1958-D 8/7 DDO??

bigtonydallas · November 10, 2003 7:21AM

I have an early die state coin which I believe to be an 8/7. I know there has been considerable study on this error and the last word I remember is that the photograph overlays prove that this is only a very well placed and shaped die chip. I wonder if they have been looking at an early die state or not. I have about 10-12 of them from a roll I bought a few years ago. I wish I could take pictures myself. I may send it off to Mr. Wexler to review. Has anyone else any new info?

coppercoins · November 10, 2003 8:47AM

The 8/7 cents of 1958 were a mistake Breen made a number of years ago. All of the people I know (John Wexler, Ken Potter, Gary Wagnon, Billy Crawford, James Wiles, and others to include myself) agree that this is NOT an over date variety, rather a master die gouge placed there by the reduction lathe. More than half - in fact almost all - 1958 cents exhibit something going on with the 8, and that's what it is.

bigtonydallas · November 11, 2003 8:09AM

I made a drawing of what I have.

The blue line is the edge of a die chip or the remnants of the 7

The yellow lines are a thin valley which looks like doubling.

The red lines are die scartches.

coppercoins · November 11, 2003 8:23AM

I'm not sure Tony. What I'm pretty sure it isn't would be a doubled die. What it is - I guess that's something I'd have to see before I could give a good opinion. At any rate, there are no known 1958/7 cents. They simply don't exist as far as most specialists see it. The subject has been studied ad nauseum, and not one example has surfaced that reversed the now ten-plus year old decision that Breen had been wrong in calling them overdates back in the 70s.

bigtonydallas · November 11, 2003 11:38AM

I agree. But the 1914/3 Buffalo was not known or proven until about 1996. So this coin may prove that it does exist. And even if it does, there are so many that they would not command a premium. I may send my best example to Mr. Wexler to examine. Only costs three bucks plus postage and insurance both ways as I am a member of NCADD.

bigtonydallas · December 14, 2003 11:39PM

I just received a letter from John Wexler that I have scanned and am pasting below.

John A. Wexler
P.o. Box 544
Quakertown, PA 18951-0544
December 6, 2003

Anthony Dalton
P.O. Box 1831
Coppell, TX 75019

Dear Anthony,
Enclosed is your 1958.D cent. You are right about one thing. Not all experts in the hobby agree
that this is an 8/7 overdate. However, I am one of those that does believe it is an 8/7 overdate.
The reason that I do is because I have been around in the hobby long enough to be aware of its
history. When it was first suspected to be an overdate (back in the seventies), error/variety
expert Alan Herbert contacted the Mint regarding the variety. It was the Mint that indicated that
the master hub used for making the master die each year had broken sometime in 1957. The
master hub only had the first 2 digits of the date. When a master die for a given year was made,
the last two digits were punched into the master die.

A master die was needed to make working hubs for 1958. Rather than make a new master hub
just for one year, since the design was going to be modified a bit with the introduction of the
Memorial cents in 1959, the Mint decided to take a working hub from 1957 and grind off the last two digits. This modified 1957 working hub could then be used as a master hub for 1958. Cc
Unfortunately, light remnants of the 7 remained on the hub creating remanants of the 7 on the
1958 master die The 5 and the 8 were then punched into the master die to complete it and
produced the 8/7 overdate. This overdate was then transferred to an extent to all working hubs of
1958 and ultimately to the working dies.
Unfortunately when I left the hobby in the mid-eighties, I threw out all of myoId articles and
reference materials including any of the early articles with this information. Some of the newer
experts dispute the 8/7 but the reality is that the original 8/7 explanation came right from the
Mint although I can't prove that today.
Because it is a master die error, it is quite common and it would be wrong to assign significant
premiums to this variety.

I hope that this has been of some help.
Sincerely,

John Wexler

Wolf359 · December 15, 2003 1:17AM

Neat-O! Too bad it's common.

But I guess Breen was correct all along?

coppercoins · December 15, 2003 3:37AM

Funny that John along with others agreed in the late 1990s that this was reduction lathe damage, not a genuine 8/7. Ask Ken Potter, James Wiles, Gary Wagnon, Billy Crawford...I think they are all in agreement, as am I.

Without regard to what it is or how it was caused, still MOST 1958 cents from both mints exhibit the little nib on the top right of the 8 that some people are calling a 7. So what's the point if there's no value anyway? I have rolls and rolls of them, and in fact it's a bit difficult to find a roll of 1958 cents that DOESN'T have it.

Just like the 1972 "die 5" cents...they are more common than the "normal" cents, yet some people insist on selling them as doubled dies. Well, they are an example of a minor doubled master die, but there's no premium value for them...what's the point?

bigtonydallas · December 15, 2003 3:46AM

It is an exercise in attribution. I am just trying to learn as much about attributing as I can. I found about 9-10 examples that exibit the bottom part of the 7 because the 8 was not punched down far enough or it was one of the first hubs and working dies from the new master die.

Coppercoins please don't think I was trying to upstage you or offend you. I am just trying to learn as much as I can. You know a hell of a lot more than I do!!

PM me with your address and I will send one of my examples for you to examine.

coppercoins · December 15, 2003 4:22AM

<< <i>Coppercoins please don't think I was trying to upstage you or offend you. I am just trying to learn as much as I can. You know a hell of a lot more than I do!!

PM me with your address and I will send one of my examples for you to examine. >>

Nothing of the sort ever crossed my mind. It would be nice, however, if the recognized experts on the subject would quit wavering as to what their opinion is on this. I e-mailed John about six years ago regarding the same subject, and he said it was nothing. I e-mailed Ken Potter with the same, same result. I called and talked to Gary Wagnon about it after he e-mailed me and said my info on the site regarding the 8/7 was wrong, and he said the same...they're nothing. Either a die gouge or reduction lathe damage. Now John is back on a story saying they are a true 8/7, and he goes so far as to call it an 'error' which it is NOT by his own definition. It just perterbs me to see the people who are most respected in this sector of the business to waver on terms and their definitions and attributions on stuff. It just causes more headaches for everyone else.

As for you sending one to me - no need. Like I said before, I have rolls and rolls of them. I believe 39 at last count. Most of the recognized and known RPMs have this anomaly, and I have plenty of those as well.

If you want to get into attrubiting I can help...but the best thing to start with would be 1960D large date rolls. There are so many different RPMs in those, you're close to guaranteed to get some out of every unsearched roll. They present quite a challenge in attribution and have a nominal sellable value.

bigtonydallas · December 15, 2003 1:38PM

Thanks Coppercoins. I have gone thru several rolls of 1960's and have found a few rpms.

LanceNewmanOCC · June 15, 2021 8:49AM

2003 letter

interesting from wexler

ricko · June 15, 2021 9:41AM

Well that letter sure sheds some light on this old topic. Thanks for posting it. Cheers, RickO

1958-D 8/7 DDO??

Comments

Leave a Comment