Options
New Condition Census R-6+ Half Dime: 1832 LM-9.1 (new images 3.9.09)
Barndog
Posts: 20,525 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was lucky enough to get my 4 year old daughter to sleep early on Tuesday night. Taking her to the park for three hours may have had something to do with it. So I found myself with a bit of time available to go to the computer and check internet forums, ebay, and coin websites. After spending some time on the CU forums, I decided to see if there were any new half dimes available on ebay. Nada. Then I looked at my list of bookmarked websites. One of my bookmarks I hardly ever check, since that seller offers the same coins on ebay that are posted on his website. Hadn’t checked the site for about four to five weeks, but decided I would check it out. Much to my surprise, I saw a half dime labeled as “NEW” and clicked on it to see what it was. I could not believe what I saw. Right away, I thought this is an 1832 LM-9.1 half dime, recently an R-7 but now “downgraded” to R-6+. I studied the pictures of the obverse and reverse closely and still didn’t want to believe it was the rare die marriage. I tried to convince myself that it was an 1832 LM-8, a common half dime that has the same reverse as the 1832 LM-9. After five more minutes, I went to ebay to see if the seller had listed it there and found he had not. Hmmm. Opportunity was knocking, yet I had not yet answered. The coin is graded NGC MS-66* (star designation) and was not inexpensive. Seeing how I didn’t have that much money, I was trying to justify in my mind not buying the coin. I checked the seller’s return policy, and it was a good one (no questions asked, full refund, the stuff we look for!). So I left my computer and did what I hated to do: got my wallet and retrieved my rarely-used credit card. Logged onto my credit card website to see if my card was still active (it is) and if I had a credit limit that would allow me to purchase the coin (I had more than enough credit limit, dang!). So after all that, I went through the seller’s checkout process. After finishing the checkout process, I checked the website and saw that the coin was still there. I concluded that the seller’s inventory is not updated in real time and I would know the next day if I was the first and confirmed buyer. I called the next day and learned that “a few people tried to purchase the coin” but I was the first, so it was mine! That’s the story behind the purchase. Now more about the coin:
The John Reich Collectors Society census shows the condition census (best) piece as an AU-58. Not any more! :cool: I did some research on the coin with my available references and personal contacts. Past JRCS census data had one MS-62 and one MS-60 reported. I learned that the MS-62 was owned by Mark Smith and then Russell Logan and it used to be in a PCGS holder. It is now owned by an accomplished half dime collector and resides in an NGC AU-58 holder (the JRCS condition census piece per the latest survey). The coin does have high point wear, so the grade is correct. The MS-60 belongs to another accomplished half dime collector. I believe, but am not certain, that the coin is raw. Thus, until “my new coin” came out of hiding, the MS-60 was the only “accounted for” mint state example of this die remarriage. The half dime book says the finest known example of this die marriage is a "gem brilliant uncirculated" formerly owned by notable half dime collector Stew Witham. That coin was unaccounted for in the current census, obviously. I checked the 1977 CSNS auction by Rarcoa and found the coin (the Logan-McCloskey half dime book mentions that finest known of the die marriage was lot #324 of that sale). No pic, just a description: “W-14. UNLISTED in either Valentine or Breen. Described for the first time in the 1975 Valentine reprint as a new discovery. GEM BRILLIANT UNCIRCULATED with the obverse fields being almost fully Proof-like and the reverse exhibiting frosty luster. Obverse die of V-3; Reverse die of V-5.” While I can’t be 100% sure this is the same coin (the coin was not plated by Rarcoa and even if it was, the tiny “images” they used in that sale were quite useless), I have a strong inclination to believe that this is the same coin. In 1977 it sold for the huge sum of $450! Prooflike surfaces and high grade, what's not to love?
The coin arrived via USPS Express mail today. My first reaction was that the pictures do not do the coin justice. The die clashing is extraordinary and the die cracks evident on the coin are a sight to behold. Luster is wonderful. Fields are smooth and Prooflike. I found a light mark on Liberty’s cheek, but for the most part, the coin is flawless (i.e. as minted). Holding the coin in hand got me to thinking about how the coin made it to me. My best guess is that a savvy collector bought the coin for $450 in 1977 at the CSNS auction and maintained the coin in some sort of flip or 2x2 (i.e. kept it raw) as long as he/she owned it. The collector may have passed away and the coin was left as part of a collection for relatives to worry about. I imagine the coin found its way to a dealer (maybe brought in by a relative as part of an “old time collection” as we like to say), who paid $X for it raw, then submitted it to NGC along with at least 17 other coins (the serial number on the label indicates the coin is #18 in the submission) and was no doubt pleased with the grade received. I don’t believe the coin was listed for too long on the web site when I found it, agonized over spending a bunch of money for it, then purchased it. The coin is not attributed on the label and was not attributed by the selling dealer. I’m happy with it.
EDIT: I just viewed the plate from the 1977 CSNS auction and have concluded that my coin is NOT the Stew Witham coin. Witham's coin did not demonstrate the significant die clash on the reverse, as the letters BUS (of PLURIBUS) in the scroll of Witham's coin are clearly seen. Also, Witham's coin demonstrates some strike weakness on the left side of the eagle. So what I have is not Witham's coin, but rather a newly-discovered, very high grade 1832 LM-9.1 that is the condition census and one of just three mint state examples known for the die marriage
seller's images
images I shot today using sunlight as the only source of illumination
The John Reich Collectors Society census shows the condition census (best) piece as an AU-58. Not any more! :cool: I did some research on the coin with my available references and personal contacts. Past JRCS census data had one MS-62 and one MS-60 reported. I learned that the MS-62 was owned by Mark Smith and then Russell Logan and it used to be in a PCGS holder. It is now owned by an accomplished half dime collector and resides in an NGC AU-58 holder (the JRCS condition census piece per the latest survey). The coin does have high point wear, so the grade is correct. The MS-60 belongs to another accomplished half dime collector. I believe, but am not certain, that the coin is raw. Thus, until “my new coin” came out of hiding, the MS-60 was the only “accounted for” mint state example of this die remarriage. The half dime book says the finest known example of this die marriage is a "gem brilliant uncirculated" formerly owned by notable half dime collector Stew Witham. That coin was unaccounted for in the current census, obviously. I checked the 1977 CSNS auction by Rarcoa and found the coin (the Logan-McCloskey half dime book mentions that finest known of the die marriage was lot #324 of that sale). No pic, just a description: “W-14. UNLISTED in either Valentine or Breen. Described for the first time in the 1975 Valentine reprint as a new discovery. GEM BRILLIANT UNCIRCULATED with the obverse fields being almost fully Proof-like and the reverse exhibiting frosty luster. Obverse die of V-3; Reverse die of V-5.” While I can’t be 100% sure this is the same coin (the coin was not plated by Rarcoa and even if it was, the tiny “images” they used in that sale were quite useless), I have a strong inclination to believe that this is the same coin. In 1977 it sold for the huge sum of $450! Prooflike surfaces and high grade, what's not to love?
The coin arrived via USPS Express mail today. My first reaction was that the pictures do not do the coin justice. The die clashing is extraordinary and the die cracks evident on the coin are a sight to behold. Luster is wonderful. Fields are smooth and Prooflike. I found a light mark on Liberty’s cheek, but for the most part, the coin is flawless (i.e. as minted). Holding the coin in hand got me to thinking about how the coin made it to me. My best guess is that a savvy collector bought the coin for $450 in 1977 at the CSNS auction and maintained the coin in some sort of flip or 2x2 (i.e. kept it raw) as long as he/she owned it. The collector may have passed away and the coin was left as part of a collection for relatives to worry about. I imagine the coin found its way to a dealer (maybe brought in by a relative as part of an “old time collection” as we like to say), who paid $X for it raw, then submitted it to NGC along with at least 17 other coins (the serial number on the label indicates the coin is #18 in the submission) and was no doubt pleased with the grade received. I don’t believe the coin was listed for too long on the web site when I found it, agonized over spending a bunch of money for it, then purchased it. The coin is not attributed on the label and was not attributed by the selling dealer. I’m happy with it.
EDIT: I just viewed the plate from the 1977 CSNS auction and have concluded that my coin is NOT the Stew Witham coin. Witham's coin did not demonstrate the significant die clash on the reverse, as the letters BUS (of PLURIBUS) in the scroll of Witham's coin are clearly seen. Also, Witham's coin demonstrates some strike weakness on the left side of the eagle. So what I have is not Witham's coin, but rather a newly-discovered, very high grade 1832 LM-9.1 that is the condition census and one of just three mint state examples known for the die marriage
seller's images
images I shot today using sunlight as the only source of illumination
0
Comments
Thanks for entering my name in your fabulous giveaway
When I grow up I want to be like Barndog.
Congrats Barndog!
<< <i>Congratulations!! Are you keeping it or send it TN and cash out? >>
the esteemed collector from TN and I talked on the phone today. He was one of the sources of information I used to determine how many MS examples of the die remarriage exist. It's staying with me for a while at the very least. It's really cool to own, that's for sure.
You sure know your series
ps. I also expect an article in the next journal!
42/92
<< <i>BD, you need MarkView images...seriously. Considering the value though perhaps this warrants an in person trip to see him
ps. I also expect an article in the next journal! >>
the idea for an article is a good one, had not thought of it. Will work on it.
It will go to Mark one of these days, guaranteed!
You need to do that special set in the Registry of all the Half Dimes by LM number!
Oh, and you need to get this coin in a PCGS holder!!!!
<< <i>Great story, but you left off some important information. What is "not inexpensive" and how much do you think it is worth?
Thanks for entering my name in your fabulous giveaway
sorry, Athena, I wasn't ignoring your questions:
first, type price for an MS-66 has been about $4,800 to $5,800 lately. I don't have much experience with pricing "star" designated coins. This coin was purchased in that range.
second, to assign value, I discussed the coin with some others. Auction records for R-7 and R-6+ half dimes suggest the coin could realize $15,000 to $20,000. Recently (2006) an MS-65 1830 LM-5 (late die state, obverse cud) half dime sold via HA.com for $18,000 and change. The 1830 LM-5 is an R-6+ die marriage and that particular coin was also finest known. That's the best comparable sale out there.
third, keep dreaming!
i.e. it's an expensive specimen, is it worth more now?
<< <i>Very cool, what kind of value does the attribution bring to this?
i.e. it's an expensive specimen, is it worth more now? >>
basically, Cladiator's formula is just about what I figure too.
<< <i>
When I grow up I want to be like Barndog.
heck, when I grow up, I wanna be his heir
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
BUT, that's not to say I'm not EXTREMELY happy you were able to buy it, and I hope you enjoy it for as long as you can.
I can't wait to see Marks images. The clash on the coin is wild and if not for the eagle it looks like a mini-incuse design. Way Cool !!!
JA
Unfortunately, that likely means that there's another high grade 1832 9.1 out there, and the pop's will begin to rise (but not by much!)
Congrats again on an excellent find
<< <i>EDIT: I just viewed the plate from the 1977 CSNS auction and have concluded that my coin is NOT the Stew Witham coin. Witham's coin did not demonstrate the significant die clash on the reverse, as the letters BUS (of PLURIBUS) in the scroll of Witham's coin are clearly seen. Also, Witham's coin demonstrates some strike weakness on the left side of the eagle. So what I have is not Witham's coin, but rather a newly-discovered, very high grade 1832 LM-9.1 that is the condition census and one of just three mint state examples known for the die marriage. >>
Nice detective work BD. IMO that news increases the potential value of your coin. Yes, it increases the numbers of a rare coin by 1 but it's only by one so who cares. The big deal is that it's confirmed to be nicer than the previously known finest example. You got the queen of the re-marriage bro.
Still a great looking coin
I assume this will be off to Mark soon?
I am surprised that dealers in the early silver don't attribute their stuff before selling. Perhaps this dealer did but thought it was the LM-8.
<< <i>I can only imagine your excitement when she arrived in hand. Great story!!
I am surprised that dealers in the early silver don't attribute their stuff before selling. Perhaps this dealer did but thought it was the LM-8. >>
I recently had some correspondence about this very issue with another collector. The way I see it, dealers in early silver are most likely to attribute bust half dollars, as many (most?) of them have heard of Overton varieties and that some of those Overton varieties will bring a premium. The Overton books are nearly ubiquitous -- easy to find and generally easy enough to use. Thus, nearly all of the halves available tend to be attributed. Dealers attribute bust quarters to a lesser extent, IMO. I'm sure the difficult-to-use Browning book (the old standard) is part of that equation. Once the new Steve Tompkins book becomes more widely-known, I expect to see most bust quarters attributed, since Steve's book is easy and quick to use. Most dealers do not attribute bust dimes or bust half dimes. The references are difficult to find (but generally easy to use, with the half dime book the easier of the two to use) and most dealers (again, IMO) either don't know about varieties for these small coins, don't care about varieties for these small coins, don't know about the premiums that varieties can bring for these small coins, or maybe believe that attribution of these small coins is not worth their time and effort. I typically see Redbook varieties designated on holders, flips, and 2x2s for dimes and half dimes, but I usually don't see JR (dime) or LM/V (half dime) attributions unless I'm looking at the inventory of a specialist dealer. I don't know what the right answer is, but I know that there will always be opportunities for collectors and dealers with specialized knowledge to find excellent coins for relatively-affordable prices.