A recent find - 1832 LM9.2. A straight purchase at type cost off a dealer's web site. Saw the obverse and remembered the sort of mushy strike that I saw on the LM book specimen and thought- please let it be reverse T. Luck was with me.
Examination with a hand lens reveals the slightest die chip in the right upright/diagonal of the N. So it was struck just slightly before the 1833 LM3.2. Although there is no mention of a die chip on the N in the LM book for 1833 LM3.2, the image in the book does show what I believe to be the beginnings of one.
The die swelling above the eagle's head is the most pronounced of any of the reverse T marriages/remarriages that I have seen. Interestingly of the the later remarriages (#'s 7 through 13) only the 1832's (remarriages #8, 10 and 12) show the swelling strongly while the 1833's (remarriages #7, 9, 11 and 13) do not. Just a thought but perhaps in part the weakness in this area has to do with the engraved depth of the 1832 obverse dies #2 and #4? Perhaps it is a bit deeper on these 1832 dies than on the 1833 Obverse 1 and 2 dies that were married to reverse T? The deeper dies for the 1832's would make it difficult to fully strike up the reverse opposite the bust and thus enhance the die swelling above the head and at the scroll?
Editor's note: An image of the 1832 LM-9.2 is below. Click on the image to enlarge it.
Rich Uhrich wrote a follow up to his contribution on the 1827 JR-14 dime:
All of the other attribution points match up, and many Bust Dimes experts examined the coin at the FUN show with no disagreement on its variety attribution, plus PCGS also agrees it is definitely a JR-14.
Hope this helps.
David Quint wrote:
Kudos to Louis for noticing the difference between the flat vs. sloped-top 1 on the new 1827 JR-14 example. The punches used for the 1 in the denomination included both the flat and sloped-top versions, with the flat version losing its right foot along the way. The punch with the flat top and the broken right foot can be seen on not only the 1827 JR-2 but (I believe) on the 21 JR-10, the 23 JR-2, and the 24 JR-1. To my eye it looks remarkably similar to the 1 found on the 1814 small date (both obverse and reverse), but on the 1814 the right foot is intact and the stem is a bit thicker. Observing the different examples of the broken-foot 1, it appears to me that the "flatness" of the top of the 1 differs slightly between different examples, possibly due to strike and/or polish in the die at the highest recesses of the 1. Thankfully, there is a book full of pictures of the 1827 JR-2 (by Jim Koenings) and one can detect slight differences in the slopes of the top of the 1 on these examples (for instance, the Rank 1 and 9 coins seem to have an upward slope while the Rank 5 almost seems to have a downward slope). If you go through his book comparing nothing but the tops of these 1's, it is quite striking just how different one flat-top is from another flat-top. Putting some of these side-by-side one can almost think that these 1's are distinct, or at least repunched versions of one another. But my guess is that what we're seeing is the simple result of a 19th C manufacturing process that produced coins with tiny inconsistencies. I hope others take a look at Jim's book and let us know if they see the same thing.
Van Walworth wrote:
Continuing the thread of comments related to the 1821 JR-1 Bust Dimes... In Jim Koenings' booklet covering the the 1824 JR-2 Bust Dimes, he does an excellent job with a census and details concerning this rare variety. As he was preparing his manuscript some obvious counterfeits samples of 1824 dimes made the circuit and at least one "not-so-obvious" counterfeit sample. I purchased the not-so-obvious dime to get a better look at it in person. Jim includes my write up and report at the back of his booklet. I bring this particular dime up related to the 1821 JR-1 conversation because this dime seems to have all the markings and features consistent with the obverse of 1821 JR-1 EXCEPT the date is 1824 and not 1821. The reverse is also consistent with the reverse of 1821 JR-1. The 1824 date on the coin does not have the characteristic over date marks of the "4/2". In addition, there is no visible crack between S1 & S2. My question is related to "where did the pattern for this coin come from?" If it is counterfeit, the pattern with appropriate details from an 1821 JR-1 specimen apparently was in pristine enough condition for the forger to mimic its details down to fine points... leaving out any visible reference of a crack between S1 & S2. If there had been such an S1-S2 die crack on the pattern coin, why leave that one little detail out? I look forward to some comments from some of you bust dime specialist who have much more wisdom and insight into this kind of thing than I.
Charlie Horning wrote about the FUN Show: