The truth of 1888 Snow-2
Sberry002
Posts: 65 ✭
In the attached short report, I work through the issues brought by Tim Larson MD.
I believe it proves to be a valid overdate.
https://scientific-certifications-1888-i.shorthandstories.com/the-truth-of-1888-snow-2/index.html
0
Comments
truth? was there a lie?
Einstein quotes in sig files are a sign!
Please clarify which opinions are yours and which opinions are Dr. Larson's.
Dr. Larsons are in quotes. His analysis is on page 10
https://ia800804.us.archive.org/28/items/LLVol10No02Whole44Jun2000/LLVol10No02Whole44Jun2000.pdf
Thank you. This is much clearer.
Now I remember the article. At the time, I thought that he was probably right. I still do.
The S-1 has been more controversial, IIRC. This one seems less so.
Rick Snow spends several paragraphs in his 2014 book discussing this coin, Larson's article, and additional theories put forth after the 2006 presentation. He also provides some good overlay pictures. He concludes that while the overdate is plausible, it is not conclusive. He therefore errs on the side of caution and calls it a repunched date.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
The critical assumptions of Rick Snow, Chris Pilliod, and Dr. Larson that were that the 8 was directly over the 7, and the underdate 3rd 8 was struck fully. If anyone believed those 2 things, they would have to conclude it was not an overdate.
Thanks for the fun memories! I enjoyed writing the article. Sorry to have missed Chris's analysis at the show in 2006.
I'm not seeing illustrations in the 1st link.
In the market news in that Longacres Ledger, there was mention of 2 major coins I bought.
The 1886 was a Pop. 0 coin as the Ty2 wasn't mentioned on the label!
The 1873 was a major coin. For some reason, shortly after the auction, it showed up as a BIN at Heritage for $30k - I couldn't buy it fast enough!