Anyone want to discuss the 1936 s over 29 Mercury?

bolivarshagnasty · February 17, 2012 9:04AM

I was at the FUN show and went to the Bill Fivaz seminar where he listed and talked about his favorite varieties. This variety was among his favorite and felt strongly
that this was an overdate. He suggested that this was during the depression era, and that the mint workers may have used old dies to save money. This example seems
to be early die state. Note the second closeup shows 4 dots inside the upper curl of the 3. Looks to me like the arc that would have shaped the upper 2. What are our thoughts
on this variety?

BTW-Thanks Tony!

JRocco · February 17, 2012 9:37AM

I do not think a 1936 over 29 Mercury dime exists.

Now there are really nice 1936 Mercury dimes with some interesting stray stuff commonly seen on
Mercury dimes from many different years like yours for example.

mariner67 · February 17, 2012 9:58AM

I am in no way a variety expert.
I even tried to tilt my head and squint but in no way do I see anything that looks like what you are describing.
Best of luck however.
I think variety collecting could be addictive for folks a little bit obsessive compulsive like myself.

TomB · February 17, 2012 9:59AM

This "variety" has been discussed quite lively a few times on the boards already. I am in the camp of those who believe these are stray marks and that some are seeing what they might like to see.

DIMEMAN · February 17, 2012 11:05AM

HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

It is what it is. It is NOT stray marks. AND it is NOT "common" anywhere in the series. It is "THE" only variety of this kind in the WHOLE series!!!

This is my first AND last post to this thread........no matter how stupid any future reply's are.

Unknown · February 17, 2012 11:44AM

This content has been removed.

crypto79 · February 17, 2012 11:56AM

<< Just answer my ONE question, where is the 9 anywhere on the subject dime? >>

And what is the mark coming out of the 1, I am in the camp you can't dismiss the marks that don't make sense and pick only one or two that support a hypnosis no matter what side of it you fall. Truth be told is there is no evidence to support an overdate other than visual extrapolations that don't line up to known alignments. Now we can have a fun conversation about what the stuff looks like but what it looks like and what it is consists of two different conversations.

illini420 · February 17, 2012 12:04PM

Didn't someone do an overlay image of of a 1929 and this purported variety??? I remember seeing it I think, but can't remember if it matched up with those marks or not.

keyman64 · February 17, 2012 12:05PM

Here's Mine. I took this photo while it was still in an NGC Holder...but it is now in a PCGS MS65FB Holder. Regardless of what it is...I think it is cool.

stealer · February 17, 2012 12:07PM

I don't claim to know anything about varities but I understand perhaps a 1 year discrepancy in the overdate, but I don't see how a mint employee could miss by 7 years

JMHO

Unknown · February 17, 2012 12:07PM

This content has been removed.

CaptHenway · February 17, 2012 12:11PM

Cue the dead horse icon........

LanceNewmanOCC · February 17, 2012 12:34PM

.
has anyone done some major magnification and overlays with several examples?

for a public discussion without something more than images from a distance seems pointless unless it is just for the joy of speculation and conversation
.
I will say from the images provided, it would be rather enjoyable to view several examples for study as well as other dates that may be under the 1936
.

bolivarshagnasty · February 17, 2012 12:35PM

<< Didn't someone do an overlay image of of a 1929 and this purported variety??? I remember seeing it I think, but can't remember if it matched up with those marks or not. >>

Bill Fivaz claimed in the seminar that he had performed the overlay and the 2 matched. As far as the 9 goes, I see no remnants of a 9 on my coin. I've not been involved in previous discussions about this variety. How did we end up with this being a 29? Why not a 26? Or maybe any one of the last digits that was successfully polished off by a mint
employee. After all, all overdates are caused by a mint employee not getting the remnants of the previous date polished off before setting the new date. Would you agree? A very similar example is the 43/2 Jefferson. Anyone doubt that coin is an overdate? Had the mint employee done a better job with the 42 die, we would have never seen an overdate in 1943. So why is it such a stretch to believe that a mint employee cleaned up a twenty something Merc die and repunched it with a 1936-s? How about Snow's 97 1 in the neck, or any number of dates in the denticles. We all know mint employees made a lot of mistakes. Ok, let's hear it????

stealer · February 17, 2012 12:43PM

<< Cue the dead horse icon........ >>

Then do you mind sharing what the general consensus is on this matter or perhaps what you think it is?

keyman64 · February 17, 2012 12:51PM

Not the best of photos but here is a LARGE PHOTO of the Date Area from my coin. Mine is a pretty late die state which stinks.

The history behind 1929 being selected is that it was the last year of the 20s and going any further back into the 20s was hard to imagine...1929 was already hard enough to imagine. Someone said they did an overlay with different 1920s Mercs and suggested that 1928 actually came closer to being a possibility. The "TWO" under the THREE on early die state examples is just really really cool to me.

Unknown · February 17, 2012 1:26PM

This content has been removed.

JRocco · February 17, 2012 1:39PM

If you have any nice high grade Mercs minted in the 30's, pull out a good loupe and
take a look at the date and the area around the date. I bet on a few of them you could come up with
the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower if you look at it from the right angle.

fcloud · February 17, 2012 2:05PM

Bolivarshagnasty

You’re welcome, and you are now an official member of the vitriol club. Every time I have posted one of these there are some members that go off on it. I have always stated possible overdate in my comments, and have pointed out that I don’t care if it is or not.

I have personally handled seven of these coins. I have four in front of me as I type this.
The coins I have handled are:
VF Raw
XF45 (PCGS attributed)
XF45 (a second PCGS attributed)
AU (PCGS attributed GENUINE— it was cleaned by a previous owner)
MS66 (PCGS attributed)
MS66FB (PCGS attributed)
MS66FB (NCG your coin)

It seems to be obvious to the people in which handled these there is a 2 under the 3. The fact that a 1929 does not line up also seems to be true; however, the 1928 date lines up with the 1936. A search through some of the 1936 FS110 threads will find the 1936/1928 overlay.

I keep seeing and hearing that you can’t prove it is, so it can’t be. I got that from CONECA, too. CONECA asked me to provide images of all my 1920 through 1929 coins along with the 1936-S FS110. I believe their goal was to disprove the coin. Their silence is deafening, as that was over two years ago.

Your coin is one of the more obvious coins that I have handled. My GENUINE is the coin with the most detail in which I have handled.

What some won’t understand or even consider is maybe the extra gouges are the mint worker(s) trying to hide the overdate by doing some repair to remove the underdate. If you look at the 1942/41-D you have some of that same type of evidence, but that coin is fully accepted.

As for the coin itself it is one of the coolest varieties out there. If the coin is only die gouges they are some of the coolest placement of die gouges on any coin. There are other die gouged coins that are looked at as varieties; there are also simple die polished coins looked at as varieties; however, some people seem to spew this one is just die gouges, so it doesn’t matter.

The only thing I can come up with to deal with some of the vitriol is jealousy. What there is to be jealous over I don’t know, but what else would bring out the dissenters? I did a page on this coin in the coinwiki and mentioned the possible overdate, and the dissenters; after all, there is no way to prove or disprove the variety, but no matter what you believe, prove, or disprove the coin is required for the PCGS Complete Mercury Dime Variety Set, so the disagreement will continue.

Congratulations, and welcome to the club.

Tony

TomB · February 17, 2012 2:18PM

As stated earlier in the thread, I am one of those folks who does not believe this is an overdate. However, my thoughts are not based upon jealousy or anything like that. Rather, I am a scientist and I like to see more evidence that what I have seen to date.

fcloud · February 17, 2012 2:25PM

<< As stated earlier in the thread, I am one of those folks who does not believe this is an overdate. However, my thoughts are not based upon jealousy or anything like that. Rather, I am a scientist and I like to see more evidence that what I have seen to date. >>

How many of these have you viewed yourself?

TomB · February 17, 2012 2:32PM

I've only seen images of these, but I can't recall any images that have made me think there is truly a 29 under the 36.

fcloud · February 17, 2012 2:37PM

That makes it easy for you to dismiss. How can anyone formulate a scientific analyses from images?

That is like saying, "I don't see air; therefore, air does not exist."

mr1931S · February 17, 2012 2:38PM

where is the 9 anywhere on the subject dime?

I don't see any evidence of a "9" either.I do see what looks like traces of a "2" under the "3" but is that enough to say that there is a "9" under the "6?"

fcloud · February 17, 2012 2:42PM

<< where is the 9 anywhere on the subject dime?

I don't see any evidence of a "9" either.I do see what looks like traces of a "2" under the "3" but is that enough to say that there is a "9" under the "6?" >>

Not necessarily. As I stated earlier, it could be a different date. There are overlays of the 1928 date and the 1936 date. It only takes a little searching to find.

TomB · February 17, 2012 2:42PM

<< That makes it easy for you to dismiss. How can anyone formulate a scientific analyses from images?

That is like saying, "I don't see air; therefore, air does not exist." >>

I had, however, specifically requested that you send me one of your examples so that I could image it in a consistent manner with other Mercs and you declined my offer. I made an attempt; you refused.

MilkmanDan · February 17, 2012 2:50PM

Whether or not it's real, it's fun to dream. My head twitches every time I see some extra "stuff" around a date.

A quick google search turned this up, which from the URL I could tell was previously posted by a forum member here.

fcloud · February 17, 2012 2:53PM

I have supplied many images on these boards, coinwiki, CONECA chat boards, Coin Community chat boards, and on my site. Two of my coins are photographed by PCGS and can be found in my set, and on PCGS Coin Facts. They are available for anyone to view. There is currently a nice example for sale on ebay.

fcloud · February 17, 2012 2:58PM

He also did this image with a 1928 and 1936. Again, it is listed as a possible overdate.

TomB · February 17, 2012 2:59PM

I had gone to your website before, but your images do not lend themselves to being looked at with high resolution or for comparison to other coins. Also, I have no idea what cert numbers your coins are, so if they are imaged by PCGS they will not help those who cannot find them.

fcloud · February 17, 2012 3:00PM

Sorry for anyone with a slow connection.

image removed..

TomB · February 17, 2012 3:04PM

Thank you!!!

It's late here on the east coast, but I promise in the next few days I will look at the image and attempt to compare it to other TrueViews for 1920-1929 Mercs.

fcloud · February 17, 2012 3:06PM

I hope you down load the image, as I am going to remove it from the thread due to size.

Unknown · February 17, 2012 3:08PM

This content has been removed.

TomB · February 17, 2012 3:15PM

Yes, I took it. It is a good idea to remove the image so that the thread doesn't stick on some folks.

Overdate · February 17, 2012 3:15PM

<< I hope you down load the image, as I am going to remove it from the thread due to size. >>

Could you enlarge it first? I'm not getting a clear image of the third molecule from the left.

fcloud · February 17, 2012 3:18PM

<< 

<< I hope you down load the image, as I am going to remove it from the thread due to size. >>

Could you enlarge it first? I'm not getting a clear image of the third molecule from the left.

>>

I took it down.

seanq · February 17, 2012 3:18PM

The overlay images are mine, I'm too tired of the subject and tired in general to repost them here. I covered the subject in agonizing detail in those earlier threads and I don't see any point of repeating the arguments in a new thread. I will say that I concluded that there is a 0% chance of the coin being a 36 over 29, and a non-zero yet still very small chance of it being a 36 over 28. I'd love to see what sort of overlays Bill Fivaz was using, since the ones I made I considered quite definitive.

Sean Reynolds

mr1931S · February 17, 2012 3:26PM

That is like saying, "I don't see air; therefore, air does not exist." >>
As I stated earlier, it could be a different date. There are overlays of the 1928 date and the 1936 date. It only takes a little searching to find.

In the absence of anything being able to be seen under the "6," even with intense magnification,is your hypothesis that if not '36 over '29 it must be '36 over '28 since the numerals seem to line up when you do 1936 over 1928 overlay?"

The "2" could be from die gouges,no?

fcloud · February 17, 2012 3:30PM

<< That is like saying, "I don't see air; therefore, air does not exist." >>
As I stated earlier, it could be a different date. There are overlays of the 1928 date and the 1936 date. It only takes a little searching to find.

In the absence of anything being able to be seen under the "6," even with intense magnification,is your hypothesis that if not '36 over '29 it must be '36 over '28 since the numerals seem to line up when you do 1936 over 1928 overlay?"

The "2" could be from die gouges,no? >>

Yes, the 2 could be die gouges. If you read the entire thread you will see repeated many times the word "possible." I have not stated the coin is an overdate. I have repeatedly called it a possible overdate, and if these are gouges they continue to be the coolest die gouges on any coin! Just look what happens ever single time a thread about these coins comes up.

Unknown · February 17, 2012 3:58PM

This content has been removed.

19Lyds · February 17, 2012 5:50PM

<< Just answer my ONE question, where is the 9 anywhere on the subject dime? >>

I'll second that question.

19Lyds · February 17, 2012 5:58PM

<< 

<< Didn't someone do an overlay image of of a 1929 and this purported variety??? I remember seeing it I think, but can't remember if it matched up with those marks or not. >>

Bill Fivaz claimed in the seminar that he had performed the overlay and the 2 matched. As far as the 9 goes, I see no remnants of a 9 on my coin. I've not been involved in previous discussions about this variety. How did we end up with this being a 29? Why not a 26? Or maybe any one of the last digits that was successfully polished off by a mint
employee. After all, all overdates are caused by a mint employee not getting the remnants of the previous date polished off before setting the new date. Would you agree? A very similar example is the 43/2 Jefferson. Anyone doubt that coin is an overdate? Had the mint employee done a better job with the 42 die, we would have never seen an overdate in 1943. So why is it such a stretch to believe that a mint employee cleaned up a twenty something Merc die and repunched it with a 1936-s? How about Snow's 97 1 in the neck, or any number of dates in the denticles. We all know mint employees made a lot of mistakes. Ok, let's hear it???? >>

Wouldn't polishing off the date create a hump the same depth as the original date and in turn create numbers which were much higher than the 1 and 9?

I mean, you cannot remove metal from a die without some effect on the coin which would certainly be visable.

As for the other overdates, the 42/1, showed no evidence of removal of the 1. The 2 was simply punched in place.

RPM's are the same, they are either lightly punched, thereby creating a weak impression and then heavily punch creating the stronger impression.

I'd think that if anything were done to a die such as removing metal to erase a date would have created something obvious.

rec78 · February 17, 2012 6:51PM

Is there any possibility that it could just be a die clash?

Why not just call it a 1936-s, 3 over 2 and let it at that if the last digit cannot be definitely determined? Could it be a reworked 1926-s die, where only the 2 was changed?
I will not be convinced that it is a 36/29 unless an early die state shows the 9 clearly.

Bob

bolivarshagnasty · February 17, 2012 9:39PM

Below are the pics of another controversial Cherry Pickers variety. I have handled all 5 mint state examples in the PCGS pops. Do we consider these to be errant die gouges? They don't really look like a number. What are our thoughts on this variety?

crypto79 · February 17, 2012 9:54PM

To be fair the coin is great publisity for the series and any coin that gets this many experts talking about it is something special no matter what caused it.

fcloud · February 17, 2012 9:55PM

Lee,

I said 1942/41-D, not 1942/41. The date in the Denver coin has the so called overdate 1 going sideways. I don't think I have ever seen a 194- date that looked like that.

There are examples after example of RPM, OMM, and Overdates where the coin metal is less than the final punch or hubbing. I will post a few to this thread; there are more in my variety resource web pages. Going on the theory that the metal can’t be less, has the potential to make all these bogus.

JRocco · February 17, 2012 10:32PM

<< 

The only thing I can come up with to deal with some of the vitriol is jealousy. What there is to be jealous over I don’t know, but what else would bring out the dissenters?

Tony >>

Who in this or any of the other threads appears to be jealous?
I, for example am a variety nut with literally thousands of examples in my collection.
I have made several discovery pieces and am proud of each. I need more than someone saying "it looks like" to
hang my hat on. Quite a few experts have done a bit of work with this example and come to the
conclusion it is not an overdate. Are they also jealous?
Disagreeing with your assumptions is just that - disagreement.
Please try to keep this professional and lay off the my dog is bigger than your dog comments .
Please ?

Edited for typo's only

frnklnlvr · February 17, 2012 10:58PM

<< It is "THE" only variety of this kind in the WHOLE series!!! >>

If it is indeed a 1936/29 then it would be the same type of variety as the 1942/41, a class III doubled die. Is there doubling anywhere else on the obverse?

I haven't done any research on this variety so I don't have an opinion either way on whether or not it's a 36/29.

19Lyds · February 18, 2012 3:14AM

<< Lee,

I said 1942/41-D, not 1942/41. The date in the Denver coin has the so called overdate 1 going sideways. I don't think I have ever seen a 194- date that looked like that.

There are examples after example of RPM, OMM, and Overdates where the coin metal is less than the final punch or hubbing. I will post a few to this thread; there are more in my variety resource web pages. Going on the theory that the metal can’t be less, has the potential to make all these bogus. >>

No, it does not.

Whats being implied is that a 1929 die or master die had that date removed via abrading of sometype to save costs. What I am saying is that when you "remove" metal from a die (creating a hole) you will create something which shows up in "relief" on the coin since devices are simply well defined "holes" in the surface of the die.

If a "hub" (in relief) had the 29 ground off, it would not disturb the coins field but then how would the 36 get added to the hub? I suppose a repressing would be in order but doing that would require creating sometype of Master Die which is supposedly what was being avoided by using an old die in the first place.

No doubt, older or classic coins had dates repunched, when feasible, as the dates were punched directly into the die. However, this particular coin does not show positive evidence that this is what occured.

No doubt, mintmarks were punched, by hand, into working dies but folks need to remember that modifying a die is not done with a single swing of the hammer. The mm punch is first positioned and more than likely struck two times in succession. Any movement between the first and second (or third) blows causes the RPM effect. Given the abundance of RPMs across all series of coins, I expect that punching those MM's was not as simple as folks might believe.

I'd like to believe that the 29/36 is a real overdate but unfortunately, there just is no concrete evidence to support the theory both in process and typical US Mint procedure.

Maybe someone at the die shop was screwing around? Maybe a new employee was being introduced to die steel? I could understand that since evidence of the 9 just isn't there. I suppose folks will never really know for sure and the coin will always be controversial but then controversy is one of those things which makes collecting coins interesting.

grip · February 18, 2012 4:15AM

Interesting, fun,and inconclusive.

Anyone want to discuss the 1936 s over 29 Mercury?

Comments

Leave a Comment