Definitive proof that 1888 last 8 over 7 is not an overdate,

Sberry002 · February 13, 2026 5:37AM

The issue that was missed for 56 years that cannot be explained away. The top of the nub cannot be irregular, no matter how it gets sliced.

It is a re-hubbed damaged 1888 Snow-10

https://scientific-certifications-1888-i.shorthandstories.com/methods-of-the-1888-us-mint-regarding-worn-indian-head-cent-dies/index.html

Typekat · February 13, 2026 6:18AM

Am I following you correctly that the coins that we call ‘1888/7’ are struck from a later version of the Snow-10 die - which started out as a proof die with no evidence of what is now called an overdate?

tradedollarnut · February 13, 2026 6:27AM

I’ve said so for decades

TwoSides2aCoin · February 13, 2026 6:38AM

Makes cents.That is an intense amount of study and publishing. Curious how our resident experts will see this analysis.
CaptHenway , FredWeinberg , Rick Snow or even DCarr would be the guys I would share this with, first. That’s a bold claim.

johnny9434 · February 13, 2026 7:01AM

Interesting, I like

IkesT · February 13, 2026 8:14AM

Duplicate thread:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1102770/1888-indian-head-damage-in-and-around-the-3rd-8-for-discussion-relative-to-pmd-vs-mint-damage#latest

BillJones · February 13, 2026 8:18AM

So, another Indian Cent overdate goes to the dust bin along with the 1869 over 8.

Copperindian · February 13, 2026 9:20AM

A similar thread was posted by the OP almost two years ago (@IkesT references it above). Since then, members have periodically posted comments in that thread, almost universally refuting the OP’s hypothesis.
@Sberry002: But I’ll bite - what’s different this time around? Did you furnish your theory to any of the TPG’s and/or Cherrypickers? If so, what was the response? If not, why not? And, if not, why are you starting this thread again?

JBK · February 13, 2026 9:59AM

The subtitle from the document at the OP's link:

A story discovered from relentless investigation of the rarest error coin in US mint. history

Seems a little hyperbolic to me, but what do I know, since I thought an overdate might be a variety rather than an error, and in any case it's been completely off my radar all these years.

ChrisH821 · February 13, 2026 10:11AM

Whatever it is, I think it's massively overrated.

CaptHenway · February 13, 2026 11:03AM

I prepared to step into this thread by re-reading the 2024 thread, but then had to go lie down for several hours with a bad case of Mogo of the Ga-go-go.

In the 2024 thread there is a picture of an 1888 cent identified as Snow-10, with a small rim cud at 9 o'clock on the obverse. On that coin the top of the 1 in the date is close to and directly under the point of the bust. Correct?

On the 1888/7 die, the top of the 1 is lower and further to the right. Correct?

If both of these statements are correct, then the 1888/7 die CANNOT be the die identified as Snow-10. Dates can wear down, they can expand slightly due to die erosion on their edges, but they cannot get up and walk around the die in the middle of the night.

CORRECT?

I see nothing that challenges my belief that the 1888/7 is a legitimate overdate.

TD

Copperindian · February 13, 2026 11:37AM

@ChrisH821 said:
Whatever it is, I think it's massively overrated.

Interesting. Since its 1970 discovery, there are 77 in the PCGS pop. As there’s only a nominal amount graded UNC, some of that # is likely upgrade attempts. To a IHC collector, this overdate (yes, it is an overdate), is hardly overrated, let alone massively overrated.

CaptHenway · February 13, 2026 11:49AM

@BillJones said:
So, another Indian Cent overdate goes to the dust bin along with the 1869 over 8.

I was the one who spent ten years back in the 70's and 80's convincing Ken Bressett to downgrade the so-called 1869/68 cent to a mere repunched date. I was right. I also lobbied against the 1863/2 Three Cent Silver, the 1861/0 Half Dime and the 1893/2 Dime.

I lobbied for the 1853/4 Quarter being accepted as an overdate, and provided the theory that it was done to allow the Mint to use up a perfectly good "With Rays" reverse die that would otherwise have had to be scrapped. I firmly believe that these were struck in 1854. I was consulted on the discovery pieces of the 1877/6-CC Dime and the 1877/6 Half Dollar

I see no reason to doubt the overdate status of the main variety of the 1888/7 cent.

Overdates came in interesting clusters. After the 1877/6 pieces you had the massive group of 1880/various remnants of 79 Dollars, followed by the singleton 1881/0 $5 die. (There were also some various 1882 Dollars that I proposed as 1882/1 overdates back in the 70's, but they were not strong enough to be convincing.) Then you had the group of 1883/2 Shield nickels.

Then you had another cluster with two different 1887/6 Dollar dies, two different 1887/6 Three Cent Nickel dies, and the 1888/7 Cent die. Then they stopped for a while, except for the singleton 1901/0-S $5 and the 1909/8 $20. The pairs resumed with the 1918/7-D Nickel and the 1918/7-S Quarter, the 1942/41-P&D Dimes, and the 1943/42-S Cent and the 1943/42-P Nickels.

TD

cmerlo1 · February 13, 2026 12:03PM

@CaptHenway said:

@BillJones said:
So, another Indian Cent overdate goes to the dust bin along with the 1869 over 8.

I was the one who spent ten years back in the 70's and 80's convincing Ken Bressett to downgrade the so-called 1869/68 cent to a mere repunched date. I was right. I also lobbied against the 1863/2 Three Cent Silver, the 1861/0 Half Dime and the 1893/2 Dime.

I lobbied for the 1853/4 Quarter being accepted as an overdate, and provided the theory that it was done to allow the Mint to use up a perfectly good "With Rays" reverse die that would otherwise have had to be scrapped. I firmly believe that these were struck in 1854. I was consulted on the discovery pieces of the 1877/6-CC Dime and the 1877/6 Half Dollar

I see no reason to doubt the overdate status of the main variety of the 1888/7 cent.

Overdates came in interesting clusters. After the 1877/6 pieces you had the massive group of 1880/various remnants of 79 Dollars, followed by the singleton 1881/0 $5 die. (There were also some various 1882 Dollars that I proposed as 1882/1 overdates back in the 70's, but they were not strong enough to be convincing.) Then you had the group of 1883/2 Shield nickels.

Then you had another cluster with two different 1887/6 Dollar dies, two different 1887/6 Three Cent Nickel dies, and the 1888/7 Cent die. Then they stopped for a while, except for the singleton 1901/0-S $5 and the 1909/8 $20. The pairs resumed with the 1918/7-D Nickel and the 1918/7-S Quarter, the 1942/41-P&D Dimes, and the 1943/42-S Cent and the 1943/42-P Nickels.

TD

The same can be said for major 20th century US doubled dies (including the overdates, which are also doubled dies).

1909-1910 (cents)
1917-1918 (cent, nickels)
1932-1937 (cents, nickels, dimes,quarters, halves)
1941-1947 (cents, nickels, dimes,quarters, halves)
1955-1964 (cents, nickels, dimes,quarters, halves)
1969-1973 (cents)
1994-1995 (cents)

messydesk · February 13, 2026 1:19PM

S1 and S10 have totally different date positions. OP has gone through a lot of trouble, words, and pictures to prove nothing. Did he even explore how dies are repaired to become overdates? I stopped reading when I saw the assertion that S10 became S1.

Sberry002 · February 13, 2026 3:22PM

@CaptHenway said:

@BillJones said:
So, another Indian Cent overdate goes to the dust bin along with the 1869 over 8.

I was the one who spent ten years back in the 70's and 80's convincing Ken Bressett to downgrade the so-called 1869/68 cent to a mere repunched date. I was right. I also lobbied against the 1863/2 Three Cent Silver, the 1861/0 Half Dime and the 1893/2 Dime.

I lobbied for the 1853/4 Quarter being accepted as an overdate, and provided the theory that it was done to allow the Mint to use up a perfectly good "With Rays" reverse die that would otherwise have had to be scrapped. I firmly believe that these were struck in 1854. I was consulted on the discovery pieces of the 1877/6-CC Dime and the 1877/6 Half Dollar

I see no reason to doubt the overdate status of the main variety of the 1888/7 cent.

Overdates came in interesting clusters. After the 1877/6 pieces you had the massive group of 1880/various remnants of 79 Dollars, followed by the singleton 1881/0 $5 die. (There were also some various 1882 Dollars that I proposed as 1882/1 overdates back in the 70's, but they were not strong enough to be convincing.) Then you had the group of 1883/2 Shield nickels.

Then you had another cluster with two different 1887/6 Dollar dies, two different 1887/6 Three Cent Nickel dies, and the 1888/7 Cent die. Then they stopped for a while, except for the singleton 1901/0-S $5 and the 1909/8 $20. The pairs resumed with the 1918/7-D Nickel and the 1918/7-S Quarter, the 1942/41-P&D Dimes, and the 1943/42-S Cent and the 1943/42-P Nickels.

TD

how do you explain the irregular top of the nub?

jmlanzaf · February 13, 2026 3:59PM

@Sberry002 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@BillJones said:
So, another Indian Cent overdate goes to the dust bin along with the 1869 over 8.

I was the one who spent ten years back in the 70's and 80's convincing Ken Bressett to downgrade the so-called 1869/68 cent to a mere repunched date. I was right. I also lobbied against the 1863/2 Three Cent Silver, the 1861/0 Half Dime and the 1893/2 Dime.

I lobbied for the 1853/4 Quarter being accepted as an overdate, and provided the theory that it was done to allow the Mint to use up a perfectly good "With Rays" reverse die that would otherwise have had to be scrapped. I firmly believe that these were struck in 1854. I was consulted on the discovery pieces of the 1877/6-CC Dime and the 1877/6 Half Dollar

I see no reason to doubt the overdate status of the main variety of the 1888/7 cent.

Overdates came in interesting clusters. After the 1877/6 pieces you had the massive group of 1880/various remnants of 79 Dollars, followed by the singleton 1881/0 $5 die. (There were also some various 1882 Dollars that I proposed as 1882/1 overdates back in the 70's, but they were not strong enough to be convincing.) Then you had the group of 1883/2 Shield nickels.

Then you had another cluster with two different 1887/6 Dollar dies, two different 1887/6 Three Cent Nickel dies, and the 1888/7 Cent die. Then they stopped for a while, except for the singleton 1901/0-S $5 and the 1909/8 $20. The pairs resumed with the 1918/7-D Nickel and the 1918/7-S Quarter, the 1942/41-P&D Dimes, and the 1943/42-S Cent and the 1943/42-P Nickels.

TD

how do you explain the irregular top of the nub?

How do your explain your obsession with this coin?

Creg · February 13, 2026 4:02PM

I mocked earlier threads. I apologize for minimizing. I reread everything, my shortcomings do not allow me to judge. I begrudge you nothing as a result of your work.
Subjectively, I have an image of someone trying to touch an elbow behind the back through the legs with the other hand. Not Occam, not Einstein, more like Escher.

CaptHenway · February 13, 2026 4:27PM

@Sberry002 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@BillJones said:
So, another Indian Cent overdate goes to the dust bin along with the 1869 over 8.

I was the one who spent ten years back in the 70's and 80's convincing Ken Bressett to downgrade the so-called 1869/68 cent to a mere repunched date. I was right. I also lobbied against the 1863/2 Three Cent Silver, the 1861/0 Half Dime and the 1893/2 Dime.

I lobbied for the 1853/4 Quarter being accepted as an overdate, and provided the theory that it was done to allow the Mint to use up a perfectly good "With Rays" reverse die that would otherwise have had to be scrapped. I firmly believe that these were struck in 1854. I was consulted on the discovery pieces of the 1877/6-CC Dime and the 1877/6 Half Dollar

I see no reason to doubt the overdate status of the main variety of the 1888/7 cent.

Overdates came in interesting clusters. After the 1877/6 pieces you had the massive group of 1880/various remnants of 79 Dollars, followed by the singleton 1881/0 $5 die. (There were also some various 1882 Dollars that I proposed as 1882/1 overdates back in the 70's, but they were not strong enough to be convincing.) Then you had the group of 1883/2 Shield nickels.

Then you had another cluster with two different 1887/6 Dollar dies, two different 1887/6 Three Cent Nickel dies, and the 1888/7 Cent die. Then they stopped for a while, except for the singleton 1901/0-S $5 and the 1909/8 $20. The pairs resumed with the 1918/7-D Nickel and the 1918/7-S Quarter, the 1942/41-P&D Dimes, and the 1943/42-S Cent and the 1943/42-P Nickels.

TD

how do you explain the irregular top of the nub?

Why is the underdate different of every one of the many 1880/whatever Morgan Dollars? The process is, by its very nature, non-standard.

Sberry002 · February 13, 2026 7:16PM

Assuming a new 1887 die to begin with, the geometry at the top of the nub comes from the bottom of the incused 7. In the case of this nub, it is approximately 55 percent of the 8. That means the lowest 55 percent of the pristine incused 7 is what must be formed.

The way the nub looks would require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused 7..

IkesT · February 13, 2026 7:42PM

@Sberry002 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@BillJones said:
So, another Indian Cent overdate goes to the dust bin along with the 1869 over 8.

I was the one who spent ten years back in the 70's and 80's convincing Ken Bressett to downgrade the so-called 1869/68 cent to a mere repunched date. I was right. I also lobbied against the 1863/2 Three Cent Silver, the 1861/0 Half Dime and the 1893/2 Dime.

I lobbied for the 1853/4 Quarter being accepted as an overdate, and provided the theory that it was done to allow the Mint to use up a perfectly good "With Rays" reverse die that would otherwise have had to be scrapped. I firmly believe that these were struck in 1854. I was consulted on the discovery pieces of the 1877/6-CC Dime and the 1877/6 Half Dollar

I see no reason to doubt the overdate status of the main variety of the 1888/7 cent.

Overdates came in interesting clusters. After the 1877/6 pieces you had the massive group of 1880/various remnants of 79 Dollars, followed by the singleton 1881/0 $5 die. (There were also some various 1882 Dollars that I proposed as 1882/1 overdates back in the 70's, but they were not strong enough to be convincing.) Then you had the group of 1883/2 Shield nickels.

Then you had another cluster with two different 1887/6 Dollar dies, two different 1887/6 Three Cent Nickel dies, and the 1888/7 Cent die. Then they stopped for a while, except for the singleton 1901/0-S $5 and the 1909/8 $20. The pairs resumed with the 1918/7-D Nickel and the 1918/7-S Quarter, the 1942/41-P&D Dimes, and the 1943/42-S Cent and the 1943/42-P Nickels.

TD

how do you explain the irregular top of the nub?

Two words: Yub Nub

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np6vAuS0KNs&list=RDnp6vAuS0KNs&start_radio=1

jmlanzaf · February 13, 2026 8:01PM

@Sberry002 said:
Assuming a new 1887 die to begin with, the geometry at the top of the nub comes from the bottom of the incused 7. In the case of this nub, it is approximately 55 percent of the 8. That means the lowest 55 percent of the pristine incused 7 is what must be formed.

The way the nub looks would require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused 7..

There ya go! You explained it yourself.

If you stamp an 8 over a 7, you kind of expect to damage the 7. The don't ablate the metal to make the 8, they stamp it really hard. Metal will...nay, MUST move.

You could turn this question around. If those are the remnants of the 8, where is the rest of the 8? This must "require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused" 8.

messydesk · February 13, 2026 8:11PM

@Sberry002 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@BillJones said:
So, another Indian Cent overdate goes to the dust bin along with the 1869 over 8.

I was the one who spent ten years back in the 70's and 80's convincing Ken Bressett to downgrade the so-called 1869/68 cent to a mere repunched date. I was right. I also lobbied against the 1863/2 Three Cent Silver, the 1861/0 Half Dime and the 1893/2 Dime.

I lobbied for the 1853/4 Quarter being accepted as an overdate, and provided the theory that it was done to allow the Mint to use up a perfectly good "With Rays" reverse die that would otherwise have had to be scrapped. I firmly believe that these were struck in 1854. I was consulted on the discovery pieces of the 1877/6-CC Dime and the 1877/6 Half Dollar

I see no reason to doubt the overdate status of the main variety of the 1888/7 cent.

Overdates came in interesting clusters. After the 1877/6 pieces you had the massive group of 1880/various remnants of 79 Dollars, followed by the singleton 1881/0 $5 die. (There were also some various 1882 Dollars that I proposed as 1882/1 overdates back in the 70's, but they were not strong enough to be convincing.) Then you had the group of 1883/2 Shield nickels.

Then you had another cluster with two different 1887/6 Dollar dies, two different 1887/6 Three Cent Nickel dies, and the 1888/7 Cent die. Then they stopped for a while, except for the singleton 1901/0-S $5 and the 1909/8 $20. The pairs resumed with the 1918/7-D Nickel and the 1918/7-S Quarter, the 1942/41-P&D Dimes, and the 1943/42-S Cent and the 1943/42-P Nickels.

TD

how do you explain the irregular top of the nub?

How do you explain the moving date?

Sberry002 · February 14, 2026 7:54AM

@jmlanzaf said:

@Sberry002 said:
Assuming a new 1887 die to begin with, the geometry at the top of the nub comes from the bottom of the incused 7. In the case of this nub, it is approximately 55 percent of the 8. That means the lowest 55 percent of the pristine incused 7 is what must be formed.

The way the nub looks would require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused 7..

There ya go! You explained it yourself.

If you stamp an 8 over a 7, you kind of expect to damage the 7. The don't ablate the metal to make the 8, they stamp it really hard. Metal will...nay, MUST move.

You could turn this question around. If those are the remnants of the 8, where is the rest of the 8? This must "require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused" 8.

It definitely pains me to admit you have a good point. It concerns me that it may be unprovable. It also messes up the title of this discussion. But it is the point of it being a discussion.

I still think the material missing in the top of the nub is not right, but I will definitely try to understand more precisely how and where die steel moves when you screw an 8 over a deep incused 7. There is a fair amount of 7 to backfill. The fact that it is deep to begin with, is odd.

As for remnants of an 8. There are remnants of a shallow third 8 in the inner loops of at least the last 2 8s of Snow-1. Just like countless RPDs. This was enough to declassify Snow-2 as an overdate, but for some reason not Snow-1.

For the record, I strongly believe Snow-2 is an overdate. but that's another story.

World67 · February 14, 2026 7:56AM

Explain this.

jmlanzaf · February 14, 2026 7:57AM

@Morgan White said:
Explain this.

You left the chocolate on the dashboard

fathom · February 14, 2026 8:37AM

@ChrisH821 said:
Whatever it is, I think it's massively overrated.

100%

Barely naked eye, overpromoted.

tradedollarnut · February 14, 2026 9:04AM

I suppose if the mind wants to take random lines and create overdates out of them, far be it from me to argue. But I’d never ever buy one without clear visual underdigit

tradedollarnut · February 14, 2026 9:18AM

I just don’t think these line up

IkesT · February 14, 2026 10:02AM

@Sberry002 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Sberry002 said:
Assuming a new 1887 die to begin with, the geometry at the top of the nub comes from the bottom of the incused 7. In the case of this nub, it is approximately 55 percent of the 8. That means the lowest 55 percent of the pristine incused 7 is what must be formed.

The way the nub looks would require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused 7..

There ya go! You explained it yourself.

If you stamp an 8 over a 7, you kind of expect to damage the 7. The don't ablate the metal to make the 8, they stamp it really hard. Metal will...nay, MUST move.

You could turn this question around. If those are the remnants of the 8, where is the rest of the 8? This must "require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused" 8.

It definitely pains me to admit you have a good point. It concerns me that it may be unprovable. It also messes up the title of this discussion. But it is the point of it being a discussion.

This is not a discussion.

I still think the material missing in the top of the nub is not right, but I will definitely try to understand more precisely how and where die steel moves when you screw an 8 over a deep incused 7.

Stop thinking and trying to understand.

For the record, I strongly believe Snow-2 is an overdate. but that's another story.

Stop believing.

messydesk · February 14, 2026 10:43AM

@tradedollarnut said:
I just don’t think these line up

The repair to allow the die to be redated 1888 results in a weak spot on the die at the bottom of the 8 where the 7 protrudes. In addition to the metal moving a little when the date is repunched, there is opportunity for the repair to break, either when the date is punched or later when it is used (see also 1882-O/S $1 early and late die stages).

messydesk · February 14, 2026 10:44AM

@IkesT said:

@Sberry002 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Sberry002 said:
Assuming a new 1887 die to begin with, the geometry at the top of the nub comes from the bottom of the incused 7. In the case of this nub, it is approximately 55 percent of the 8. That means the lowest 55 percent of the pristine incused 7 is what must be formed.

The way the nub looks would require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused 7..

There ya go! You explained it yourself.

If you stamp an 8 over a 7, you kind of expect to damage the 7. The don't ablate the metal to make the 8, they stamp it really hard. Metal will...nay, MUST move.

You could turn this question around. If those are the remnants of the 8, where is the rest of the 8? This must "require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused" 8.

It definitely pains me to admit you have a good point. It concerns me that it may be unprovable. It also messes up the title of this discussion. But it is the point of it being a discussion.

This is not a discussion.

I still think the material missing in the top of the nub is not right, but I will definitely try to understand more precisely how and where die steel moves when you screw an 8 over a deep incused 7.

Stop thinking and trying to understand.

For the record, I strongly believe Snow-2 is an overdate. but that's another story.

Stop believing.

Not a Journey fan?

IkesT · February 14, 2026 10:48AM

@messydesk said:

@IkesT said:

@Sberry002 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Sberry002 said:
Assuming a new 1887 die to begin with, the geometry at the top of the nub comes from the bottom of the incused 7. In the case of this nub, it is approximately 55 percent of the 8. That means the lowest 55 percent of the pristine incused 7 is what must be formed.

The way the nub looks would require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused 7..

There ya go! You explained it yourself.

If you stamp an 8 over a 7, you kind of expect to damage the 7. The don't ablate the metal to make the 8, they stamp it really hard. Metal will...nay, MUST move.

You could turn this question around. If those are the remnants of the 8, where is the rest of the 8? This must "require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused" 8.

It definitely pains me to admit you have a good point. It concerns me that it may be unprovable. It also messes up the title of this discussion. But it is the point of it being a discussion.

This is not a discussion.

I still think the material missing in the top of the nub is not right, but I will definitely try to understand more precisely how and where die steel moves when you screw an 8 over a deep incused 7.

Stop thinking and trying to understand.

For the record, I strongly believe Snow-2 is an overdate. but that's another story.

Stop believing.

Not a Journey fan?

I am, actually. 👍

I like that song as well, it just isn't applicable in this particular case.

tradedollarnut · February 14, 2026 1:30PM

“The repair to allow the die to be redated 1888 results in a weak spot on the die at the bottom of the 8 where the 7 protrudes. In addition to the metal moving a little when the date is repunched, there is opportunity for the repair to break, either when the date is punched or later when it is used (see also 1882-O/S $1 early and late die stages).”

Nice in theory but the bulge at the bottom isn’t where it should be and it’s hard to ‘move’ a void when metal moves

World67 · February 14, 2026 2:22PM

@messydesk said:

@IkesT said:

@Sberry002 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Sberry002 said:
Assuming a new 1887 die to begin with, the geometry at the top of the nub comes from the bottom of the incused 7. In the case of this nub, it is approximately 55 percent of the 8. That means the lowest 55 percent of the pristine incused 7 is what must be formed.

The way the nub looks would require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused 7..

There ya go! You explained it yourself.

If you stamp an 8 over a 7, you kind of expect to damage the 7. The don't ablate the metal to make the 8, they stamp it really hard. Metal will...nay, MUST move.

You could turn this question around. If those are the remnants of the 8, where is the rest of the 8? This must "require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused" 8.

It definitely pains me to admit you have a good point. It concerns me that it may be unprovable. It also messes up the title of this discussion. But it is the point of it being a discussion.

This is not a discussion.

I still think the material missing in the top of the nub is not right, but I will definitely try to understand more precisely how and where die steel moves when you screw an 8 over a deep incused 7.

Stop thinking and trying to understand.

For the record, I strongly believe Snow-2 is an overdate. but that's another story.

Stop believing.

Not a Journey fan?

They went separate ways.

CaptHenway · February 15, 2026 1:32PM

Can we get a name change on this thread, please?

IkesT · February 15, 2026 1:38PM

@CaptHenway said:
Can we get a name change on this thread, please?

How about this?

Sberry002 · February 15, 2026 4:36PM

@IkesT said:

@CaptHenway said:
Can we get a name change on this thread, please?

How about this?

There is plenty of proof it is 1888 over 1888. I think it can proven that t

IkesT · February 15, 2026 4:41PM

@Sberry002 said:
There is plenty of proof it is 1888 over 1888. I think it can proven that t

Stop thinking.

Sberry002 · February 16, 2026 8:27AM

@Sberry002 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Sberry002 said:
Assuming a new 1887 die to begin with, the geometry at the top of the nub comes from the bottom of the incused 7. In the case of this nub, it is approximately 55 percent of the 8. That means the lowest 55 percent of the pristine incused 7 is what must be formed.

The way the nub looks would require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused 7..

There ya go! You explained it yourself.

If you stamp an 8 over a 7, you kind of expect to damage the 7. The don't ablate the metal to make the 8, they stamp it really hard. Metal will...nay, MUST move.

You could turn this question around. If those are the remnants of the 8, where is the rest of the 8? This must "require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused" 8.

It definitely pains me to admit you have a good point. It concerns me that it may be unprovable. It also messes up the title of this discussion. But it is the point of it being a discussion.

I still think the material missing in the top of the nub is not right, but I will definitely try to understand more precisely how and where die steel moves when you screw an 8 over a deep incused 7. There is a fair amount of 7 to backfill. The fact that it is deep to begin with, is odd.

As for remnants of an 8. There are remnants of a shallow third 8 in the inner loops of at least the last 2 8s of Snow-1. Just like countless RPDs. This was enough to declassify Snow-2 as an overdate, but for some reason not Snow-1.

For the record, I strongly believe Snow-2 is an overdate. but that's another story.

I think the point regarding the irregular profile at the top of the nub is proof it is not a 7. I'll add that the 1925/4 overdate calls added doubt about the lack of flaws inside the bottom loop of the 8. and finally, the existence of a remnant 8 in that lower loop of the 8.

CaptHenway · February 16, 2026 8:35AM

Think the rain will hurt the rhubarb?

Lakesammman · February 19, 2026 8:14AM

Thanks for the fun memories - I used to own the 64RB - the picture in the OP was mine.

In 2004, I bought a Cessna 185 Amphib for 2 cents - this coin and a 1856 Flyer, MS65.

Lots of fun memories with the plane! In 2006 and 2008, Boiler78 and I flew it to Alaska from Seattle.

HalfDime · February 19, 2026 8:47AM

The die is the opposite of how this picture looks, so the seven was incuse on the die. When they punched in the deeper eight, it shoved metal up and into the remaining portion of the seven at the base and deformed it by slightly lifting it at the edge.

So the edge if the seven is slightly smaller than it should be because the eight punch filled it slightly in.

Sberry002 · February 19, 2026 11:28AM

@HalfDime said:

The die is the opposite of how this picture looks, so the seven was incuse on the die. When they punched in the deeper eight, it shoved metal up and into the remaining portion of the seven at the base and deformed it by slightly lifting it at the edge.

So the edge if the seven is slightly smaller than it should be because the eight punch filled it slightly in.

a rounded line of separation.

IkesT · February 19, 2026 12:18PM

Rhubarb.

tradedollarnut · February 19, 2026 1:35PM

Question-what was the exact dating process in 1887? Individual punch or complete date punch?

CaptHenway · February 19, 2026 2:02PM

@tradedollarnut said:
Question-what was the exact dating process in 1887? Individual punch or complete date punch?

Four digit gang punch.

Sberry002 · February 23, 2026 4:19PM

@jmlanzaf said:

@Sberry002 said:
Assuming a new 1887 die to begin with, the geometry at the top of the nub comes from the bottom of the incused 7. In the case of this nub, it is approximately 55 percent of the 8. That means the lowest 55 percent of the pristine incused 7 is what must be formed.

The way the nub looks would require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused 7..

There ya go! You explained it yourself.

If you stamp an 8 over a 7, you kind of expect to damage the 7. The don't ablate the metal to make the 8, they stamp it really hard. Metal will...nay, MUST move.

You could turn this question around. If those are the remnants of the 8, where is the rest of the 8? This must "require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused" 8.

I spent time to research precisely what happens to material when hubbing an 8 through an existing 7.

The metal moves in a way that modifies the shape of the line of separation. It does not damage it. There is a direct correlation between the profile of the line of separation and profile of the incused object being hubbed through,
This means that the irregular profile of line of separation of the nub is directly correlated to an irregular incused shape that was hubbed thru.

I added the research to the end of my report.

I'm still unsure what you're saying regarding the 8.

IkesT · February 23, 2026 4:39PM

Is this the report you are talking about?

Sberry002 · March 2, 2026 1:50PM

@CaptHenway said:

@Sberry002 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@BillJones said:
So, another Indian Cent overdate goes to the dust bin along with the 1869 over 8.

I was the one who spent ten years back in the 70's and 80's convincing Ken Bressett to downgrade the so-called 1869/68 cent to a mere repunched date. I was right. I also lobbied against the 1863/2 Three Cent Silver, the 1861/0 Half Dime and the 1893/2 Dime.

I lobbied for the 1853/4 Quarter being accepted as an overdate, and provided the theory that it was done to allow the Mint to use up a perfectly good "With Rays" reverse die that would otherwise have had to be scrapped. I firmly believe that these were struck in 1854. I was consulted on the discovery pieces of the 1877/6-CC Dime and the 1877/6 Half Dollar

I see no reason to doubt the overdate status of the main variety of the 1888/7 cent.

Overdates came in interesting clusters. After the 1877/6 pieces you had the massive group of 1880/various remnants of 79 Dollars, followed by the singleton 1881/0 $5 die. (There were also some various 1882 Dollars that I proposed as 1882/1 overdates back in the 70's, but they were not strong enough to be convincing.) Then you had the group of 1883/2 Shield nickels.

Then you had another cluster with two different 1887/6 Dollar dies, two different 1887/6 Three Cent Nickel dies, and the 1888/7 Cent die. Then they stopped for a while, except for the singleton 1901/0-S $5 and the 1909/8 $20. The pairs resumed with the 1918/7-D Nickel and the 1918/7-S Quarter, the 1942/41-P&D Dimes, and the 1943/42-S Cent and the 1943/42-P Nickels.

TD

how do you explain the irregular top of the nub?

Why is the underdate different of every one of the many 1880/whatever Morgan Dollars? The process is, by its very nature, non-standard.

Your true statement doesn't actually apply to the question.

IkesT · March 2, 2026 1:56PM

@Sberry002 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Sberry002 said:
Assuming a new 1887 die to begin with, the geometry at the top of the nub comes from the bottom of the incused 7. In the case of this nub, it is approximately 55 percent of the 8. That means the lowest 55 percent of the pristine incused 7 is what must be formed.

The way the nub looks would require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused 7..

There ya go! You explained it yourself.

If you stamp an 8 over a 7, you kind of expect to damage the 7. The don't ablate the metal to make the 8, they stamp it really hard. Metal will...nay, MUST move.

You could turn this question around. If those are the remnants of the 8, where is the rest of the 8? This must "require extra random metal in the bottom of the incused" 8.

I spent time to research precisely what happens to material when hubbing an 8 through an existing 7.

The metal moves in a way that modifies the shape of the line of separation. It does not damage it. There is a direct correlation between the profile of the line of separation and profile of the incused object being hubbed through,
This means that the irregular profile of line of separation of the nub is directly correlated to an irregular incused shape that was hubbed thru.

I added the research to the end of my report.

Is this the research at the end of the report?

Definitive proof that 1888 last 8 over 7 is not an overdate,

Comments

Two words: Yub Nub

Leave a Comment