$10 1853/2; $20 1853 repunced date

justsickaboutit · August 29, 2007 7:52AM

Hi - I dont have the references but hope someone would check to see if there's any mention of these die states. I have a $10 1853, which appears to be repunched - the 3 just slightly west. Ill try to attach an image. There's a visible underdate 2, it seems to me, but its not in the place usually seen on certified 1853/2 coins. The downward slope of the 2 crosses the lower loop of the overdate between about three o'clock and six o'clock, passes under the 3 just at the base of the lower ball, and extends downward to the left, to the point - the swollen bulge on the left of the base of the underdate two is visible - it looks to me like the entire bottom of the underdate is discernible below the overdate.

How about an 1853 $20 with multiple repunches?? The one has been repunched as many as ten times, including several which would be just above the rim - the denticles are over their bases. The 8 has been repunched two or three times, including once or twice just above the rim, the five likewise. The 3 appears to be over TWO different underdate 2s, and at least one underate 1, which spans the gap between the balls of the overdate 3. There may be more, but there's at least 15-16 repunches altogether. Anybody ever hear of an 1853/1852/1851???

DorkGirl · August 29, 2007 8:28AM

Your picture looks like mechanical doubling.

justsickaboutit · August 29, 2007 8:39AM

Its possible as to the 3. The five and the 1 appear to be repunched northwest and north, respectively, though, from a latitude about the same as this underdate 2 I think Im seeing here. Its hard to say as to the 8 but it looks to me like this is basically an 1853/1852 - what Im wondering is, is such a thing known in the literature?

fc · August 29, 2007 8:45AM

seems there would already be a breen number for them.
someone will chime in shortly who owns the right books.

justsickaboutit · August 29, 2007 9:36AM

Here's an image of the 1853 $20 with all the repunches.

rah1959 · August 29, 2007 9:51AM

Breen 7159 - 1853 Obviously Repunched 1, repunching plainest at base

Breen 7160 - 1853 Obviously Repucnhed 3, Plain extra outlines left of inner curve of 3

Breen 7161 - 1853 Blundered Date, base of 3 between 53, a little above bases. Base of extra 1 below and left of 1. Evidently began as a double date first slanting up from the right, then mostly effaced and corrected.

Breen 7162 - 1853/2 lower quarter of 2 between lower knob, cusp and lower inner right curve of 3

QDB and many others doubt the 1853/2

Hope this helps?

rah1959 · August 29, 2007 9:53AM

from your descript of the $20 ( see my Breen post above)...I lean towards the blundered date

However....would need better photos of the entire date area

RAH

justsickaboutit · August 29, 2007 10:07AM

Thanks for the nicely detailed reply. Here's the best I can do with the entire date area for the $20 and still get in under the upload limit.

DorkGirl · August 29, 2007 11:11AM

That last pic is pretty interesting....go join Photobucket.com so you can put bigger pics up.

rah1959 · August 29, 2007 11:16AM

<< Thanks for the nicely detailed reply. Here's the best I can do with the entire date area for the $20 and still get in under the upload limit. >>

Fantastic!...I would love to have that coin..I still lean towards the Blundered date....

Don't remember you saying...is the $20 graded?....by whom and grade?

justsickaboutit · August 29, 2007 5:22PM

The 1853 $20 right now is in an NGC AU 55 holder. It is, to be honest, um, perhaps a bit less attractive than what one might wish. But it looks to me to be technically MS, but weakly struck and covered with bagmarks, plus this blurry weirdness about the date. Id send it to PCGS and try to cross it over, but Id like it to be accurately described when I do, and I have NO idea what to claim its supposed to be, because I never heard of the mint letting one of its high profile gold coins leave the mint LOOKING like this.....

coinkat · August 29, 2007 9:30PM

The 1853 20 does look to be a blundered date... very cool and a neat find. As for the grade... this date seems to be baggy.

PerryHall · August 29, 2007 9:41PM

<< QDB and many others doubt the 1853/2. >>

This variety is recognized by all the major grading services, the red book, the grey sheet, etc.

CoinRaritiesOnline · August 29, 2007 10:42PM

<< 

<< QDB and many others doubt the 1853/2. >>

This variety is recognized by all the major grading services, the red book, the grey sheet, etc. >>

CoinRaritiesOnline · August 29, 2007 10:44PM

<< 

<< 

<< QDB and many others doubt the 1853/2. >>

This variety is recognized by all the major grading services, the red book, the grey sheet, etc. >>

>>

There are many, many folks who doubt whether the 1853/2 $20 is a true overdate, and not just a repunched date.

But you are correct. The grading services and price guides do list it.

RWB · August 29, 2007 10:50PM

Given the relative sloppiness of the Philadelphia Mint's engraving department under both Longacre and William Barber, one should expect there to be as many defective dies for gold as for silver and minor coins. On at least one occasion William Barber sent San Francisco double eagle dies with no date.

CaptHenway · August 29, 2007 11:37PM

The 1853 $10 is not the so-called overdate die. (Note, I am not saying that this die is or is not an overdate, just that I don't think I can prove it either way.)

On the 1853 $20, are you talking about those marks way to the left of the main 1?

TD

justsickaboutit · August 30, 2007 12:16AM

Hi there - Thanks to all who have replied. What Im talking about include marks way to the left of the main one, some both at the same latitude and several which are much lower - with the base just above the rim, and covered by the denticles - one of these latter is just the RIGHT of the main one. Someone suggested I could post larger images through Photobucket but Im not able to figure that out. Im going to try to attach two images - one where I have used photoshop to try, in my clumsy way, to outline what I think Im seeing, and then the same area without my scribblings. I found an image of Breen 7161 on Heritage (I believe thats the "Blundered Date") and to me it doesnt look like this.

These underdate ones seem to be of both the small date and large date type.

Im particularly interested in anybody's thoughts on the 1 which seems to be bridging the opening of the overdate 3, with its bottom covered by what seem to be the lower left points of TWO underdate 2s......

$10 1853/2; $20 1853 repunced date

Comments

Leave a Comment