1861 Half Dime -- Proof or MS?
Andrewlee10
Posts: 98 ✭✭✭
Are there any certain markers or characteristics to look for? I bought this as an MS coin, but the strike seems exceptional, more like a proof to me. Thoughts on what it is -- or how to determine?
Thanks
Thanks
Successful Transactions with: ryk, Valente151, dragon, GoldenEyeNumismatics, nolawyer, guitarwes, USMoneylover, catbert, crypto79, GAB, lkeigwin, nags, JJM, stman, sonoradesertrat, and 440+ eBay transactions.
0
Comments
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Thanks -- Mike
Telling diagnostics for me:
"mesa/plateau effect" is missing on date and lettering on the obverse and the denom on the reverse. Lacks sharply-defined flat tops on the lettering/numbers
Dentilation not sharp, nor rims "squared" at conjunction with fields, nor sharp and flat at top, let alone "wire" sharp. Look at obv 12:00 - 1:30 or, even more so, rev 2:00-4:30 for the most dramatic divergences from what proof of this era carry as their "markers"
People (unlike me) who are willing to get off their *sses to get their Breen book may find more date-specific markers to exclude it from proof classification, but it's the fabric of the coin that convinces me most.
The concept of a coin's fabric was first introduced by Dave Akers (see PCGS Board of Experts). Ask around; any world-class grader who studied numismatics before TPGs started knows how broad and deep his contributions to our hobby have been. Great teacher too. More Aha! moments per conversation than anyone I've every known.
Read any Pittman catalogue and walk away with your head buzzing
You have a business strike as was stated. An indicator is that the
skirt pendant falls to the far right of the "6" and the date slants a
bit low to the right.
You may want to send your coin in for a variety attribution as it
may be an 1861 1/0 overdate, judging from the looks of it.
CoinFacts has some good images for comparison.
R.I.P. Bear
Attributing any 1861 half dime can be an exercise in futility; however, as the act of attribution, by definition, requires that we compare the subject coin with previously identified die marriages for positive identification. Unfortunately, the only reference that we have for such identification is D. W. Valentine’s monograph “The United States Half Dimes”, published in 1931. In that reference, Valentine identifies a mere three (3) ‘varieties’, or die marriages, and describes them in vague and ambiguous terms, making positive identification nearly impossible. And just three die marriages for a total mintage of 3,361,000 coins is an unrealistically small number of marriages; Mint technology of that period would not allow one million coins per die, on average, strongly suggesting the existence of additional, yet-to-be-discovered or published die marriages.
[I would mention here, parenthetically, that additional and very controversial ‘varieties’ for the 1861 half dime have been identified subsequent to the publication of the Valentine reference, variously described as “1861/0”, “1861/0/1”, and “1861/0 Doubled Obverse”, all of which are erroneously referred to as “Overdates”. In fact, they are not “Overdates”, nor are they even “repunched dates”, but are simply coins struck using a defective numeral punch. Fortunately, the OP’s coin is not an example of any of these, allowing us to conveniently avoid opening this numismatic can of worms.]
Forum member Keets offered perhaps the best insight, with his comment “Shield Position might help judge its true nature but it may be a Mint State issue struck from Proof dies.” It was the practice during this period at the Mint to satisfy the warrants for Proof coins using specially produced dies with highly polished surfaces, and striking the proof coins on polished planchets. In addition, often several strikes of the press were used to bring up the details of the design on the proof coins. Then, when the necessary quantity of proof coins was produced, the same dies were then used to produce business strikes. The only significant manufacturing differences between proof coins and business strikes was the absence of polished planchets, and the use of just one striking operation of the coining press for the business strikes. Accordingly, distinguishing proof coins from business strikes, when they were both struck from the very same dies, is often difficult to distinguish.
Walter Breen, in his “Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins 1722-1977” identifies the Valentine V1 as the die marriage used to produce proof half dimes for 1861. This is confirmation of Valentine’s own identification of V1, which he describes as:
Obv. Open, well placed date.
Rev. The right end of the ribbon is clear. Proof.
[Is it any wonder that positive attribution to such imprecise descriptions is frustrating?]
Breen, however, gives a little more detailed description, where he describes the V1 Proof as follows:
“Date almost centered, skirt pendant above knob of 6, left base of 1 about over left edge of denticle.
Rev.: Right end of ribbon clear. The majority of surviving proofs are from these dies.”
Breen then goes on to describe another, previously unknown die marriage used to produce a small quantity of proof 1861 half dimes, which he describes as follows:
“Not in V(alentine). Date too far right: skirt pendant over left curves of 6, left base of 1 above center of denticle, both ends of ribbon clear (lapped die).”
We can quickly see from a study of the OP’s coin that it certainly is not an example of the latter proof described by Breen. The date is not too far right, and the pendant is not over the left curves of the 6.
Comparison of the OP’s coin with examples of the Valentine V1 in my reference collection (and also with the Valentine photographic plates) uncovers one important difference. On bonafide examples of the 1861 V1, both 1’s in the date are centered over spaces between dentils, while on the OP’s coin, both 1’s in the date are approximately centered over dentils. This difference, alone, precludes the OP’s coin from being an example of the V1, and therefore it is unlikely struck from proof dies. There are additional differences between the V1 and the OP's coin (Shield Position mentioned by Keets being one), but just the one difference in the placement of the 1's in the date relative to the dentils below is sufficient to eliminate a V1 attribution. There are no photographs of the second obverse die described by Breen, but his description is sufficient for our purposes. Therefore, along with all of the comments contributed by others here, we can safely assume that the OP’s coin is, in fact, a business strike and not a proof.
The OP’s coin is a nice example of an 1861 half dime business strike, but is not a proof example.
<< <i>MS from proof dies.
Telling diagnostics for me:
"mesa/plateau effect" is missing on date and lettering on the obverse and the denom on the reverse. Lacks sharply-defined flat tops on the lettering/numbers
Dentilation not sharp, nor rims "squared" at conjunction with fields, nor sharp and flat at top, let alone "wire" sharp. Look at obv 12:00 - 1:30 or, even more so, rev 2:00-4:30 for the most dramatic divergences from what proof of this era carry as their "markers"
People (unlike me) who are willing to get off their *sses to get their Breen book may find more date-specific markers to exclude it from proof classification, but it's the fabric of the coin that convinces me most.
The concept of a coin's fabric was first introduced by Dave Akers (see PCGS Board of Experts). Ask around; any world-class grader who studied numismatics before TPGs started knows how broad and deep his contributions to our hobby have been. Great teacher too. More Aha! moments per conversation than anyone I've every known.
Read any Pittman catalogue and walk away with your head buzzing
I Noticed the bit about the flat-tops. The fabric struck me the same - Andy taught me a bit about fabric in a really neat 500 post thread about a clearly not-proof Morgan dollar.
Thanks Col.
Eric