1815 is the twenty-first thread in the Capped Bust Half series. Post your CBH's
OKbustchaser
Posts: 5,539 ✭✭✭✭✭
Thanks to Mozin for starting this great series of informative numismatic threads and everyone else who has contributed. I’ve learned some new things even after collecting CBH’s for over 30 years. The rest of the series can be found here. The last year started was 1817; no CBH’s (or any other denominations other than the cent) were minted bearing the date 1816 due to a fire at the mint, so…
Now for the easiest year of the entire series to attribute—1815.
In 1815 the U.S economy was just recovering from the War of 1812. Silver was heavily hoarded by individuals resulting in a shortfall of the metal being available to the mint. As a result NO half dollars were minted for most of the year. The estimated 47,150 halves bearing the 1815 date were actually delivered in January of 1816 one day prior to the fire.
There was only one obverse die (an overdated unused 1812) and one reverse die used to strike 1815 halves resulting in only one die marriage. It is generally attributed by one outstanding characteristic—the date!
Now for the easiest year of the entire series to attribute—1815.
In 1815 the U.S economy was just recovering from the War of 1812. Silver was heavily hoarded by individuals resulting in a shortfall of the metal being available to the mint. As a result NO half dollars were minted for most of the year. The estimated 47,150 halves bearing the 1815 date were actually delivered in January of 1816 one day prior to the fire.
There was only one obverse die (an overdated unused 1812) and one reverse die used to strike 1815 halves resulting in only one die marriage. It is generally attributed by one outstanding characteristic—the date!
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
0
Comments
I would like to own one some day, but don't know that it will happen. Thanks for posting yours.
Thanks for starting this thread, and on such a busy day too. You have a beautiful 1815 Bustie.
Thought I was all set to show off my 1815, then noticed all I had ready was the pictures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let's see all those 1815 Busties!
Come on, though. I realize it's Christmas, but I know I am not the only person here who has a '15.
Jim.
And, Mozin, I laugh and remember my wife every time I see my sig line, too.
Some diagnostics for 1815/12 O-101a R3 (R2 marriage):
Obverse: Star 1 points to upper edge of dentil. Small die crack from upper side of curl. Stars 8 & 11 are recut. Much clashing in front of face.
Reverse: Small defect in the upper right angle of “N”. This late die state has a crack from olive leaves up through “UN”, and around to scroll. Another crack runs from edge above “M”, on down across arrowheads, and finally to edge below olive leaves. Numerous heavy die clashes in this late die state, even in shield. “I” is centered under left side of “T”.
<< <i>1815 may or may not be an overdated, left over 1812 die. According to Finkelstein's article in JRJ from the early 90's, dentil counts would indicate that it is not an overdate. Forum member Nysoto posted more information on this in a thread earlier this year. Hopefully, he can find it and add it here. >>
I forgot about this study. Thanks for reminding me.
David Finkelstein wrote in John Reich Journal Volume 8/issue 1 October 1993, and I quote:
1815 - 1 Overdate Die
There are 109 dentils on 1815/2 Obverse 1 (O-101). This is inconsistent with the range of dentils on 1812 halves (104-107) and more consistent with the range of dentils on halves dated 1817 and later. Based on dentil count alone, the 1815/2 obverse die can not be linked to a leftover 1812 obverse die.
The 1 engraved on the 1815 obverse die has a flag that is much longer and appears more horizontal on top than the flags of the 1 engraved on the 1812 halves. Although this is not conclusive evidence, I am speculating that the 1815/2 half was not prepared from a leftover 1812 obverse die, but from a blundered obverse die prepared in 1815.
Great coins guys
<< <i>are fakes of this date prevalent? >>
I don't know if I would say prevalent Barndog, but I would not recommend buying a raw example unless you knew the series and this die marriage in particular. Not a good raw coin for the newbie CBH collector.
<< <i>are fakes of this date prevalent? >>
There are at least six different counterfeit versions of the 1815 CBH, none of them good enough to fool many collectors.
The problem is with altering CBHs to make the last digit look like a 5. An 1818 date can easily be made to look like an 1815. I think 1813 and 1819 could also be worked to look like 1815. There is no way I would buy an 1815 CBH raw. Even if it is authentic, it could well be worked on to "improve" it, thereby making it unacceptable to the major grading services.
Because I prefer lighter toning (mid gray) I tried to trade my coin in a couple of years ago at a coin show. I about had a stroke when I found out how much extra cash the dealer wanted just to make the trade. ...I decided at that moment to hang onto my dark coin.
Is the reverse as nice as it looks??? In hand.
But you could always upgrade to Crusty Coins!...
1815 over 2 ???
Some times I question the over dates.
I'm always looking for proof they are what they say!
I don't have pictures of all 8 1812 obverses to compare to but I do have a few.
But I still see something different than the 2.
I took this comparison of the 1812 and 1815 date.
When you look at the 5, I see another 5 under it.
I took this EDS 1815 date close-up and returned it to a negative.
This gives a different aspect of the coins surface.
On the back of the upright there is a ledge (top left arrow).
The diagonal of another upright (bottom left arrow).
On the right side it looks to duplicate the inside curved lines of the mast of 5.
So a lower and tilted miss sunken 5 is re-sunk to it's new position.
Looking a little closer to the area around the 5, there are signs of heavy lapping.
You can see it better in the date comparison picture.
If you look at the segments under the 5, they are shorter than the ones to the side of that area.
Then the little loop on the front, which people think is the loop of the 2,
is a die crack, it gets stronger in progression.
Then back to the date comparison, you see that the 2 can't be under the 5.
Now here is a picture of the "a" model.
Notice the further lapping, thiner up-right and base of the 5.
Hardly any of the under number seen in this state.
The die crack gets stronger (loop).
Further leveling off of the surrounding field area.
Just my thoughts here ....
Any comments from the group?
Thanks Mike for your comment about my darkly toned 1815/2 posted just above your last posting.
To me it is nicer than it looks in the photos.
...and to think I've never really liked my 1815/2 because of its dark toning.
The lighter spot just above the left wing can be barely seen with the naked eye.
Was is really neat about the coin are the clash marks that do not show up because of the toning.
Under UNUM it is triple clashed. Under the right wing the ribbon ends are triple clashed. Under the left wing the portait's eye and the curls just above are triple clashed.
On the obverse the upper edge of the left wing is double clashed in front of the nose. The opposing lower edge of the left wing is double clashed in front of the eye. ...and next to the inner points of star 1 and 2 the scroll is double clashed at about PLU, but the letters PLU do not come thru. Under the portrait above the 81 the right end of the scroll is double clashed. All of this double clashing is about 3/4mm apart.
You can see some of this clashing, but not all, on Mozin's lighter toned 1815 O-101a posted earlier.
There are a couple of minor reverse scrapes that the toning hides. Under the I of PLURIBUS and under the right wing.
Not a lot of luster to see. I cannot tell for sure, but I think it is there under the toning. Or? Well, I'm not 100% sure.
I would be interested in grade opinons of others. ...and if anyone has a grade opinion, please ONLY send them via the private message (PM) system on this Forum. I do NOT want to tie up space on the 1815 Thread just for this. Thanks.
Regards,
Ed
I need to start reading these threads thru...
I've had my head stuck in 1827.
I should have read your post first before I posted what I saw.
It would have taken away a few questions.
I looked at your reverse pics, did you notice the triple clash marks in your "a"?
Or even that the die was rotating all the while?
Mike
Concerning the 1815/12 (as an inverted 5).
Interesting topic. Last year I did a huge overlay of 1815/12 date area just to see if I could flip it and match it up (as in upside down 5), but try as I might I couldn't quite get it right. Not like the 1807, 50/inverted 5 that drops in like a puzzle piece. Still, apparently like you, I'm not so sure it was a 2 under the 5 and wanted to, (but haven't as of yet) taken the time to try several different numbers and see what I could come up with. I have never seen an 1815/12 that showed enough of the supposed underlying 2 to definitively state that it is over a 2. Has ANYONE seen one, in early die state, where more of the 2 showed POSITIVELY identifying it as a 2? It could be a 3. It could be?
Edgar
Yes, I noticed the triple clash on the reverse of my coin. The mint workers sure had a hard time holding those dies in position without rotating.
-------------------------------------------------
One of these situations must have provided us with the 1815 CBH:
I always wondered if the 1815 CBH was made from an unused 1812 die, as described in Overton. Why not an 1814 die, or an 1813 die? Why would the mint still have an old unused 1812 die lying around in 1815? According to Dave Finkelstein's work on CBH dentil counts, the 1815 was NOT made from an 1812 die.
Maybe the unused 1815 die first had a 5 punched incorrectly, then overpunched with the 5 in the correct position, agreeing with SGFM. Maybe the first 5 punch was one used for the quarters, too small for the half dollars.
Maybe the 1815 die first had a 2 punched in upside down, the mint worker then grabbed the 5 to make the correction.
How about you folks helping me find a nice certifed ef "original" one, PLEASE.
one of the few Key coins I haven't sold yet.
crappy pic.
Mark
Edited: Has anyone ever thought that it might be an 1815/6. Perhaps the die was finished early for an 1816 run of CBHs so they changed it to 1815 and started coining ahead of time? Just a thought, and the 6 on large cents of that date (I know, they use different styles most of the time) look like they may match up to the underlying digit???
Judging just from pictures, your ANACS 50 should cross to NGC, and maybe PCGS. I am assuming normal luster and field marks.
Wonder why you have more than one 1815 CBH.
I had initially hoped to keep most until retirement unless my kids needed help that I could not support via my day job. But I am less than a year away from having a second child enter college and the cash flow is not what it used to be.
<< <i>jdillane,
Judging just from pictures, your ANACS 50 should cross to NGC, and maybe PCGS. I am assuming normal luster and field marks.
>>
I suspect it is a good candidate for a cross. Color is better than the pics suggest. Decent luster. I recall thinking she's a few wispy hairlines from a 53.
I have yet to attempt a cross. If I were to sell her, probably would look to PCGS first for a new holder.
I picked this one up in August, just a few months ago and it is very true what they say about coins, we are only their caretakers of these beautiful pieces of art and history for a short while, and in my case, a very short while. I have just decided to sell it and wanted to add it to the official thread before she leaves me. This will be my last night with her. I am having trouble saying goodbye. I hope she finds a good home where someone can appreciate her as much as and in the way I have.
<< <i>I think I like both of them.
Eye appeal on the VF is over the top. Don't think I could've parted with her. I suspect the slab is affecting the image of the 45, whether it's scuffs or whatnot.
I loved the rainbow toning on my 1815/2 PCGS VF-30 but I felt an XF-45 would look much nicer next to my other CBH's in my set. I was fortunate that I spotted this one when I did and was able to purchase it.
Take care
Ben
123/114
166 BHDs & 154 Die Varieties & Die States...
Bust Half Nut Club #180
Festivus Yes! Bagels No!
Edited: Wrong Date!
==Looking for pre WW2 Commems in PCGS Rattler holders, 1851-O Three Cent Silvers in all grades
Successful, problem free and pleasant transactions with: illini420, coinguy1, weather11am,wayneherndon,wondercoin,Topdollarpaid,Julian, bishdigg,seateddime, peicesofme,ajia,CoinRaritiesOnline,savoyspecial,Boom, TorinoCobra71, ModernCoinMart, WTCG, slinc, Patches, Gerard, pocketpiececommems, BigJohnD, RickMilauskas, mirabella, Smittys, LeeG, TomB, DeusExMachina, tydye
PS, post a size larger of the trueviews in the other thread, i wanna see this beauty larger!
==Looking for pre WW2 Commems in PCGS Rattler holders, 1851-O Three Cent Silvers in all grades
Successful, problem free and pleasant transactions with: illini420, coinguy1, weather11am,wayneherndon,wondercoin,Topdollarpaid,Julian, bishdigg,seateddime, peicesofme,ajia,CoinRaritiesOnline,savoyspecial,Boom, TorinoCobra71, ModernCoinMart, WTCG, slinc, Patches, Gerard, pocketpiececommems, BigJohnD, RickMilauskas, mirabella, Smittys, LeeG, TomB, DeusExMachina, tydye