Louis Scuderi wrote with some big news for half dime collectors:
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?
Louis
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.
Rich Uhrich
------
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.
David Quint
------
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:
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?
Louis
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:
I received the
coin back from PCGS today, it is graded PCGS VG-8 and it is labeled JR-14.
I read with interest the note from Louis Scuderi in the JR
Newsletter, and in fact both the owner and I noticed the same thing. In
the excellent book on 1827 JR-2 dimes by Jim Koenings, the flags of the
number "1" in "10 C." differ in shape also. For example,
coins #2, 9, 17, 18, 24, 25, and 28 have somewhat
triangular flags very similar to the flag on the JR-14, while coins 5, 8,
11, 14, 26, 27, and 30 have very flat flags and do not look like
the flag on the JR-14. So the flag on the JR-14 matches some of the JR-2
dimes in Jim Koenings' book, but doesn't match others. I have no idea why
this is. But Louis has raised a good point, and it seems to apply to the
JR-2 reverse, not just the JR-14 reverse.
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.
Rich Uhrich
------
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.
David Quint
------
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:
The show was pretty lackluster for
several reasons, I think. First, the dealers are flush due to the rise of
gold and beyond belief bullion prices/sales. They, therefore, are in no rush to move
numismatic merchandise. Secondly, it looked to me the average age of the
collectors present on Thursday and Friday was about 56. That probably
means that the vast majority of collectors are "mature" in their
collecting and therefore much more selective. The days of filling holes are
over -- quality and originality reign supreme. Lastly, the economy is
still in the crapper -- numismatics is a hobby dependent upon after-tax
disposable income -- perhaps not too many collectors feel comfortable stepping
up under present conditions...
Charlie
------
Alan V. Weinberg also wrote about the FUN
Show:
My impressions
and experiences at the Jan FUN show:
A superb show,
not reflecting any of the impressions I've received at other recent shows where
things were largely "downbeat" due to mediocre attendance and the
economy. FUN attendance was huge, there was a buzz
in the air. Roaming the bourse floor constantly from setup day, I did not
overhear one single mediocre or negative comment from dealers or collectors.
The FUN people, as always, were fully prepared
and had every conceivable demand under control including daily morning
breakfast setups for the dealers and sandwich wraps for the dealers set-up
day.
The bourse had
approx 575 bourse tables, considerably more than last year I'm told and this
year for the 1st time in many years the convention facility faced International Drive and the hotels. Complimentary bus
service to and from those hotels was excellent throughout the day and early
evening. The prevalence of law enforcement was evident throughout the show.
Upon arrival in Orlando early Wed morning (34 degrees!) , my driver said the city
was "dead"- quiet. And the amazing fact, unprecedented, was that NO
other convention was being held at the Orange County Convention Center massive facility- FUN was the only convention. The exact
opposite has been true for decades to the degree that last year FUN was forced to move to Tampa due to the Orlando Convention Center being fully taken up.
I acquired
some truly great treasures and sold almost everything I brought. In
summary, the entire show was exciting, even exhilarating and the hobby was once
again tremendous fun- which is in fact what keeps most dealers and collectors
active and interested.
Alan V.
Weinberg
------
Nathan
Markowitz wrote about the upcoming EAC-JRCS meeting:
Call for speakers for Buffalo. Please consider sharing your
expertise and enthusiasm with a 45-minute presentation at the Buffalo convention if you are able to attend.
We have a group of committed numismatists eager to learn new areas and
virtually any early silver topic would be great given that this is a relatively
new venture. In particular, it would be terrific to have an introduction
to a series and I am especially committed to offering new speakers a chance to
present...so don't be shy. I am charged with organizing speakers for
Friday May 4 and Saturday May 5.
If you wish to
attend, the real excitement begins Thursday evening with the Happenings (coin
displays), and the educational program concludes Saturday afternoon. Saturday
night is "just" a copper auction and prolonged bull sessions at the
bar and Sunday is the EAC meeting so for JRCS folks Thursday at 5PM until Saturday would be a full dose of
numismatics. Feel free to contact me if you have any interest in speaking
or any questions about the event at cascades1787 (at) yahoo.com
By the way,
the early quarter selected to display this year is 1818 Browning 6...so bring
your cracked B6s to study and show off to the copper folks...
Nathan
Markowitz
------
Brad Karoleff
wrote about a JRCS meeting at the upcoming Baltimore show:
We have
scheduled the JRCS regional meeting for Friday, March 23 at 4:00 PM. The complete schedule of
meetings can be accessed through the Whitman website for the show: http://whitman.com/expos
If anyone is interested in speaking at the meeting please contact Brad at jrcs19 (at) roadrunner.com.
Thank you.
Brad
------
And finally, a
note from the editor about an exciting topic for the JRCS meeting at the Summer
ANA show in Philadelphia:
Dick Graham
has agreed to be the featured educational speaker at the JRCS meeting in Philadelphia and will give a presentation on the
Reeded Edge Half Dollar series and varieties. Dick has been collecting
and studying Reeded Edge Halves for fifteen years and is preparing a book for
publication on this under-served area of numismatics. Dick can't promise
that the book will be completed prior to the Summer ANA, but he is working diligently on the
project (I got to see a bound draft at the FUN Show!).
