1861/0 Overdate FS-301 Half Dime Discussion

ms70 · November 9, 2019 3:29PM

This eBay auction (not mine) has some pretty good pics of the date as an MS64. Although not perfectly focused, they sparked me to start thinking about this variety more.

I have not done a great amount of studying this variety but I do remember reading about debate if this was actually a "1" over a "0". After looking at the pics I'm wondering if it's a tripled "1".

Looks like the top of the 1 punched south, then the bottom of the 1 serif punched north. Appears to have doubling on the 8 and 6 to the west. eBay:

https://ebay.com/itm/1861-0-Overdate-FS-301-Old-Rattler-PCGS-MS-64-CAC-Seated-Liberty-Half-Dime/254416213763?hash=item3b3c635703:g:kzkAAOSwPtVdcWST:sc:USPSFirstClass!07006!US!-1

The MS66+ featured in CoinFacts is very clear and shows what might be a 1/1 punched north on the first digit.

I'm going to have to break out the books now. I want to find out how the designation arrived at a 1 over a 0. Through what I still consider to be my novice eyes, I see a 1/1/1.

DIMEMAN · November 9, 2019 4:09PM

I think the curved lines to the left of the last 1 are remnants of the 0. There are also lots of clashes on both sides of this coin. I don't know if this is common on this variety or not. Sure is a neat coin.

DIMEMAN · November 9, 2019 4:13PM

The ebay coin and the coin in this thread look different to me.

CaptHenway · November 9, 2019 5:17PM

I am utterly convinced that the slight curved line alleged to be the remainder of a “0” is just a minor defect on the gang punch.

ms70 · November 9, 2019 6:07PM

@CaptHenway said:
I am utterly convinced that the slight curved line alleged to be the remainder of a “0” is just a minor defect on the gang punch.

I've read that somewhere as well. Possibly a combo of double / triple of the one plus a defect on punch or later on maybe even the die? Either way, I'm not convinced it's a "0" underneath.

How did the consensus arrive at a 1/0?

amwldcoin · November 9, 2019 7:48PM

I had one years ago that was clearly an overdate with an obvious 1 over 0 and it was if I recall a VF.

CaptHenway · November 10, 2019 7:06AM

@ms70 said:

show previous quotes

@CaptHenway said:
I am utterly convinced that the slight curved line alleged to be the remainder of a “0” is just a minor defect on the gang punch.

I've read that somewhere as well. Possibly a combo of double / triple of the one plus a defect on punch or later on maybe even the die? Either way, I'm not convinced it's a "0" underneath.

How did the consensus arrive at a 1/0?

Wishful thinking, plus the fact that overdates are generally worth more than normal dates.

rhedden · November 10, 2019 7:17AM

I believe it's been known for a while that the 1861/0 is not a true overdate. It's just a particular die variety that retains some value due to being listed in the Red Book for many years.

DCW · November 10, 2019 9:17AM

@amwldcoin said:
I had one years ago that was clearly an overdate with an obvious 1 over 0 and it was if I recall a VF.

Wish that you had photos of this. Could clear things up very quickly

ricko · November 10, 2019 10:18AM

I can see what 'could' be the remains of a zero....also what could be a double punched one....Which no one has yet commented on....Cheers, RickO

amwldcoin · November 10, 2019 10:45AM

Me too! It's the only 1 I ever saw that really looked like a 61/0.

@DCW said:

show previous quotes

@amwldcoin said:
I had one years ago that was clearly an overdate with an obvious 1 over 0 and it was if I recall a VF.

Wish that you had photos of this. Could clear things up very quickly

Coinosaurus · November 10, 2019 3:26PM

The Guide Book notes it is not an actual overdate.

WDP · November 10, 2019 5:20PM

I'm in the process of selling the extensive Stephen Crain Reference Collection of Capped Bust and Seated Half Dimes, with over 1,200 half dimes in all.

For the Seated H10C, Stephen had his notes on the holders, mostly cardboard and cardboard tags in plastic flips. He planned to write a book in his retirement. Unfortunately he passed away last Father's Day.

Working with the Newman Portal, we had photographed a little over 1,000 Seated Half Dimes. We took and have posted four photos per coin. Obverse, Reverse, front of the holder, back of the holder. The photos can be clicked on enlarged - they are 5 Meg each. They are in date order.

Here is the link to the Crain Half Dimes on the Newman Portal - click on the link or paste it in to your browser. Page down to the date 1861 and you will quickly find the 1861 / 0 / 1 as Stephen called it. Please note he has only four examples to study!

https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/imagecollection/514182

I checked one example and the photo matched the photo that is in the Cherrypickers' Guide, Fourth Edition, Volume II, Page 11. Stephen's grades on his four examples range from XF40 to MS60. I didn't have time to check all four photos at this time. But at least Forum members can see a photo now if they would like to

Note the _Cherrypickers' Guide _has a comment (footnote), "This is one of the top five varieties for the series, with more demand than supply. Some specialists feel this is not an overdate.

W. David Perkins
Centennial, CO

ms70 · November 10, 2019 6:50PM

Thank you Mr. Perkins!

Mr. Crain's notes at the bottom of this example (referencing Tom Delorey) are convincing.

https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/imagedetail/614961?col=514182

oih82w8 · November 10, 2019 7:33PM

Not trying to stir the pot, but here a close up of the date of the variety in question, which I cherry-picked a few years ago. Our host agreed on the variety.

CaptHenway · November 10, 2019 8:22PM

@Coinosaurus said:
The Guide Book notes it is not an actual overdate.

It took me many years to get that in the Redbook.

dan_marinelli · November 10, 2019 8:57PM

I just bought this one from GFRC. Don't have it yet.

yosclimber · November 11, 2019 4:28PM

This is what @MrHalfDime wrote about the "1861/0" in 2014, in the thread "New Redbook Varieties":

What is worse, and potentially more damaging to the hobby than having a legitimate variety overlooked, and not listed in the Red Book, is to have a non-existent or bogus variety listed, thus taking on a life of its own. One such variety is the so-called 1861/0 Liberty Seated half dime. This presumed overdate was first listed in the Red Book several years ago, and has remained there ever since. However, in Issue #40 of the Gobrecht Journal (official quarterly publication of the Liberty Seated Collectors Club), dated November 1987, Thomas DeLorey, former chief authenticator at ANACS (CaptHenway on this forum) correctly identified the alleged 1861/0 overdate as simply a regular date coin for which a defective numeral 1 punch had been used to impress the date into the working dies. The rounded shoulder of the punch (the area surrounding the digit 1) was struck so deeply into the working die(s) that it appeared to be an under-digit 0. In fact, it has been shown that there were actually several working dies exhibiting this anomaly, making the supposed "1861/0" one of the most common varieties for the date. Attempts by Tom DeLorey to have this variety de-listed have been unsuccessful. I am slightly amused as I peruse a bourse floor, looking for scarce and rare die marriages of half dimes, and see numerous examples of the "1861/0", all listed as RARE, and priced accordingly. My amusement subsides, though, when I think of the money unsuspecting collectors lose with each purchase. And every dealer who sells one of these improperly described, even misrepresented, coins has a legitimate excuse, simply pointing to the Red Book.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/10807900#Comment_10807900

This is a phenomenon which appears in many subjects - something gets printed in a book,
and even if it's not correct, it takes on a life of its own.

The basic fact, as @CaptHenway already mentioned:

This raised area under the last 1 is in the date gang punch, because it appears in exactly the same relative position on all half dime obverses for this date. This means it cannot be an overdate.

For some 1861 obverse dies, it is a bit plainer than on others. This could occur if the date gang punch was impressed into those dies a little deeper.

The published history of this date punch began in Gobrecht Journal #25 (1982) with an article by Kamal M. Ahwash, "Repunched Date Half Dime Varieties of the 1860's".
In the article he included photos of 3 1861 obverse dies, and he claimed they were all overdates (the V- numbers are mine):

V-4 "1861/1860 Low Date"
V-5 "1861/0/1 Centered Date"
V-6 "1861/1860 Centered Date"

V-4

V-5

V-6

You can read the full article here:
https://archive.org/details/gobrechtjournalfn025libe/page/2

Soon after, Tom DeLorey (@CaptHenway) studied this, and concluded the raised area under the final 1 and the spikes on the 8 were all in the date gang punch, so it is not an overdate. In 1987 he published an article "Letter to the Editor - Is the 1861/0 Half Dime an Overdate?":

https://archive.org/details/gobrechtjournalfn040libe/page/38

While it is an interesting feature in the dies, it is not a 1/0 overdate.

Here are some more modern (PCGS CoinFacts) photos, showing the date positions.

V-4

V-5 (this is a true RPD)

V-6
V-6 is also a DDO, showing in UNITED west, and in the shield and gown near the pendant.

yosclimber · November 11, 2019 5:03PM

The MS-66+ in @ms70's starting post is the V-5 RPD, and was formerly sold in 2014-1 at Heritage as a PCGS MS-66 CAC.

@dan_marinelli's coin is a V-6, based on its date position. The DDO may be visible in hand.

ms70 · November 11, 2019 5:14PM

Tom's "Letter to the Editor" as well as the evidence by yosclimber have settled this for me. It couldn't be more clear that this attribution is completely the result of a verbal misunderstanding.

This has to be one of the most amazing pieces of numismatic history I've seen.

DIMEMAN · November 11, 2019 5:41PM

It's like the old saying "you can't un-ring the bell".

CaptHenway · November 11, 2019 5:46PM

What I said...…...

1861/0 Overdate FS-301 Half Dime Discussion

Comments

Leave a Comment