia and Branch Mints, 1839 through 1854. These totals are for the New Orleans Mint

Half Dimes Obverse Reverse
1846 Delivered 1 1
1846 Total 1 11
1846 Defaced 1 0
1846 Reserved 0 11

There could not have been four 1846 obverses used for 1848 and 1849 overdates
There was only one 1846 obverse delivered to New Orleans in 1846, and that was defaced

Kevin

Well documented.

Just to play devil's advocate, might additional 1846 obverses have been prepared for New Orleans but never shipped, and hence never "delivered," but inventoried in the Philadelphia Mint die shop as "New Orleans dies" that were then later overdated and used? I know that some later branch mint dies were coded on the side according to the Mint they were intended for. Was this done in the 1840's?

TD

kevinj

Well documented.

Just to play devil's advocate, might additional 1846 obverses have been prepared for New Orleans but never shipped, and hence never "delivered," but inventoried in the Philadelphia Mint die shop as "New Orleans dies" that were then later overdated and used? I know that some later branch mint dies were coded on the side according to the Mint they were intended for. Was this done in the 1840's?

TD

Tom,

Of course anything is possible, it is possible that Phila struck more dies intended for New Orleans and
not sent. But remember, NO did not strike any half dimes at the New Orleans Mint in 1845, 46, or 47
Most likely they only sent one obverse die to New Orleans in 1846 for the half dime just in case.

On the coding of working dies, I believe this was started in 1885, when branch mints were instructed
to return ALL working dies at the end of each year. Barber speaks of this being necessary when the
branch mints were using the old 1878 Dollar dies up through 1880.....

Breen states that the HD overdates were created from 1846 HD working dies returned from the NO Mint, which of course is impossible.

Actually in the early New Orleans Mint, the working dies were sent soft, and also had to be run through the lathe to finish. I documented all of this in the HD and also the 1838-O half dollar books. One of the reasons was that Mint Director Patterson was extremely paranoid that the dies would be stolen in transit and used to create counterfeits. If the NO Superintendent did not immediately ack they received, they were chastised by Patterson

Kevin