Options
1830 HD Proof V-5 versus 1831V-6 reverse
kevinj
Posts: 972 ✭✭✭
Finishing up my photographic copyright book
Back to working on my restrike book
Breen in his proof book says the 1830 HD V-5 proof is the same reverse as 1831 V-6
Mainly because the extra metal in the top of the second S in States and M in AMERICA.
Valentine states same.
I disagree, the blobs of metal are of different size and shapes
I believe these are two different reverses.
Curious what others think
Kevin
Kevin J Flynn
0
Comments
In the 7 photos I have seen of the 1830 V-5 proof, and several photos of the 1831 V-6,
both these coins use Reverse L, which is identified by several positional markers,
such as the S over S position, T1 high, etc.
There are 5 identified die states for Reverse L, although the state evolves within each die remarriage.
1830 LM-9.1 (V-5) Proofs use Reverse L.2, with the upper loops of both S1 and S2 filled.
1831 LM-1.2 (V-6B) uses Reverse L.3, with the upper loops of both S1 and S2 filled. (There are other differences).
The complete list of Reverse L die states in LM (Logan and McCloskey, 1998) are:
1831 LM-1.1 Reverse L.1
1830 LM-9.1 Reverse L.2
1831 LM-1.2 Reverse L.3
1830 LM-9.2 Reverse L.4
1831 LM-1.3 Reverse L.5
So, depending on which die remarriage/state of 1831 LM-1 (V-6) you are comparing to the 1830 LM-9.1 proofs,
you might see a difference in the die states.
This does not mean they are different reverse dies.
P.S. Why are you using the Breen proof book and the Valentine book instead of Logan and McCloskey?
Obviously I need to get the Logan-McCloskey book
Thanks for your help
Kevin
So 1830 LM-9.1 Reverse L.2 has both S's in STATES filled
Does 1831 LM-1.1 Reverse L.1 have no defects (such as listed as V-6) or does it have the second S filled and M filled?
In Heritage, 1831 V-6 MS66
https://coins.ha.com/itm/bust-half-dimes/half-dimes/1831-h10c-ms66-pcgs-cac-v-6-lm-11-r1-pcgs-4278-/a/1187-3094.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515
the first S is empty, second S filled M filled
Could not find an 1831 V-6 in Heritage that has no defects
Thanks
Also it appears that all of the 1830 V-5 proofs listed on Heritage Auctions are LM-9.1
All 1830 LM-9.2 are circulated strikes
There are several 1830 LM-9.1 circulated strikes listed on Heritage, but I believe these are mislabeled.
Kevin
The below coin is listed on the label in the Heritage auction as 1830 MS66
Heritage calls it V-5, LM-9
But the S of EPU does not line up with ES
There is the die crack on front through the cap as Breen describes V-5 in his proof book, it is not V-5
https://coins.ha.com/itm/bust-half-dimes/half-dimes/1830-h10c-ms66-ngc-pcgs-4277-/a/1117-482.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515
The below coin is listed as MS65 Proof like on the slab, it is obviously V-5 LM-9.1
https://coins.ha.com/itm/bust-half-dimes/half-dimes/1830-h10c-ms65-prooflike-ngc-pcgs-4277-/a/1121-2086.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
IMO this is a proof wrongly called MS
Yes.
1831 LM-1.1 Reverse L.1 starts with no defects, but its die state evolves.
LM page 190:
So the Heritage coin you describe above is in the later die state of LM-1.1.
An LM-1.1 should never have S1 filled, but it could have the upper loop of S2 empty, partly filled, or completely filled.
The early die state with no defects might be rare. I don't have a photo library of these.
Yes, this is consistent with what is written in LM.
On the LM-9.1 page, they state:
(And on the LM-9.2 page, they don't mention any known proofs.)
You are correct.
This is an LM-13 (V-2).
The same obverse die is used on LM-9, LM-10, and LM-13, and the die state changes.
The obverse cracks do not appear on LM-9.1 or LM-9.2; they start appearing on LM-10, and are always there on LM-13.
Valentine says that V-5 uses the V-2 obverse die, but he fails to mention that the V-5 obverse is without the V-2 cracks.
So perhaps Breen was led astray by this.
I agree, it is an LM-9.1.
(I was able to find good photos of the Crain LM-9.2, which has a chip in the top right of T1, and the NI tops are joined).
http://images.pcgs.com/trueview/37264622
Could be true, although it could be difficult to say with much certainty based on photos (although these are fairly good photos).
yosclimber
thanks so much for your help
greatly appreciated
Kevin
business strike was the intended term, I assume. Anyway, not mislabeled. The 1830 LM-9.1 can be found in a variety of stages of die deterioration. Pages 39-79 of the Logan-McCloskey book are loaded with great information, to include how to use the book and understand the specific language chosen by the authors to describe die states.
Sorry if I was not clear. for these circulated coins that are listed as LM-9.1 in Heritage, they have the diagnostics of LM-9.2.
The term business strike is not used in the Mint Archive records.
I believe this term was coined so to speak by Breen
Perhaps "circulation strikes" could be a better term?
I.e. "intended for circulation".
It works better when the coin is MS, since those were apparently not circulated.
P.S. I see there is a copy of Logan and McCloskey on ebay for $390 obo.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/FEDERAL-HALF-DIMES-1792-1837-by-Logan-McCloskey-K1079/274112348098
I'm fortunate I got my copy decades ago.
It would be great if the Newman Numismatic Portal would scan this book and put it online,
like they have for other out of print books.
It would require permission from the JRCS, and there are a few drawbacks, such as reducing the value of existing books.
But it would be great for researchers.
Anyone interested in a new mint in box Logan/McCloskey half dime book? I currently have 3 available for $175 each plus postage.
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
a 9.2 isn't a 9.2 until there is a die chip in the T of UNITED
Where specifically is the die chip on the 1830 9.2 on the T of United
I looked at several that were specifically identified as 9.2 in Heritage, did not see anything on the T
Thanks
see the tiny chip under the right crossbar, that makes it 9.2
Thanks