Update on my emails to others regarding 1849 Half Dime Overdates -- We have a verdict!

CaptHenway

Summary of comments from my e-mail tree to Bill Fivaz, Q. David Bowers, Dennis Tucker, J.T. Stanton, and Larry Briggs:

I began with the following email to Bill Fivaz and Q. David Bowers:

“Hello Bill, Dave.

How is progress going on the latest Cherry Pickers Guide, Part Two? Has it been put to bed yet?

I ask because there has been a movement among the grading services to no longer recognize the so-called 1849/8 half dime, and to recognize all of the overdated dies as 1849/6 varieties. The Redbook itself no longer recognizes the 1849/8.

I can get policy statements from the three major TPG's if you wish, or you can ask them directly.

Please let me know where the CPG stands on this. Thanks.

Tom”

Bowers responded:

“To me, and I am not an expert, 1849/6 would seem to be correct. … More likely, in was an UNUSED 1846 die that was overdated. I do not see any connection with 1848.”

Bowers copied his response to Dennis Tucker, who basically said that he had no dog in the race and would go along with “…whatever editorial decision comes around.” Tucker also copied his reply to J.T. Stanton.

---

Stanton replied:

“To all,

I still believe the underlying digit looks as much or more like an 8 that an inverted 6. It’s a perfect match for the 8 in the date. Both FS-301 and 302. Additionally, it seems much more plausible the digit is an 8 rather than an inverted 6. It just doesn’t make a lot of common sense to have a 6 digit punch that handy in 1849, 3 years later.

Just my opinion.”

To this I responded:
“
“JT,

It is recorded somewhere in the literature that some 1846 half dime obverses were returned to the Philadelphia Mint from New Orleans. It is presumed that these are the host dies of the 1849/6 dies. Let me see if I can find that reference.

Tom”

To my response JT responded:

“Thanks for the note and the info! Your word is good enough for me, and that does make sense to me.”

I then asked him if this meant that he was willing to change the listing from 1849/8 to 1849/6, and he responded:

“I’m reluctant to say definitively, but I am open minded. Myself, I’d prefer to say many specialists believe the underlying digit to be a 6, (and explain why, which is interesting and plausible) while some others feel it is an 8. The fact is, whatever it is, it’s interesting and collectable!

I replied with the following sent to both Stantaon and Fivaz:

“JT and Bill,

There is a long thread in the Collectors Universe forums about this issue:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/994322/ok-half-dime-variety-experts-update-2-15/p1

It has some great images.

The problem is that you are the Pros from Dover, and the TPG's have long felt compelled to put what you guys say on their labels, so that if you call one particular die an 1849/8 they have to call it an 1849/8, even if the owner of the variety believes it to be an 1849/6. It is my opinion that the majority of collectors now call all 1849 overdate dies an 1849/6, as the Redbook now does. For example, the Redbook now calls the V-2 die a "9 Over Widely Placed 6."

That said, I imply from the thread that NGC no longer recognizes the 9/8. I need to investigate that further.

Please consider calling all 1849 overdate dies as 9/6 with whatever qualifications you consider appropriate to the comments. You might even give it(them) the next available FS number(s) as a 9/6, and state "Formerly listed as FS-xxx as 9/8" or whatever. You could add "FS-xxx no longer recognized" or whatever.

I am trying to get images of that killer Very Early Die State V-2 that I sold Mr. HalfDimeMan. It is VERY convincing as an 1849/6.

Tom”

To this Stanton replied:

“Bill & Tom,

I’m good either way. Identify it as an overdate with the FS number, or call it a 9/6, or a 9/8. If most of the specialists in the series feel it’s a 9/6, I’m okay with that. It doesn’t eat any icing off my cake either way. But I do think everyone using the same terminology would be a benefit to the hobby.

Just my 2.5 cents worth (inflation here).”

Later, after I sent Stanton the images that were in the thread, he summed his feelings up as:

“Tom, I greatly appreciate the time you spent to locate the images. As stated earlier, I must defer to those of you more knowledgeable with the series, especially those are who specialists in the field. I totally agree that we should have the terminology the same or similar to the specialists, if for no other reason than to reduce question and for uniformity within the hobby.

The TPGs rely on the CPG and other references for correct attributions. If we are more in line with other specialists, the entire variety hobby will be better off with fewer questions, and more reliable attributions from the TPGs. As Bill stated, it really doesn’t matter what the underlying digit might be, as it’s a really nice variety either way. Yes, the under digit does matter, but the fact it’s a highly visible variety makes is a little less important.

So, if the consensus is to call it a 49/6, I’m in agreement.”

  To which Bowers replied:  “That sounds ideal to me.”

I then asked Stanton again if he was willing to change the listings to 1849/6, and he replied:

“I’m willing. If’n it’ll keep everyone happy, and at least in the ballpark.”

--
Stanton copied this reply to Larry Briggs, who replied:

“to any & all. years ago I was invited to a private review of the norweb coins along with @ 8-9 other prominent coin dealers. I flew to new england & spent the better part of a week viewing lot by lot & for once not hurried to take any notes if I so desired. I took a lot of notes! & some were on the gem bu ‘49/so called 6 & 8 half dimes. imho I have ALWAYS felt the 9/6 was actually 9/8 & vice versa! then you can throw in the die states & you have one & the same appearing different! also in breen-if you look carefully @ his 3 diff. overdate photos- he actually shows 2 pics being the same BUT states in description different!! in the very early state of each overdate it appears to me the 9/6 is really the so called 9/8 & vice versa.the pics from norweb pretty well show & in my mind confirms this as well.irregardless when die states –later the underportion of the underdate fades from the right of the 9 – you then have only the remnants “ laying” on the top portion of the 9. if you’ve never seen the early die states then you start guessing at what’s really in front of you.IF red book has deleted something then they’re getting erroneous info from someone who doesn’t really know what they’re talking about in my opinion. the norweb review was 31 years ago & I was studying these overdates long before that. I think I have a better handle on/in this discussion than anyone else I know. I firmly believe I’m correct in what I’m passing along here & until someone else could prove me otherwise would stand on my findings to be correct & others not.hate to see red book doing something without real confirmation instead of just doing it.no matter what anyone wants to believe-there are 2 def. diff overdates!!regardless you have my take from @ 50 years of study on this & it can be taken any way anyone wants! larry b”

--
Somewhere in the middle of the above exchange (presented here out of order because I screwed up Bills email address in my original email, and he and I played catch up) Fivaz stated:

“Addressing the topic at hand, I might suggest the text under this variety state what everyone is saying - that there is a question as to exactly what the underlying number is, and that the variety, be it an 8, a 6 or an inverted 9, will stand on its own. I truly don't think it matters that much as to just what it is - it will be bought and sold for the specific variety which is unlike any of the others of the date.

The TPG services can label it as a 1849 Overdate with the FS number which will identify it in the book by the image.”

--

So, to sum it all up, Fivaz still believes in the 1849/8, Stanton and Bowers are willing to go along with calling them both 1849/6, and Briggs apparently believes that there is both an 1849/6 and an 1849/8.

I still firmly believe that both dies are 1849/6.

I would still like to see pictures of the 1849/6 that I sold Mr. HalfDimeMan. Perhaps that will settle the dispute.

TD

Regulated

I see 1849/6 pretty clearly, but what do I know? This is a pretty interesting illustration of the way things work in the coin business when common knowledge gets called into question.

ms70

CaptHenway, Thank you for posting this and for all your efforts in trying to have a final determination made of this variety. (And thank you to ALL who are still spending time on this). It appears this is still being debated as to what the TPG's are going to do going forward?

The opinions put forth are to be greatly respected, but the only unsettling thing is the opinion stating it doesn't matter what the underlying digit is. I believe it should matter and matter to a large degree, otherwise this debate will never come to an end. There's a lot of respected experts in on this discussion and I hope they can reach a final consensus.

Please keep us posted, particularly about what the TPG's decide to do. Clearly they're going to do something as they can't continue to certify coins of the same die marriage as two different varieties.

oih82w8

This is like "Chutes and Ladders", climb your way up to the top level, only to hit that loooong slide back to the bottom row....seemingly to me anyways...unless I read it wrong.

yosclimber

Thanks for sharing the details on your efforts, Tom.

It's great to see that Q. David Bowers is on board with 9/6 for both.
Note: of course this does not mean that V-2 and V-4 use the same obverse die - the under 6 is further right on the V-2.

It is encouraging to see that JT Stanton feels it is appropriate to use descriptions based on what the majority of Liberty Seated Half Dime experts judge.

Should we have an official poll?
A simple way to word it as a single question:
"Are both the 1849 V-2 and V-4 obverses repunched over an original 1846 die?"
Half Dime expert responses so far:
1. Yes - Stephen Crain, aka Mr. Half Dime [he is recognized as having the deepest knowledge of Half Dime die marriages]
2. Yes - Tom DeLorey [he published on the 9/6 in the Gobrecht Journal]
3. Yes - Q. David Bowers [he wrote the forward to the Valentine reprint]
4. Yes - Kevin Flynn [he published the most recent Liberty Seated Half Dime die variety book]

Larry Briggs cites his viewing of the Norweb specimens, but I would like to see what his judgement is of Mark Sheldon's overlay photo (above) of the V-4 which I feel are strong evidence for the 1846 as the under die.
Or of Kevin Flynn's similar overlay photos.
(Apologies if I misinterpreted Larry's statement. It is a little confusing where he is referring to Breen's photos.
I'd prefer labelling of V-2 and V-4 to identify the obverses, although they are also used in later die states for V-6 and V-5).

Bill Fivas' reply mentions the possibility if 9 / inverted 9, but this is ruled out by the gang punch of all 4 date digits used on Liberty Seated coins. (If the 1849 gang punch was inverted, the under digit 4 would be to the right of 1849, but the old 4 with its special thick horizontal crossbar and tall right serif is clearly under the new 4 and rightside up).
The inverted 9 theory is also ruled out by Mark Sheldon's overlay photo showing the special shape of the lower loop of the 6 in the 1846 die.

Is it possible to continue the conversations a bit, to see what their responses are to the above?

As Tom mentioned, more photos at:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/994322/ok-half-dime-variety-experts-update-2-15/p1

RogerB

The assumption seems to be that a 1/2 dime logo/punch was used....maybe not? The faint arcs to the right of "9" might be the tie breaker.

Gang punch was not fixed at 4 digits; and a weak digit (or a weak initial hammer blow) could be touched up with an individual punch.

FYI there are bunch of similar oddities among Barber dimes of the 1890s.

yosclimber

Since both the 46 under digit shapes match the 1846 die, the gang punch is not a key assumption; more like additional evidence.

ricko

Very interesting discussion. I am not sure there will be a definitive conclusion on this issue. It certainly is worth investigating. No doubt there is an overdate. I look forward to seeing more of this investigation. Cheers, RickO

CaptHenway

NGC calls both overdates 1849/6 (plus other various repunched digits):

https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/half-dimes/4734/

CaptHenway

Let me try to upload a picture of Mr. HalfDime's killer 1849/6 V-2 Very Early Die State.

CaptHenway

Here is a picture of a normal 1846 date. Note the angle of the diagonal on the 4.

CaptHenway

Here is a picture of a normal 1848 date. Note the angle of the diagonal of the 4.

CaptHenway

Look at the angle of the diagonal on the underdate 4 on Mr. HalfDime's V-2, then look at the 1846 and 1848 coins.

CaptHenway

Anybody? Class? Bueller?

oih82w8

@capthenway it looks obvious to me, but, I've been on the forum members side from the start. The images you provided are just adding further confirmation to the 9/6.

Regulated

Based upon these pictures, there's no way to argue that the coin pictured above is anything but an 1849/1846.

ms70

I hope nobody minds me doing a little photoshop for the sake of our investigation.

What I'm pointing out here..... at least in my own mind..... is the most convincing evidence that this is a 9 over a 6:

That unique flat spot on the 6 from 1846 is not seen on any other half dime bearing a 6 or an 8 in that position. Then, considering all the other evidence I can't see how it could be possibly be an 9/8.

CaptHenway

@ms70 said:
I hope nobody minds me doing a little photoshop for the sake of our investigation.

What I'm pointing out here..... at least in my own mind..... is the most convincing evidence that this is a 9 over a 6:

That unique flat spot on the 6 from 1846 is not seen on any other half dime bearing a 6 or an 8 in that position. Then, considering all the other evidence I can't see how it could be possibly be an 9/8.

And how about inside the top of the 9 where the inside curve of the underdate drops straight down, like it does on the 6, rather than curving back to the right as the inside top of an 8 does?

ms70

Yes, the inside of the upper loop of the 8 is completely curved.

CaptHenway

Want to slap a couple more arrows at that spot?

May I send your photoshopped picture(s) to the people I mentioned in the recap?

TD

ms70

Absolutely. Standby.

ms70

At the risk of getting too fancy I made a transparency of the 1846 image and placed it over the 1849 w/underdate image.

It's important to note that the photos were not at the same scale and I sized & rotated the 1849 as accurately as I could to the 1846. I would absolutely not call this exact science......I'm just looking to see how the angles & dimensions of the 1846 lined up with that of the underdate. Keep in mind the underdate is not fully struck up. Lastly, I really couldn't get a good contrast so it's not crystal clear.

It may have been easier for me to see as I could move one image over the other. That said I found that when I line up the flat area on the two 6's the 4 of the 1846 lines up perfectly with the 1849's under digit 4.

Additionally note the alignments of the 6's loops through the 9.

RogerB

Just a thought.

So far it seems to have been ignored that in this period, efforts were made to obliterate/fill the errant undertype - this was done before the more prominent digits. Thus, an unused 1846 dated die (or two, or three) had been filled, smoothed, repunched for the desired digits (a 9 or 49 or 849 or 1849 in this case), hardened, tempered and put to use.

Mechanical stress opened part of the repair. Possible resurfacing (die lapping) altered the surfaces. The results are coins showing various stages of deterioration. By this, it is suggested that the "very early die state" might actually be a late form of the die after considerable damage had occurred.

Normal metal fatigue, shifting and heat stress can result in all sorts of oddly shaped remnants.

RogerB

To be clear about operations in this period, the Coiner's Department (Peale) made all the working dies. The Engraving Department (Longacre) dated the annual hub, and made repairs to dies. The Engraver had custody of logo and digit punches.

ms70

I get what you're saying. That is an interesting perspective and food for thought when comparing.

BillJones

Here is one that has been in my collection for a number of years. The colorful toning is due to dipping abuse, not anything great.

CaptHenway

I have had discussions with other variety specialists over the years, and the consensus is that in the period when overdates were created by a Mint Engraver punching a new date into an old die (such as an 1827/6 half dollar; last U.S. example known the 1901/0-S Half Eagle), as opposed to a die being dated via two different hubs (such as the 1943/42-P nickel), it was technologically impossible to "fill" the old date in a die before punching in a new one.

(Speaking of hubs, in Longacre's day hubs were generally NOT dated, with the exception of the great silver recoinage that started in 1853, when so many dies were needed that it was cost effective to make a dated hub that would only be used for one year. A study of which hubs in this era were dated would make a fine topic for another thread.)

When a new date was punched over an old date the die metal in the date area would typically be displaced sideways into the holes formed by the original date, or into the design (look above the 9 on Bill Jones' coin) or the denticles. The displacement could vary considerably depending on the shapes of the different digits involved (such as a 7/6 vs. an 8/6) as well as how hard the die was, whether it was heat softened first and whether or not the Engraver/blacksmith had had his Wheaties that morning.

Some metal might also be displaced upwards above the level of the field between and around the digit(s) of the punch. It is uncertain whether these bulges were simply polished off of the die, or tapped flat to help displace more metal into the old date, or what. Based solely upon observation and not upon Mint records, I would say that the Engravers USUALLY made an attempt at minimizing the remains of the old date. At this they were more successful on some dies than on others.

Subsequent die wear can and did affect the appearance of the underdate. A good example is that 1827/6 half dollar I mentioned. The early die state shows the bottom of the 6 most prominently behind the 7, but the very late die state (after the field containing the bottom of the 6 had largely been worn or polished away) shows the top of the 6 re-appearing. I suspect that this was caused by the metal which had been displaced into the top of the 6 being less stable than the steel elsewhere in the die, and wearing away to reveal the 6.

Think about how the police can restore the serial number of a gun that has been filed off by using acid. The metal under where the serial number was has a different density than where no punch was applied. The same principle applies to the date restorer that we old timers used on Buffalo nickels back around 1960.

TD

yosclimber

@CaptHenway said:
Let me try to upload a picture of Mr. HalfDime's killer 1849/6 V-2 Very Early Die State.

Thanks for obtaining the image and posting it - I have been wanting to see this amazing example for years.
@MrHalfDime told part of the story about this coin in a 2005 forum post:

At an ANA summer convention several years ago, I stopped by the table of Harlan Berk, for whom Thomas Delorey works, to introduce myself and offer my comments and agreement with his articles on the 1849 half dimes. Although Harlan Berk specializes in ancient and foreign coins, Mr. Delorey smiled, reached into his case, and said "Then you would appreciate this coin". He showed me absolutely the earliest die state that I had ever seen of the 1849 V2 "1849/6", with the entire underdigit visible. It was, indesputably, a 6 - without question. He smiled again and said "Kind of puts an end to the debate, doesn't it?". I was thoroughly impressed and asked if I might take some notes on the coin. Thomas stunned me by saying "I'll do better than that; you can buy it if you'd like". I treasure that coin, and often produce it to end debate on the 1849/6 vs. 1849/8 half dimes.

RogerB

RE: "it was technologically impossible to "fill" the old date in a die before punching in a new one."

This is incorrect, as are the assumptions based on a incomplete understanding that follow. Earlier attempts did not fare well and it was often considered too difficult to bother with into the first years of the 19th century. But, over time, the engravers and staff got better at filling and smoothing. If you look at the extensive series of 1880/1879 dollar dies it is easy to see a multitude of variations. NONE of these can be created simply by mindless over punching. In fact, we don't know how many 1880/1879 dollar dies were repaired by filling, then redating - it's probable that many were so well done that they are undetectable.

The process was analogous to filling a tooth.

It's disappointing to see so much faith placed in old-time, false and incomplete beliefs.

Since reason, logic and metallurgical understand are being rejected out of hand, I leave it to the "befuddled experts" to assign some sort of half-arse explanation, rather than open-mindedly examining ALL options.

CaptHenway

@RogerB said:
RE: "it was technologically impossible to "fill" the old date in a die before punching in a new one."

This is incorrect, as are the assumptions based on a incomplete understanding that follow. Earlier attempts did not fare well and it was often considered too difficult to bother with into the first years of the 19th century. But, over time, the engravers and staff got better at filling and smoothing. If you look at the extensive series of 1880/1879 dollar dies it is easy to see a multitude of variations. NONE of these can be created simply by mindless over punching. In fact, we don't know how many 1880/1879 dollar dies were repaired by filling, then redating - it's probable that many were so well done that they are undetectable.

The process was analogous to filling a tooth.

It's disappointing to see so much faith placed in old-time, false and incomplete beliefs.

Since reason, logic and metallurgical understand are being rejected out of hand, I leave it to the "befuddled experts" to assign some sort of half-arse explanation, rather than open-mindedly examining ALL options.

One of the people I spoke with is a metallurgist.

If you can show some proof that it WAS technologically possible to weld steel to a steel die in say 1880, please provide it.

ms70

Any news Captain?

oih82w8

@CaptHenway

ms70

Bump

CaptHenway

UPDATE 5-18-18:

After I sent MS70's pictures to Fivaz, Stanton, Bowers and Briggs, Stanton and Bowers agreed with me that they are all 1849/6 overdates.

Bill Fivaz replied: "Your theory makes sense to me."

I just asked him: "For the record, does this mean that you are going to change all of the CPG listings to 1849/6?"

Bill just replied: "I expect that we will..."

Nobody ever heard back from Larry Briggs.

Nothing is official until the new CPG appears, but as far as I am concerned this means that the issue is now resolved.

ALL of the 1849 Half Dime overdates are 1849/1846 overdates, with of course variations in the remnants of the 1846.

The 1849/1848 overdate is dead.

Tom DeLorey

RogerB

Is there going to be a "remnants" sale?

MrHalfDime

It has been a long time coming, involving lots of research and the considered input of many numismatic experts, plus a great deal of persistence and patience, but credit is certainly due to Tom DeLorey, who has championed this issue over the years. His insight and knowledge of the minting and die making processes allowed this longstanding mystery to be resolved. I hope that the next issue of the CPG (and the Red Book?) will remove all reference to the 1849/8 overdates, and clarify the issue, referring only to the proper 1849/6 overdates. Future reference books and auction catalogs should take note of this important change; existing publications will continue to perpetuate the confusion, however.

Windycity

Good work Tom!!

yosclimber

Red Book is already fixed.
NGC Variety Plus is fixed.
CPG will be fixed - that is hugely important - great work, Tom!
PCGS CoinFacts, variety attribution in slabs, and registry for LS Half Dime varieties need to be fixed, too. It is all driven by the "Coin Numbers" (date/mintmark/variety IDs), so it shouldn't be too hard to do.

RogerB

I once had a cat that was "fixed," too. Does that count?

But -- it's also very nice that resources were consolidated and able to reach a consensus on the overdate(s).

CaptHenway

@yosclimber said:
Red Book is already fixed.
NGC Variety Plus is fixed.
CPG will be fixed - that is hugely important - great work, Tom!
PCGS CoinFacts, variety attribution in slabs, and registry for LS Half Dime varieties need to be fixed, too. It is all driven by the "Coin Numbers" (date/mintmark/variety IDs), so it shouldn't be too hard to do.

Who do we talk to at PCGS?

yosclimber

I am not sure exactly how the core decisions on "Coin Numbers" are done, but
@MarkStephenson posted on the February thread about 9/8,
and @DonWillis posted on the thread about variety attributions.

ms70

That is fabulous! Thank you Tom for seeing this through to conclusion! And thank you Tom, yosclimber, and everyone who not only worked toward this, but also shared their incredible knowledge and research with me and everyone else here. I think this was a successful numismatic conclusion. It's one for the numismatic history books!

oih82w8

This is bittersweet news; excellent research work! BUT...I guess the CPG has to be updated first, then PCGS will jump on the bandwagon? That will be years down the road. I suppose that a dragnet can be issued to correct all of the erroneously identified 1849/8 H10C's. Will PCGS do this at their expense? Probably not.

CaptHenway

The next CPG, which will include half dimes, is currently scheduled for release in 2020.

ms70

@oih82w8 said:
This is bittersweet news; excellent research work! BUT...I guess the CPG has to be updated first, then PCGS will jump on the bandwagon? That will be years down the road. I suppose that a dragnet can be issued to correct all of the erroneously identified 1849/8 H10C's. Will PCGS do this at their expense? Probably not.

I just looked at the pops... There's only a total of 105 1849/8 graded so I don't think it will be too much of an issue.

Interestingly there's only 56 graded 1849/6's, so the pop stands to nearly triple.

https://www.pcgs.com/pop/detail/type-3-stars-obverse-1840-1859/93/690?t=5&p=MS&pn=1

oih82w8

@ms70 said:

I just looked at the pops... There's only a total of 105 1849/8 graded so I don't think it will be too much of an issue.

Interestingly there's only 56 graded 1849/6's, so the pop stands to nearly triple.

https://www.pcgs.com/pop/detail/type-3-stars-obverse-1840-1859/93/690?t=5&p=MS&pn=1

The population could/should be designated into at least three obvious varieties. With there being at least two distinct 9/6 overdates (near and far 6), and the V-1 (184 touching the rock), there should be some distinction between (at least) these three and possibly the EDS and LDS...or are we going to be lucky just to receive the 9/6 and eliminate 9/8?

If not, I have a feeling that the values (for the sole variety) are going to tank.

ms70

@oih82w8 said:

The population could/should be designated into at least three obvious varieties. With there being at least two distinct 9/6 overdates (near and far 6), and the V-1 (184 touching the rock), there should be some distinction between (at least) these three and possibly the EDS and LDS...or are we going to be lucky just to receive the 9/6 and eliminate 9/8?

If not, I have a feeling that the values (for the sole variety) are going to tank.

It is at this time but as 49/8. You can view them by going to that link in my above post and next to the 1849/8 H10c there's a tiny box with a + in it. Click on that and it expands to show the base coin plus 2 varieties.

PCGS Coin# 4343, Base 1849/8 H10C
PCGS Coin# 145432, 1849/8 H10C Overdate FS-302 (001.55)
PCGS Coin# 38738, 1849/8 H10C RPD FS-301 (001.5)

Notice one is listed as an OVD and the other as RPD.

oih82w8

With the TrueView images here is what I have seen;

1849/8 H10C is a mishmash
1849/8 H10C Overdate FS-302 is the Far 6
1849/8 H10C RPD FS-301 is the Near 6

No mention of V-1 "184 touching the rock", which appears to be lumped in with 1849/6

Hopefully it will get straightened out using @yosclimber (Clint's) info sheet.

dbldie55

Missed this thread a month ago. Very educational and enjoyable read.

ms70

@CaptHenway said:
The next CPG, which will include half dimes, is currently scheduled for release in 2020.

Hopefully PCGS will immediately change the registry so those working on sets won't needlessly pursue 49/8 labeled examples.

DIMEMAN

The FS301 and FS302 1849 Half Dime's look like 2 completely different overdates to me. If I owned one of each and all of a sudden they were called the same coin......I would not be a happy camper.