Help solve a numismatic mystery - Paging Fred W. and all early US experts

Cladiator · November 23, 2007 11:47AM

Some of you may remember the 1837 Seated Half Dime that was the subject of this thread.

Well, I got the coin in hand today and have studied it under a loupe and studied extremely high resolution photos of it and the one thing I can tell you is that what you see is NOT the result of a bend. Put on your coin thinking caps and noodle this one around a bit. Eagerly looking forward to all opinions.

GoldenEyeNumismatics · November 23, 2007 11:56AM

the die was broken in 2.

coinman420 · November 23, 2007 11:59AM

<< the die was broken in 2. >>

i agree

curly · November 23, 2007 12:07PM

<< 

<< the die was broken in 2. >>

i agree >>

I agree 2

savoyspecial · November 23, 2007 12:47PM

textbook broken die from here

greg

nankraut · November 23, 2007 12:53PM

I'm with the previous responders on this one.

elwood · November 23, 2007 1:01PM

It's a discovery piece

Congrats!!!

I think I had it right in the other thread.

LDS

NumisOxide · November 23, 2007 1:04PM

Looks like a way cool shattered die to me.

MrHalfDime · November 23, 2007 1:06PM

At first glance, it would appear to be a very simple, albeit large, die crack that bisected this reverse die. However, I first questioned this theory purely from the standpoint that such a massively shattered reverse die was completely unknown for the year 1837. Indeed, there are no die cracks known for any reverse die for 1837, the first year of issue for this design, save for some very small die cracks from the rim to the tops of A2 and A3 of AMERICA. Now, I realize that simply because it has not been seen or reported before, that does not mean that it cannot exist, but it did fill me with a high degree of scepticism.

After studying Cladiator's improved images, now that he has the coin in hand, I see a few characteristics that lead me away from the die crack theory. Look closely at the bisecting die crack and you will notice that the crack abruptly stops wherever it crosses a letter on the reverse. When letters are punched into a die, they create stress points, or weak points, where the die is most likely to crack. Typically, such a large die crack would encompass and follow the outline of letters, which were likely to be the origin of the die crack in the first place. This die crack seems to have an almost random pattern as it relates to the letters, and the letters are not broken or irregular as they would be if they were part of the stress fracture. Also, there is an unusual change in coloration of the coin silver at either side of the crack, suggesting that there might be a difference in the makeup of the silver alloy at either side of the crack.

I wondered, if there were impurities in the coin silver strip before the blanks were punched, these could show up as irregularities in the surface of the coin. Could this be an example of a planchet flaw, or lamination, which occured before the coin was struck? Also, when the coin silver ingots were drawn through the rolling mills to reduce them to the proper thickness, when they got to the end of a particular ingot or strip they would often simply insert the next ingot overlapping the first, relying on the rolling mill to 'bond' the two strips together in a sort of compression weld. The two different silver ingots were not melted together in the melting pot, creating one homogenous alloy, but were different strips merely compressed together, and likely to have different coloration as seen on this coin. Just a theory, but a plausible one considering all of the evidence. To be sure, it is possible that a never-before-seen die crack could be discovered, even one as large as this, especially on the Liberty Seated half dime series, but why would that die crack be interrupted at each letter, and why would the color of the coin silver be different at either side of the die crack?

I have half dimes with planchet laminations that occured both before and after the coin was struck. That is to say, the lamination on one example peeled off before the coin was struck, and another example on which the lamination peeled away after the coin was struck. This coin may be a special case where it is not really what we call a lamination, where a piece of the coin blank peeled away, but rather, a coin struck on a blank planchet which occured at the junction between two coining strips. Whatever it is, it is interesting, and a real conversation piece.

gene2393 · November 23, 2007 1:08PM

<< 

<< 

<< the die was broken in 2. >>

i agree >>

I agree 2 >>

i agree

Cladiator · November 23, 2007 1:29PM

Here is a photo I just took of the obverse of the coin. There is a very fine die crack from the head of Liberty to rim and another very fine die crack from the bottom left of Liberty's base to rim, just left of the 1 in 1837.

JRocco · November 23, 2007 1:29PM

Hey Clad, How are you buddy?

Have I ever told you that I really love interesting coins....and this one is a really interesting coin.

It sure as heck looks to have a lot of characteristics of a broken die, but it lacks a few also.....hmmmm interesting.

I am going to wait to hear from a few more of our resident experts, and look forward to their opinions.

Good luck and I hope congrats will be in order for you

JRocco · November 23, 2007 1:31PM

Is there any rotation on the reverse strike Clad?

Cladiator · November 23, 2007 1:34PM

<< Is there any rotation on the reverse strike Clad? >>

The reverse is rotated clockwise about 20 degrees.

JRocco · November 23, 2007 1:40PM

<< 

<< Is there any rotation on the reverse strike Clad? >>

The reverse is rotated clockwise about 20 degrees. >>

That should put those 2 cracks almost in line......

If they line up my first thought would be a broken planchet not a cracked die......

edited to add...Is there any indication of a break on the rims?

Crazy4Coins · November 23, 2007 1:45PM

To me....it looks like some type of substance was applied to the left half of the surface.

It's odd that the line dissects the coin pretty close to the center point. The surface to the left not only is different in color, it also appears to be higher....notice how weak the letters and leaves are around their edges as compared to the right side of the coin. The small areas within the H, the two D's and M were somewhat protected from the substance. The areas inside the letters have the same surface look as does the right side. I don't think this would be the case if it were a planchet problem.

It looks like a couple of small chunks of the substance has been chipped away......one spot under the "A" and another at the bottom right of "D"....as well as the area under the E that would complete the line across.

So, my guess is foreign substance on the surface, but I could certainly be wrong.

Look forward to the answer.

Cladiator · November 23, 2007 1:46PM

<< Is there any indication of a break on the rims? >>

None at all. The rims and edge are extremely worn. You can barely make out the original reeding of the coin.

elwood · November 23, 2007 1:46PM

<< Look closely at the bisecting die crack and you will notice that the crack abruptly stops wherever it crosses a letter on the reverse. When letters are punched into a die, they create stress points, or weak points, where the die is most likely to crack. Typically, such a large die crack would encompass and follow the outline of letters, which were likely to be the origin of the die crack in the first place. This die crack seems to have an almost random pattern as it relates to the letters, and the letters are not broken or irregular as they would be if they were part of the stress fracture. >>

While not common, I have seen cracks that stop at a letter and reappear on the other side. I also think that the crack extends over the top of some of the letters, but with the amount of wear on the coin, it's not real visible.

<< Also, there is an unusual change in coloration of the coin silver at either side of the crack, suggesting that there might be a difference in the makeup of the silver alloy at either side of the crack. >>

If you look closely, the same color (toning) appears on both sides of the crack. I think some of the difference is just wear and the lighting.

Cladiator · November 23, 2007 1:49PM

When I look at the coin and the photos it appears that the "crack" or whatever it is goes through the letter H in HALF at the upper right corner of H. Anyone else see this?

JRocco · November 23, 2007 1:53PM

As elwood has said, cracks can appear to go under devices like lettering, especially on worn areas.

MrHalfDime · November 24, 2007 1:13AM

I still cannot say for sure exactly what we are seeing on this half dime, but I am still not convinced that it is the massive bisecting die crack that it appears to be at first glance.

Look closely at the last two images of the reverse die, at the area near the rim at K5, where the 'die crack' runs through the legend and to the rim. It appears that not only is this a large die crack, but it also appears that the plane of the field has shifted where the die crack runs between CA of AMERICA, raising the plane of the field of the coin on the lower side of the die crack (the side including A3). If this were to be true, it would mean that the portion of the die including A3 must have sunk in relation to the rest of the die, implying a massive break of the die. However, the lower left serif of A3 (indeed, the entire letter) is completely unchanged. The serif of A3 bridges the supposed die crack and plane shift. How could that be? I would argue that it could not if this were actually a die crack.

I think that Crazy4Coins might have something in his theory that there is some foreign substance on the surface of the coin. This could account for the appearance of the edge of the 'die crack', for the discoloration at either side of the 'die crack', and for the fact that the letters of the legend and denomination are completely undisturbed by the 'die crack'.

I reviewed the Valentine reference on half dimes, hoping to find a clue to this interesting coin. I also closely studied my enlargements of the Valentine photographic plates for the 1837 issues, but to no avail. There are only very minor die cracks reported for any variety of 1837, typically from the tops of letters in the legand to the rim, and curiously, none of these aligns with any 'cracks' seen on Cladiator's coin. Valentine only shows two reverse dies for 1837 in his abbreviated illustrations, due to the fact that the same reverse dies were shared on multiple die marriages; if the same reverse die was used on multiple marriages, he only showed it once. Thus, nothing meaningful can be derived from them. I also studied my reference collection, including multiple examples of all six die marriages for 1837, but no large die cracks are seen on any example which resemble Cladiator's coin.

I did, however, discover something very interesting in all of this. On Cladiator's obverse image of his coin, it clearly shows what certainly appears to be a die crack from the top of Miss Liberty's head, proceeding up at an angle to the northeast, to the rim. Curiously, this die crack has never been reported before, either, either in Valentine or any of the other published literature, nor does it appear on any coin in my reference collection nor in my notes. It's beginning to appear that this may be a new die marriage in very late die state. I say that it may be a new die marriage and not simply a new die state because the die cracks that it exhibits, compared with the known die cracks on other known die marriages are mutually exclusive.

You just might have something there, Cladiator. Maybe not what you first thought, but something significant, nonetheless.

EagleEye · November 24, 2007 1:27AM

Is there any chance it is fake?

sinin1 · November 24, 2007 1:34AM

I am thinking strike through, planchett flaw, die crack

and possibly all 3 to varying degrees at various points

to result in a combination on a half dime leading

to a perfect numismatic mystery

PerryHall · November 24, 2007 1:37AM

Looks like a die crack to me. Nothing special for coins from this period.

MrHalfDime · November 24, 2007 1:42AM

"Is there any chance it is fake?"

Interesting question, and one which I had not thought much about. There were contemporary counterfeits made of Liberty Seated half dimes, despite their low value and purchasing power, although typically they were of later dates. I doubt that this would have been a contemporary counterfeit simply because this was a first year of issue, but I suppose it could have been made later. If so, it would likely not be a cast counterfeit, simply because the host coin used to make the molds would also have to have the die cracks, and as I have said, there are no such dies reported in the available literature.

Perhaps this could be a cast counterfeit, made from molds using a real half dime without die cracks, and what we are seeing are 'dents' in the sand molds, causing raised die lines on the coins they produce. I do have examples of cast counterfeit half dimes with such raised lines, caused by 'dents' in the molds. However, they have the typical rough surfaces often seen on cast counterfeits, caused by the fine sand used in the molds. Another plausible theory.

Crazy4Coins · November 24, 2007 1:50AM

I'm still going with the "foreign substance" theory....especially since seeing the obverse.

Two more bits of info that reinforce my opinion:

Notice the hits within the "foreign substance" area.....they appear to be clean and sort of picked out of the surface rather than a typical hit were the metal is moved as seen on the right side.

Looking at the closeup view of the "S" in STATES you can really see the height difference in the surface and also how crudely the field adjoins with the rim...almost at the same plane as the rim.

Since the coin has rotation.....my guess would be that it was dipped into something while being held on the top half. Nothing more than a simple chemistry experiment or primitive form of coin doctoring.

But it certainly would be neat if it's a new discovery......

numisma · November 24, 2007 2:15AM

<< Is there any chance it is fake? >>

That was my first thought when reading the OP. I have seen (and owned) counterfeit Dimes from the 1830s that looked very convincing (sometimes). A few quick tasks you could perform is to weigh the coin, measure the diameter/thickness and take an image of the edge. Also try a ring test (to see if it is base metal or silver). I know that you are looking for a Logan edge mirror, but the ol' flashlight reflector method would suffice.

Edited to add: check out this current thread regarding counterfeit Seated Dimes: link to thread

slumlord98 · November 24, 2007 2:38AM

I'm skeptical of this being a fake for the simple reason that it is the first year of type. Having seen 1833 w/arrows seated halves, 1838 and later lettered edge CBHs, 1787 flowing hairs, and others that were wrong for type, this would most likely only be a fake if it is a cast copy.

Cladiator · November 24, 2007 2:46AM

I unfortunately don't have a scale right now so can't give you a weight. I did measure the coin with my calipers and took some EdgeView™ photos for you all to see. A ring test showed the coin to be silver.

North/West Diameter = 15.37mm
East/West Diameter = 15.40mm
Average planchet thickness = 0.67mm

Normal EdgeView™

EdgeView™ with a spacer under coin to view entire edge

Cladiator · November 24, 2007 1:57PM

The coin is being sent to the #1 expert in the series on Monday for extensive, in hand examination. Hopefully we'll get some good answers from the study.

errormaven · November 25, 2007 12:25AM

It looks like a bi-level die crack to me. While most die cracks show lateral spread (thereby producing a thin raised line), a significant minority instead show vertical displacement. In other words, part of the die sinks in on one side of the crack, producing a "step".

It's not a shattered die and it's not a split die.