OK Half dime guys - is this an overdate? Warning - humongo TrueView

claychaser · October 10, 2008 1:04PM

Not mine, but what say the masses?

ColonialCoinUnion · October 10, 2008 1:07PM

I really need to get a larger monitor.

julie43 · October 10, 2008 1:09PM

imho, yup

dan8402 · October 10, 2008 1:10PM

That truview is a little bigger than 4x the width of my monitor. But, not being a half dime guy I would say it does look like an overdate.

19Lyds · October 10, 2008 1:20PM

Wow! No baloney about the humongonus of that sucker! Even with a good cable connection it took two beers and a bag of pretzels!

However, its a very nice over date!

Boom · October 10, 2008 1:21PM

I think it fair to say that it's rather obvious that it IS! You can see the other digit plain as day (last number)

It is what it is and should be properly attributed as such, whether overdate or "Variety" because it DOES make a difference on the Market!

JMHO, of course!

eyoung429 · October 10, 2008 1:24PM

Crap....just created another thread with this pic and a link to the original discussion.

BTW....it is a MULTIPLE overdate. You can clearly see 3 different digits just in the last 8

Boom · October 10, 2008 1:25PM

Heck, you can even see a number behind the 3rd digit! (the 4)

coinsarefun · October 10, 2008 1:27PM

I love humongous true views

Stefanie

Boom · October 10, 2008 1:41PM

Where is Mr Half Dime? Or Realone?

We ARE talking about THE #1 TPG on the planet, right?

How can they NOT properly label this coin?

To have to go to ANACS defeats the purpose.

IMHO, PCGS needs to recognize this coin for what it IS,

put it on the insert and that's that!

Unknown · October 10, 2008 1:58PM

This content has been removed.

Boom · October 11, 2008 12:33AM

Fresh opinions?

TomB · October 11, 2008 12:58AM

It certainly looks as though there is a 4 underneath there as well as an 8 under the second 8 and perhaps even a 7 or a die chip also under that 8.

MrHalfDime · October 12, 2008 12:43AM

"Where is Mr Half Dime?"

Hey, I'm right here. I've been here all along. It has just taken me this long to download that humongous TrueView image. Wow, that's huge.

Actually I was in New Hampshire, at the New Hampshire Coin & Currency Expo, in Manchester. It is a good show, larger than last year, and at a new venue. It is still running today for those who are interested.

Your half dime is an example of the frequently misattributed "1848/7/6", although the jury is still out on the specific identity of the underdigits. Al Blythe, in his "Complete Guide to Liberty Seated Half Dimes" incorrectly assigns a new number (V10) to this variety, stating "No Valentine number yet assigned". In fact, Dr. Daniel W. Valentine lists this die marriage as V7 in his 1931 reference ("The United States Half Dimes"), and actually provides photographic plates, yet his description mentions nothing about the repunched date (or overdate), stating only:

7 Obv. Small, compact date. 184 very close to base, last 8 clear.

Rev: Medium lettering.

He also lists a later die state (V7a) with a die crack on the reverse:

7a Obv: Die of No. 7.

Rev: Die of No. 7. A crack, N of UNITED, through H of HALF and E of STATES.

Your example is an early die state, without the evidence of the reverse die crack. However, for such a spectacular repunched date, an early die state is what you would want, as it offers the strongest evidence of the under digits.

One of the positive die markers for this variety is the two vertical die lines in the exergue, from the dentils up to the base of the rock, at either side of the date. Both of these are strongly evident on your example. These die lines were caused by a slip of the graver's tool. The die line to the left of the date is the weakest, and is worn away early, while the one to the right of the date is stronger and remains through much of the use of the die. By the time the die cracks become evident of the reverse, much of the repunched date is worn away.

While we may never know the precise identity of the underdigits, it is clear from your example that there is a strong underdigit within the loops of the second 8. The moniker "1848/7/6" would imply that this is a 6, but I have always believed it to be an 8 from the evidence seen within the upper loop. The top loop of the underdigit extends too far down on the right side to be a 6 in my opinion, and therefore must be an 8. The 4 in the date has also been strongly repunched, either twice or thrice. The raised portion of a digit to the upper left of the final 8 could be a 7, but is more likely an earlier 8. Therefore, this should be classifed as a repunched date, and not an overdate; an overdate is a date punched over a different date.

In the last Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) half dime census survey there were forty (40) examples of the "1848/7/6" V7 reported, with just one example in mint state, seven (7) in AU, nine (9) in EF, and the balance below that grade. In my own reference collection I have eleven (11) examples of this die marriage, in a range of die states, in grades from AU-58 down to VG-10. It is not rare, nor perhaps even very scarce, but is often misattributed, and is more frequently seen in later die state, with all evidence of the underdigits worn away from the working die. It is one of the more interesting repunched date varieties, though, and perhaps deserves a small premium, particularly in this early die state.

NHSBaseball · October 12, 2008 12:54AM

There, Claychaser- did that answer your question?

As always, I stand in awe of the breadth of MrHalfDime's expertise.

eyoung429 · October 12, 2008 1:56AM

Superb Mr. HD as always!!

But why did PCGS label it as a "Medium Date"?

I concur with the 4 being punched 3 times from what I can see and the last digits seem to be 7/8/8 as I cannot see where the serif of the upper portion of the 6 would be to the inside right of the upper loop of the 8

But by doing an overlay, I can see the 7 and the 2nd 8 clearly but, there is evidence of a 4th strike between the 4 and 8 but with the toning it's a strain at 80x and can't tell exactly what it is.

With the 2 other examples of the 1848/7/6 that I have seen inhand, one has the same die chip in the "M" of Dime and the other did not. This specimen has it very strongly with no die crack extending.

lathmach · October 12, 2008 2:11AM

I'm on dial up. I'll look this over at Thanksgiving when it finishes loading.

Ray

MrHalfDime · October 12, 2008 2:47AM

"But why did PCGS label it as a "Medium Date"?"

That is a very good question, and perhaps it is only because there is a "Large Date" example (V1) for this date. Many such monikers are misleading, and often cause collectors to question what they have, even misattribute their coins as a result.

Generally, all 1848 half dimes, with the exception of the V1 "Large Date" should be considered "Normal Date", neither large nor small, but struck from the intended, normal date logotype. Only the V1, for which the working die was prepared using a dime logotype, has an odd sized date. And this should perhaps be better described as a "Huge Date"; all others are "Normal Date".

"With the 2 other examples of the 1848/7/6 that I have seen inhand, one has the same die chip in the "M" of Dime and the other did not."

Very interesting observation. I will have to study my examples to see when this anomoly occured. If you have seen examples both with and without, then this must have occured part way through the life of the die. It will be interesting to determine that. Thank you for that observation. I cannot find any mention of that die chip in the M in my notes.

eyoung429 · October 12, 2008 2:55AM

Thank you for taking the time to look that up. With my panache for VAM'ing I tend to notice chips of that size as some are used to distinguish different variences of VAM's but found no reference to it when going through different plates.

Boom · October 13, 2008 12:59AM

So how does one go about getting this coin properly documented/ attributed thru the #1 tpg service on the planet?

There MUST be a way to have this unique coin properly attributed, wouldn't you think?

BTW, MrHalfDime, thank you. I also am in awe of your expertise of this series!

You have my utmost respect! The amount of knowledge here is utterly amazing.

MrHalfDime · October 13, 2008 4:31AM

eyoung429:

I have checked my examples of the "1848/7/6" V7 half dime against the TrueView pictured coin, particularly in the context of your observation of the 'die chip' seen in the image, connecting the left serif of the M in DIME with the center of the M. As I mentioned, I had never made note of this anomoly before in my notes.

The 'die chip' appears only on my very earliest die state, an AU-58 graded coin, and is missing on all other examples and die states. I find this to be very interesting. I also noted that there is also some die clashing on both my coin and on the TrueView specimen to the right of the M in DIME, and above the E in DIME, below the M, and above the bow knot, which are easily identifiable as obverse design elements. Since the 'die chip' within the M is rounded in appearance, and also seems to wear away from the working die in later die states, might this not also be a die clash and not a die chip? A die chip would generally be more irregular in appearance, analogous to a die crack in appearance, and would likely remain in later die states, even becoming larger. This anomoly wears away with successive use of the die, making it unlikely to be a die chip. In any event, whatever it is it appears on only one example in my reference collection - the very earliest die state I have. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

One other aspect of the "1848/7/6" V7 which I did not mention previously is the die rotation. The dies for this marriage are rotated approximately 20º relative to each other, with the reverse die appearing to be rotated 20º CCW relative to a properly oriented obverse. This would make the design elements normally seen in a die clash rotated by the same amount.

MikeInFL · October 13, 2008 9:32AM

Interesting thread! I have nothing to add other than a closup of the date area for those connection-speed-challenged among us....Mike

CaptHenway · October 13, 2008 1:35PM

<< <i>"Where is Mr Half Dime?"

Hey, I'm right here. I've been here all along. It has just taken me this long to download that humongous TrueView image. Wow, that's huge.

Actually I was in New Hampshire, at the New Hampshire Coin & Currency Expo, in Manchester. It is a good show, larger than last year, and at a new venue. It is still running today for those who are interested.

Your half dime is an example of the frequently misattributed "1848/7/6", although the jury is still out on the specific identity of the underdigits. Al Blythe, in his "Complete Guide to Liberty Seated Half Dimes" incorrectly assigns a new number (V10) to this variety, stating "No Valentine number yet assigned". In fact, Dr. Daniel W. Valentine lists this die marriage as V7 in his 1931 reference ("The United States Half Dimes"), and actually provides photographic plates, yet his description mentions nothing about the repunched date (or overdate), stating only:

7 Obv. Small, compact date. 184 very close to base, last 8 clear.

Rev: Medium lettering.

He also lists a later die state (V7a) with a die crack on the reverse:

7a Obv: Die of No. 7.

Rev: Die of No. 7. A crack, N of UNITED, through H of HALF and E of STATES.

Your example is an early die state, without the evidence of the reverse die crack. However, for such a spectacular repunched date, an early die state is what you would want, as it offers the strongest evidence of the under digits.

One of the positive die markers for this variety is the two vertical die lines in the exergue, from the dentils up to the base of the rock, at either side of the date. Both of these are strongly evident on your example. These die lines were caused by a slip of the graver's tool. The die line to the left of the date is the weakest, and is worn away early, while the one to the right of the date is stronger and remains through much of the use of the die. By the time the die cracks become evident of the reverse, much of the repunched date is worn away.

While we may never know the precise identity of the underdigits, it is clear from your example that there is a strong underdigit within the loops of the second 8. The moniker "1848/7/6" would imply that this is a 6, but I have always believed it to be an 8 from the evidence seen within the upper loop. The top loop of the underdigit extends too far down on the right side to be a 6 in my opinion, and therefore must be an 8. The 4 in the date has also been strongly repunched, either twice or thrice. The raised portion of a digit to the upper left of the final 8 could be a 7, but is more likely an earlier 8. Therefore, this should be classifed as a repunched date, and not an overdate; an overdate is a date punched over a different date.

In the last Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) half dime census survey there were forty (40) examples of the "1848/7/6" V7 reported, with just one example in mint state, seven (7) in AU, nine (9) in EF, and the balance below that grade. In my own reference collection I have eleven (11) examples of this die marriage, in a range of die states, in grades from AU-58 down to VG-10. It is not rare, nor perhaps even very scarce, but is often misattributed, and is more frequently seen in later die state, with all evidence of the underdigits worn away from the working die. It is one of the more interesting repunched date varieties, though, and perhaps deserves a small premium, particularly in this early die state. >>

I have always leaned towards this variety being a repunched date rather than an overdate.
TD

Coinosaurus · October 13, 2008 1:54PM

Excellent coin, photo, and discussion. You guys hit the triple crown tonight. Hats off to all.

Trime · October 13, 2008 2:34PM

Beautiful example of the "1848/7/6". I was very proud that I could identify the coin (whether it be an over or repunched date) until I read the erudite response of MrHD. The 1848 and 1849 HD are particularly enjoyable dates for the complex overdatage. While I do not have an example of this 1848 die marriage I have 3 examples of 1849/8, 1849/8/6 and 1849/6.
Enjoy!

Boom · October 13, 2008 3:07PM

Threads like this makes Membership here priceless!

Kudos to all. Great thread!

ModernCoinMart · October 13, 2008 9:59PM

<< <i>I really need to get a larger monitor. >>

I have a 24" widescreen monitor, and I don't even get half the coin on the screen... I get about halfway into the denticles at the widest point.

Looks like a beautiful coin, clay.

mojoman · October 14, 2008 3:24PM

That is a great looking coin

seanq · October 14, 2008 10:44PM

<< <i>
While we may never know the precise identity of the underdigits, it is clear from your example that there is a strong underdigit within the loops of the second 8. The moniker "1848/7/6" would imply that this is a 6, but I have always believed it to be an 8 from the evidence seen within the upper loop. The top loop of the underdigit extends too far down on the right side to be a 6 in my opinion, and therefore must be an 8. The 4 in the date has also been strongly repunched, either twice or thrice. The raised portion of a digit to the upper left of the final 8 could be a 7, but is more likely an earlier 8. Therefore, this should be classifed as a repunched date, and not an overdate; an overdate is a date punched over a different date.

In the last Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) half dime census survey there were forty (40) examples of the "1848/7/6" V7 reported, with just one example in mint state, seven (7) in AU, nine (9) in EF, and the balance below that grade. In my own reference collection I have eleven (11) examples of this die marriage, in a range of die states, in grades from AU-58 down to VG-10. It is not rare, nor perhaps even very scarce, but is often misattributed, and is more frequently seen in later die state, with all evidence of the underdigits worn away from the working die. It is one of the more interesting repunched date varieties, though, and perhaps deserves a small premium, particularly in this early die state. >>

I have always leaned towards this variety being a repunched date rather than an overdate.
TD >>

Based on the repunching inside the top loop of the 8, the primary underdigit has to be an 8. I may be completely off base here but I thought the last two digits of the date were punched together, which is why the underlying 4 and 8 are the same distance to the left of the primary 4 and 8. The angled line coming up from the left side of the 8 could be the end of a 7, I would want to see an overlay to try and confirm it. The overlay would have to be a 4 and 7 together, since they would have been punched together.

Sean Reynolds

Boom · October 16, 2008 3:49AM

This is MUCH too interesting to let just fade away!

Can we get some input from HRH or the President of PCGS on this?

Anyone at PCGS want to chime in here?

Hello!?

Calling Mr. Hall. Calling Mr, David Hall. THE best Numismatist/ Grader on the planet!

Input please!! Thank you.

Boom · October 16, 2008 5:08AM

Hello - Hello - Hello ...
is there anybody in there?

Just nod if you can hear me ...
is there anybody Home?

eyoung429 · October 16, 2008 5:38AM

Boom, we are working on this...we just want to make sure that it doesn't get mis-attributed now. Besides....we are still trying to get to the bottom of what the actual overdate is. I am trying to get some overlays of the 1848/1847/1846/1843 dates and then working them over the coin.

That along with the the die chip I noticed in the coin and that Mr. HD found on his earliest MPD I think that there is a relivant difference in the die marriage from the 1848/6/7 to the coin that you have. Just need to do a little more investigation..

BTW...do I have permission to dip the coin to clear up around the date so that I can see the repunches????

JK!!!!!

Boom · October 16, 2008 6:20AM

Careful now. I know the owner is watching cause I emailed her about it.

I think it's a great find and am genuinely happy for her.

Beginners luck on a raw coin won on ebay! WOW!!

Boom · October 17, 2008 4:34AM

claychaser · October 30, 2008 1:10PM

Bringing this ttt for the Halloween crowd - kind of pumpkin colors!

Boom · October 30, 2008 7:08PM

This thread, without doubt, has been the most interesting I've seen here
for quite some time. To me, this is what Numismatics (the study of coinage)
is all about.

It has evoked input from some of the most learned collectors among the membership
but STILL we have no definitive answers and why PCGS does not offer professional
input regarding this Variety OR to attribute it for what it truly and apparently IS, continues
to puzzle me.

Coins such as this are responsible for bringing many people into this Hobby & therefore,
IMHO, should NOT simply be easily dismissed or ignored! Surely one of the elder graders or
HRH himself, MUST KNOW something about it that they can share with all of us!

Cladiator · October 31, 2008 12:04AM

With all the ginormous pics of the coin we have yet to see a smaller image where you can get a good feel for the coins appearance. Here it is. Damn nice half dime chaser!

OK Half dime guys - is this an overdate? Warning - humongo TrueView

Comments

Leave a Comment