CBH alert - capped bust half dollar for the weekend - 1813 O.101a

zap1111 · May 15, 2010 3:01AM

1813 O.101a. Cracked from ANACS slab back in 2004. VF 30. Labeled as O. 101 but I feel this was misattributed. There is strong evidence of the lapping that lessened the UNI and removed part of the claw and olive stem. Weak milling.

Great obverse and reverse die clashes - most interesting is the D STATES OF clashed directly underneath the date - a pretty heavy clash for the date, I think, but I could be proved wrong.

Beautifully toned, oranges, golds, blues, pinks, indigo. Dark spots near stars 12 & 13 are toning areas that photographed funny. Rotated die 5° R.4

Any thoughts on whether the assigned grade is too low? This is an LDS coin.

zap

kaz · May 15, 2010 3:38AM

Maybe it's just the light, but there seems to be a lot of luster there for a vf grade. Await the experts!

Beautiful and interesting coin!

STONE · May 15, 2010 3:44AM

<< <i>Maybe it's just the light, but there seems to be a lot of luster there for a vf grade. Await the experts!

Beautiful and interesting coin! >>

Luster can still be found, hidden, on mid VF busties - although it's generally rare.

I'd call this a solid VF-30 as well

zap1111 · May 15, 2010 4:39AM

Thanks for the comments. I really like how big the clashed letters appear beneath the drapery. And usually its a portion of E Pluribus Unum that one finds clashed - not the larger UNITED STATES OF AMERICA lettering.
zap

mozin · May 15, 2010 4:55AM

Looks to me like a nice LDS. PCGS might even give it a VF30.

lkeigwin · May 15, 2010 5:12AM

Very nice, Zap. Lots of great character to that 1813. And I agree with your comments about the clashing. Impressive!

I like it as a strong VF30 too.
Lance.

crazyhounddog · May 15, 2010 5:17AM

Nice coin and nice clashing! This coin has a great look

zap1111 · May 15, 2010 6:33AM

As soon as I posted this, I figured Lance would like that clashing!
zap

zap1111 · May 15, 2010 12:18PM

TTT for the evening crowd - always interested in gathering opinions.

JRocco · May 15, 2010 1:14PM

Hey zap,
How are you?
Now this is the kind of coin that pushes the right buttons.
I look at the obverse, then the reverse, then the obverse again.
I repeat this about a dozen times.

Nice coin zap

zap1111 · May 15, 2010 1:40PM

Hey back at you, JRocco.

It's been a very busy year teaching - had a great concert tour to Japan! But... less time for the collection.

However, I just ordered die marriage #87 - an 1824 O.113. ANACS VF30. That'll be cbh #91 in the collection (two doubles of the 1812 O.107 (different clash states), and doubles of the 1814 106a and the 1817 single leaf). I'm closing in... Maybe another year or so.

Thanks for the feedback.

Do you have the 1813 O.101a die state? I'd love to see the image if you do.
zap

JRocco · May 15, 2010 2:40PM

I do not have the O-101a zap.
I only have a nice well worn example of the O-101

lkeigwin · May 15, 2010 3:31PM

<< <i>Hey back at you, JRocco.

It's been a very busy year teaching - had a great concert tour to Japan! But... less time for the collection.

However, I just ordered die marriage #87 - an 1824 O.113. ANACS VF30. That'll be cbh #91 in the collection (two doubles of the 1812 O.107 (different clash states), and doubles of the 1814 106a and the 1817 single leaf). I'm closing in... Maybe another year or so.

Thanks for the feedback.

Do you have the 1813 O.101a die state? I'd love to see the image if you do.
zap >>

Zap, that's quite a collection! You should put together a photo collage of them. I'd love to see it.

Yes, I love clashes. Clash is king! Yuk, yuk. My 1813 is a O.108. Sorry I couldn't contribute.
Lance.

JRocco · May 15, 2010 11:22PM

Got to say that those 13's sure have a lot of character.
Here is another variety with some uuummmph
the O-109(a?)

Lewy · May 15, 2010 11:55PM

JR, your 109A is the most extreme case of clashing I have ever seen. I really don't understand how it is even possible to have two devices clash against each other without the fields interfering. Fantastic coin.

zap1111 · May 16, 2010 1:51AM

I like your 109, JRocco! I got the one below from Ed Richter. Very similar obverse clashing, although I think just the prime state. Too much leaf showing to be labeled the so-called "single leaf" state.
zap

jayPem · May 16, 2010 3:56AM

i'm looking at an 1813 ngc xf 40 right now, it's no sharper than yours accept perhaps the reverse....
of course the variety is not given. Where do i get an overton book ?

slumlord98 · May 16, 2010 3:59AM

Zap,

For an image of the prime die state, check out this coin at David Lawrence. Unfortunately, one must have an account to view full size images. I'd post them but Photobucket won't accept my login at the moment. Congratulations on your growing collection!

1813 O.109 ex Elton Dosier

JRocco · May 16, 2010 4:16AM

Hey guys, I have a couple of 1813 O-109's that both challenge the O-109a hurdle.
What do you think?

Lewy · May 16, 2010 4:48AM

Zap & JR, all of the 109s that you guys show look pretty single leaf to me, and it is pretty obvious also that the detail is missing in the same places on all of these coins, so I would consider that indicative of the suggested lapping.

jayPem, the book titled "United States Early Half Dollar Die Varieties 1794-1836" can 'usually' be found on eBay, Amazon, and avarious other online booksellers. It will probably set you back $60-$70. I have the 4th edition, but the old hands say that the 3rd edition is better somehow.

zap1111 · May 16, 2010 5:12AM

JRocco - I remember reading on another thread - maybe over at CoinZip - that the berry needs to "float" with no evidence of a stem. Mine doesn't pass that test. Maybe your bottom one above does?

Slumlord - that's a nice example of the prime state. I guess what I meant to say was that my coin was just the 109 die state, and not the 109a. I should remember to only use the term prime when talking about a coin that came off the press very early in the run, before all of the fun stuff (clashes and die breaks, etc.) start to creep in.

I'm glad summer is coming up soon. For a prof, that means time to study again - for me, this will include searching the forums and rereading the CBH posts. I still need to figure out how to work that into my lectures. I do, in fact, talk to the students about getting a hobby that is far removed from their day job.
zap

slumlord98 · May 16, 2010 5:42AM

Lewy,

Perhaps you are new to the discussion of the so called "single leaf" on 1813 O.109. It is not universally accepted. In fact, I'll challenge anyone who accepts this die state to show me what was lapped off on a late state coin vs. the early state coin imaged at DLRC. It wasn't the left side of the leaf! In fact, the "missing" part of the leaf on late state coins can be seen by tipping the coin just right, especially on higher grade "single leaf" coins.

Zap,

The definition of prime die state is any state earlier than the earliest mentioned in Overton. This won't be necessary when the new book is released. And your 13 101 looks every bit of 30! It has no dentils so will never grade right because it appears more worn than it actually is. The wear was on the die, not the coin.

zap1111 · May 16, 2010 5:52AM

Slumlord,

So you're saying that the so-called 1813 single leafs are due to what? If not lapped, then worn dies? You can certainly detect the left side of the "missing leaf." I think Ed Richter ran a thread on this either here or over at CoinZip, discussing the authenticity of giving this die state the "single leaf' label.
zap

slumlord98 · May 16, 2010 7:29AM

Zap,

That is correct. Just as the lack of dentils on your 101 is due to a worn die (and not lapped), so is the case with the "single leaf" on the 109. The detail was no longer on the die due to fatigue, as opposed to being absent due to lapping.

Lewy · May 16, 2010 10:09AM

Interesting assertions Slumlord.......and here I thought that I was the only one who liked to rub the cat the wrong way.

I did look at the closeups of the coin in the link that you provided, and don't understand whatever point you were attempting to make about it. The coin you linked to is in no way "prime" according to the definition that you subsequently gave. The coin that you linked to shows a coin stamped from a worn die with the letters drawn to the edge. I do see the same weakness in the same locations on that coin as I do on the other 109(a)s.

I have looked at several O-110 on coinzip without notice of the weaknesses found on any of the 109s, but then I think that folks here were merely posting what they believed to be LDS O-109. I don't really know if there is much difference between the 110 LDS and a 109 EDS. I rather think that the reverse die began to wear and draw the letters to the edge before the 110's obverse was retired.

The EDS of 0-110 is the only possible prime example of this reverse.

I do agree that 'lapping of the die' is not the only (or perhaps even the best) explanation for this die state appearance, I feel that die fatigue is possibly a better, but yet unproven theory. It appears to me that there are weak areas on either side of the lower portion of the shield and then more well struck areas below those, so I do like your idea, but I remain unconvinced either way.

I would think that one of these theories could be fortified by either the accumulation of coins in EF or better that exhibit clear delineations of the before and after effects of lapping (in which case all of the stage A coins would show the same degree of detail and all of the stage B coins would show another state of detail)....... or......... all of the coins would show varying degrees of detail (die fatigue). Maybe this has already been done by someone?

Here is the David Lawrence coin you linked to:

slumlord98 · May 16, 2010 10:35AM

Lewy,

Each die marriage can have a prime die state, even if one or both of the dies was used previously. It is not limited to the first use of the die. Die fatigue is not an unproven theory; this subject has been researched for many years and the 'single leaf' has been rejected by most. Glad to see that you are reading and thinking! This is a fascinating field!

Brad

Lewy · May 16, 2010 10:42AM

Thanks Brad

Lewy · May 16, 2010 10:52AM

So what is the purpose of such a term as "prime"? Was it invented by someone with too much time on their hands? (edited for spelling).

Consider the LDS reverse of O-110, it was mated to the obverse of O-110.....no big deal, no special significance............ but when the O-110 obverse is retired, the reverse remains in the press and 'now', all of a sudden, this reverse (that is still hot from striking coins) is bestowed with the designation of "prime" when the O-109 obverse is secured in the press with it?

slumlord98 · May 17, 2010 1:02AM

The necessity of recognizing a prime die state for any particular die marriage arose when the standard reference, Overton, recognized a die state as the earliest, and subsequently, students of the series recognized that the author hadn't in fact described the earliest die state. The issue then became, how shall we refer to this early die state which is earlier than Overton's? For instance, let's use 1826 O.108 as an example. The 3rd edition states: ... "A curving die crack joins stars 2-7 and across peak of cap to edge. This crack, although sometimes very light, is nearly always visible on this obverse."

Parsley's first mistake was to leave it like that. He could have left 108 without the crack and listed 108a with the crack, and 108a, with a new crack, could have been 108b. Since 108 without any cracks doesn't neatly fit anywhere, and since there are other characteristics not mentioned, the prime die state is created. Too much time on our hands? Perhaps. However, this is a hobby to most of us.

<< <i>Consider the LDS reverse of O-110, it was mated to the obverse of O-110.....no big deal, no special significance............ but when the O-110 obverse is retired, the reverse remains in the press and 'now', all of a sudden, this reverse (that is still hot from striking coins) is bestowed with the designation of "prime" when the O-109 obverse is secured in the press with it? >>

I don't know the emission sequence for 1813 but perhaps that is what happened. Or maybe both dies were retired temporarily because there were no more planchets waiting and that particular reverse was later taken out of storage and paired with another previously used die to create O.109. Read the 1813 Mint Director's report for quarterly production. Coupled with the emission sequence, this might give you more insight into when these die marriages may have been coined.

1813 Mint Director's report

CBH alert - capped bust half dollar for the weekend - 1813 O.101a

Comments

Leave a Comment