Options
Images of the new 1817/4
slumlord98
Posts: 1,180 ✭
At the Long Beach show, someone submitted an 1817/4 to ANACS for verification. Here are the pics. Many thanks to Jade for help. In the image of UNITED, does anyone have an explanation for the shadow?
0
Comments
was this that one that was found MD'ing?
and....what did you take those close-up shots with?
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
<< <i>does anyone have an explanation for the shadow? >>
off center die clash?
As far as the shadow, if it's not an artifact of the image I will give a WAG at damage to the obverse die from a previously retained, slightly off-center brockage.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Could the shadowed letters be "drawing" toward the edges as the die is used, similar to the elongated, "drawn" stars commonly seen on the obverse?
I also like that the "I" punch had the lower right serif broken off.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
As for the denticals not being doubled, if it was first struck off-center as it appears to have been the first set of denticals would have been off the blank in the area above UNITED. So there would be no doubling of the denticals. On the other hand two sets of denticals should be present n the other edge of the coin with the mashed set being under AMERICA. An enlargement of that area would be very helpful.
It is not a drawing of the letters to the edge due to die wear. If it was drawing then again the separation seen on the coin would not be present, and the die would be showing heavy wear from use. and i'm just not seeing that.
Yes, the shadowing on "UNITED" is perplexing, to say the least. I just keep staring at it and I can't nail down a plausible theory. My immediate reaction was counterfeit. Perhaps a botched counterfeit would have been double struck or something to that effect. However, the coin is NOT double struck. Take a look at the spread on the doubled wing, which nobody has mentioned here. The spread is much smaller than the spread on UNITED.
Therefore, we can eliminate double struck as an option. We can also eliminate the notion that it is a brockage, for obvious reasons. Can't be machine doubling. That leads me to a viable option; environmental damage.
This may make some of you laugh, but I have seen dug coins display a similar phenomenon, especially on copper. A coin in the ground, under certain conditions, will corrode. A stationary coin in the ground that is corroding......slowly but surely......will leave metal deposits in the soil. As a coin moves down into the ground.......again, very slowly.....the deposits made (corroded metal) could come into contact with the actual coin and react to form a shadow. Again, I have seen strange things happen with dug coins. For example, some copper coins that are in the ground for a long time will actually show an incuse design image. Very bizzare. slumlord98: is the shadow image raised or incused? I would like more information regarding the geometry in this area.
Well, that's my theory. Take it or leave it. The counterfeit option is still a possibility, but the odds are slim. Question for slumlord98: Are other 1817/4 halves known to have rotated dies? This could shed some light on the subject. All known 1817/4 O-102a halves would rotated reverse dies, given the assumed extremely low mintage. Just my humble opinion.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
I can't get it with the shadow. BUT you DO NOTICE this same "shadow" is under the 1 and 7 of the date. It would seem to me, Dennis is the closest with the environmental damage. Slum, you said it is NOT on the other imprints of the coin on the planchet, but I keep thinking the WHOLE COIN should have the "shadow".
An ANACS coin I would love to own in a sec...
THe shadow on the UPPER part of the U looks raised, but the shadow on the LOWER (curved) part of U looks incused. I am going to have nightmares. Thats an MS if no corrosion. But looking at that coin - who CARES about the corrosion!
<< <i>The counterfeit option is nonexistant. Too many experts have examined it. The edge lettering matched a 17 103. The right edge lettering alone quashes the counterfeit theory. As for rotated dies, how would that be relevant? The dies rotate a very small amount with each strike, so the coins struck just before and after this one would show about the same amount of rotation. >>
The rotated die issue is very relevant. You said it yourself: "...so the coins struck just before and after this one would show about the same amount of rotation". Think about it. This is an R.7 coin. Only a handful of examples exist. We conclude that very few were struck in the first place. If only a handful were struck in the first place, then all of the coins would have very close obv/rev die orientation.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
That said, I also sort-of kind-of maybe-when-I-squint see the same effect on the Eliasberg coin. I think someone should send both the new discovery coin and the Eliasberg coin to me for a thorough examination.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
If so, it's quite an improbability that the reverse die would have time to rotate to a significant degree.
Usually, first impressions and opinions are probably correct. As I stated above, my first reaction was counterfeit. I looked at the images again and again today. There are only 7 extant 1817/4 bust halves and the ones that I could research have proper 180% obv/rev die orientation. How could the newly discovered 8th example have a rotated die orientation?
Some will say, "well, it must be genuine as it has been slabbed by ANACS as authentic". If you read the book on early dollars by Jules Reiver, you will see in the section on 1794 dollars a story regarding a counterfeit 1794. The author had before him 2 identical 1794 dollars; same nicks, cuts, dings, wear, etc. It is obviously not probable for 2 coins to have the exact same circulation damage, so the author concluded that one of the coins was genuine and the other was a counterfeit. However, both were independently authenticated as genuine. I believe that ANACS certified both of the coins. It was later determined that one was a cast of the other.
My point is this: couldn't it be possible that an 1817/4 was used....many years ago....to make cast molds? Then a copy was manufactured, then buried for 5, 10 or 15 years? The environmental damage would obliterate signs of a cast copy. It has happened before. In fact it has happened several times. I would go into detail here, but there are well documented cases of high quality copies being authenticated and sold.
The die rotation issue concerns me. It would be nearly impossible for just 1 of 8 known 1817/4 halves to have a dramatic rotation of the obv/rev die orientation, imho. But......if 2 halves were cast and hastily put together into a mold assembly.....then the die rotation would show up in the cast coin.
There are some tests that need to be performed. 1) compare the new example to the other available examples for die orientation. 2) perform a specific gravity test on the new example. 3) compare the new example to others for duplication of dings, scratches and other defects.
I hope that the new example is genuine. However, it is sometimes healthy to explore all possibilities to be 100% certain. I look forward to hearing the forthcoming research regarding this issue. Especially since the hobby's best researchers will be involved.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
The Eliasberg coins looks to my eyes to have the same feature.
Great read...Mike
<< <i>Here's my wild *@& guess. Off center die clash with dies not parallel occured inprinting reverse with doubled letters. Dies realigned and clash again doubling letters. Reverse clash polished -- a few coins including this coin is struck, and the die shatters or they end mintage. >>
In order for the reverse to show it's OWN lettering through die clashing the first clash would have to transfer a very strong clashed image t the obverse die, and then after repositioning have to again suffer another extremely strong clash to transfer the letters back to the reverse die. Now in order to transfer the lettering to the obverse (and not show clash detail FROM of obverse) the obverse die would have to be softer than the reverse die. In order for the next clash to transfer the lettering back to te reverse, the obverse die would suddenly have to have become HARDER than the reverse die!! Now the only way that could happen would be if the reverse die was changed between clashes. And put into the press with the same rotated die positioning? I don' think so. Another problem with the die clash theory is Where is the obverse dies that shows the strong clash from the rev?
I think Jade may have a possibility with the ground corrosion theory. I have seen coins with doubled images from that before, though not with such wide seperation. (Without having the chance to examine the coin or more images I'm still holding to double striking.)
I don't think repunching is an option because if the die was punched, lapped down, and the repunched the initial images would be smaller then the final images, not broader.
Jade, you keep mentioning cast. Why not die struck? It would be more difficult to do a cast with the lettered edge, and trying or hoping that the ground burial would remove the evidence of casting would be hit or miss. A die struck counterfeit would seem more likely. And with what one of these things brings you would only fave to have one "discovered" every five years or so. (In between time you can make counterfeits of less notible coins that won't result in such close scrutiny.)
Jade, you keep mentioning cast. Why not die struck?
Conder, it could be die struck. I just went with cast for one reason: it is far cheaper to make a cast than a die struck copy. Since only 1 or 2 or 3 copies would have been made, then I assumed "cast". I could be die struck. Assuming that it even is a copy. I really don't know and that is just a suggestion.
The shadowing issue is a different subject. I still think that it is environmental damage.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Dennis, how were you able to compare orientation of other specimens without holding them in hand? Just because web images show alignment doesn't mean that the coins show that. Images can be manipulated.
Further, which specimen was used to make the die? The coins would have to be the same detail grade, which leaves out all but the Eliasberg coin. As for the shadows, it almost has to be shadow toning. Even a caustic wash in Tarnex won't strip everything.
One final point that has nothing to do with authenticity- the images make the coin appear much better than in person. The coin is said to be seriously fugly.
One final final point- in a PM, Dennis and I computed the likely number of 17/4s that may have been struck. Assume a 1-2% survival rate since no one saved these in their day as were 1836 reeded edges and many others. Say there are ten known to round off the number. That would mean that 500-1000 were struck. At 45 coins per minute, the dies were only in the press for AT MOST ~20 minutes.
Your "quality to number of posts ratio" is excellent. Please keep it up!
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
He said they can fake everything but the edge lettering. If that matches, it is genuine.
I would counter by saying that it is very difficult to copy edge lettering, but not impossible. Having the correct edge lettering is a major plus for the argument that the new 17/4 is genuine.
Dennis, how were you able to compare orientation of other specimens without holding them in hand? Just because web images show alignment doesn't mean that the coins show that. Images can be manipulated.
I have a few 17/4 halves in stock so I just looked at the die orientation for those pieces.
Further, which specimen was used to make the die? The coins would have to be the same detail grade, which leaves out all but the Eliasberg coin.
Exactly right. That would be the next step.
One final final point- in a PM, Dennis and I computed the likely number of 17/4s that may have been struck. Assume a 1-2% survival rate since no one saved these in their day as were 1836 reeded edges and many others. Say there are ten known to round off the number. That would mean that 500-1000 were struck. At 45 coins per minute, the dies were only in the press for AT MOST ~20 minutes.
There are other possibilities, but I agree with you on this issue.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
Your original pic link must have been removed. Coinworld did do an article about it.
A contractor found it while digging. Several dealers said it was a fake becuase it was so dirty and blackened with tarnished. (duh?)
His son collects and protested while the guy cleaned it with Tarn-X. DOH!!
It came up genuine and an overdate as well. What a find!!
collections: Maryland related coins & exonumia, 7070 Type set, and Video Arcade Tokens.
The Low Budget Y2K Registry Set