@tradedollarnut said:
Question-what was the exact dating process in 1887? Individual punch or complete date punch?
The dates had been entered four digits at a time dating well back into the large cent series. The exceptions were for a very intentional overrate. The so-called 1851 over 81 large cent variety was the result of entering the date upside down and then correcting it.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@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.
Actually, it does. It illustrates the point that overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@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.
Actually, it does. It illustrates the point that overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!
Your hypothesis is wrong. There are no random results from over dating. You should consider identifying all the relevant variables and applying them to the varied visual results. for the record, hardness is not one of the variables.
@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.
Actually, it does. It illustrates the point that overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!
Your hypothesis is wrong. There are no random results from over dating. You should consider identifying all the relevant variables and applying them to the varied visual results. for the record, hardness is not one of the variables.
So, are you saying that every one of the many 1880/7, 1880/9 and/or 1880/79 Morgan dollar overdates show exactly the same results?
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@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.
Actually, it does. It illustrates the point that overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!
Your hypothesis is wrong. There are no random results from over dating. You should consider identifying all the relevant variables and applying them to the varied visual results. for the record, hardness is not one of the variables.
So, are you saying that every one of the many 1880/7, 1880/9 and/or 1880/79 Morgan dollar overdates show exactly the same results?
@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.
Actually, it does. It illustrates the point that overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!
Your hypothesis is wrong. There are no random results from over dating. You should consider identifying all the relevant variables and applying them to the varied visual results. for the record, hardness is not one of the variables.
So, are you saying that every one of the many 1880/7, 1880/9 and/or 1880/79 Morgan dollar overdates show exactly the same results?
Volume of the underlying 7and 9s as well as relative offset positions differ for each example. What you call 1880/9 is actually the shallowest 1880/79. So shallow that the 7 gets almost completely filled. 1880/79 high is the deepest underlying 79 therefore filled in the least.
@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.
Actually, it does. It illustrates the point that overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!
Your hypothesis is wrong. There are no random results from over dating. You should consider identifying all the relevant variables and applying them to the varied visual results. for the record, hardness is not one of the variables.
The variation in the appearance of the many 80/79 overdates exists largely because of the quality of the repair of the die (i.e., filling in the 79) before re-dating with an 1880 punch. There are many that show a heavy 18 and lighter 80. These had perfect repairs that did not fail when repunched or polished. Were there multiple 1888/7 Indian cents, rather than just one, you'd be able to see the same sort of variations.
@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.
Actually, it does. It illustrates the point that overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!
Your hypothesis is wrong. There are no random results from over dating. You should consider identifying all the relevant variables and applying them to the varied visual results. for the record, hardness is not one of the variables.
The variation in the appearance of the many 80/79 overdates exists largely because of the quality of the repair of the die (i.e., filling in the 79) before re-dating with an 1880 punch. There are many that show a heavy 18 and lighter 80. These had perfect repairs that did not fail when repunched or polished. Were there multiple 1888/7 Indian cents, rather than just one, you'd be able to see the same sort of variations.
can you add a picture of a filled repair with a heavy 18?
@Copperindian said:
The only definitive proof is this thread’s gone off the rails, just like it did two years ago….
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
"Actually, it does. It illustrates the point that overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!"
@Copperindian said:
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?
All due respect to your stature related to your extraordinary experience as a collector. The technical expertise that is needed to prove the truth of the origin of 1888 Snow-1 is not a requirement of the persons you suggest I submit this hypothesis to.
This post is specifically about the new discovery that there is actually undeniable proof in the profile of the nub that eliminates it as resulting from an underlying 7. Since the observation relies on a flaw tied to material flow, the validity of my claim would only be fair if it was assessed by an expert in that area. Otherwise, it's just opinions that are based on regurgitated wife's tales. Something more common among author's and coin dealers than engineers.
Still trying to take this seriously, but….
Why so long to respond to my question? A skeptic would think it’s an attempt to keep your thread on page 1.
Your “definitive” proof is yours & yours alone, from what I’ve seen so far. How about an engineering type that might support your theory? I would absolutely be interested in reading that.
TPG’s, when warranted, do more than examine coins in hand. I think you know that. Would it do any harm to present your findings to one of them?
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Comments
The dates had been entered four digits at a time dating well back into the large cent series. The exceptions were for a very intentional overrate. The so-called 1851 over 81 large cent variety was the result of entering the date upside down and then correcting it.
Actually, it does. It illustrates the point that overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!
The 1888/7 isint a proof 😈
Your hypothesis is wrong. There are no random results from over dating. You should consider identifying all the relevant variables and applying them to the varied visual results. for the record, hardness is not one of the variables.
So, are you saying that every one of the many 1880/7, 1880/9 and/or 1880/79 Morgan dollar overdates show exactly the same results?
Volume of the underlying 7and 9s as well as relative offset positions differ for each example. What you call 1880/9 is actually the shallowest 1880/79. So shallow that the 7 gets almost completely filled. 1880/79 high is the deepest underlying 79 therefore filled in the least.
The variation in the appearance of the many 80/79 overdates exists largely because of the quality of the repair of the die (i.e., filling in the 79) before re-dating with an 1880 punch. There are many that show a heavy 18 and lighter 80. These had perfect repairs that did not fail when repunched or polished. Were there multiple 1888/7 Indian cents, rather than just one, you'd be able to see the same sort of variations.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
My daughter lives in Kenmore close to Lake Washington. We used to walk down and watch the float planes take off. It was pretty cool.
can you add a picture of a filled repair with a heavy 18?
By the way, who is Crunch Berry?
Thank you for crunch-a-tizing me with that information!
The only definitive proof is this thread’s gone off the rails, just like it did two years ago….
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Copperindian II
Indy Eagles
Gold Rush
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Nickelodeon
Early Walkers
Successful transactions: redraider, winesteven, renomedphys, splitaces, oreville, ajaan, Cent1225, onlyroosies, justindan, blitzdude, DesertMoon, johnnyb, Heubschgold, SunshineRareCoins, ParadimeCoins, ndeagles, Southern_Knights, pcgsregistrycollector
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
@CaptHenway said:
"Actually, it does. It illustrates the point that overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!"
Pixie dust.
All due respect to your stature related to your extraordinary experience as a collector. The technical expertise that is needed to prove the truth of the origin of 1888 Snow-1 is not a requirement of the persons you suggest I submit this hypothesis to.
This post is specifically about the new discovery that there is actually undeniable proof in the profile of the nub that eliminates it as resulting from an underlying 7. Since the observation relies on a flaw tied to material flow, the validity of my claim would only be fair if it was assessed by an expert in that area. Otherwise, it's just opinions that are based on regurgitated wife's tales. Something more common among author's and coin dealers than engineers.
Still trying to take this seriously, but….
Why so long to respond to my question? A skeptic would think it’s an attempt to keep your thread on page 1.
Your “definitive” proof is yours & yours alone, from what I’ve seen so far. How about an engineering type that might support your theory? I would absolutely be interested in reading that.
TPG’s, when warranted, do more than examine coins in hand. I think you know that. Would it do any harm to present your findings to one of them?
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Copperindian II
Indy Eagles
Gold Rush
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Nickelodeon
Early Walkers
Successful transactions: redraider, winesteven, renomedphys, splitaces, oreville, ajaan, Cent1225, onlyroosies, justindan, blitzdude, DesertMoon, johnnyb, Heubschgold, SunshineRareCoins, ParadimeCoins, ndeagles, Southern_Knights, pcgsregistrycollector
I don't think your comment is very crunchy. It is soft and mushy like a crunch berry that has been sitting in the milk for too long.
Crunch Berry must be hanging with Count Chocula…..
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Copperindian II
Indy Eagles
Gold Rush
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Nickelodeon
Early Walkers
Successful transactions: redraider, winesteven, renomedphys, splitaces, oreville, ajaan, Cent1225, onlyroosies, justindan, blitzdude, DesertMoon, johnnyb, Heubschgold, SunshineRareCoins, ParadimeCoins, ndeagles, Southern_Knights, pcgsregistrycollector
I think you're confusing him with Boo Berry.
"overdating has very random results, and that one tiny irregularity on any one particular overdated die MEANS NOTHING!!!!!"
I still don't understand how any of this relates to the Yub Nub...
In the hot sun.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Last resort—start a TPG—maybe @PeacockSteve can help, he’s in a similar fix.
OK, now I think I understand what happened: