Editor's note: LOTS of information this week, please take your time and be sure to read all the way through to the end (especially if you collect early halves!)
Brad Karoleff wrote:
Last chance to make suggestions for coins to study at the upcoming EAC/JRCS convention! If there are no suggestions the decisions will be made by the officers. If you are going to be there please let us know what die marriages you want to study. Final decisions after the Baltimore JRCS meeting Friday afternoon. Please check the Whitman website for more information.
If you are coming to the show please bring a show-and-tell coin to share with the other members in attendance. We look forward to having a good crowd for our first Baltimore show meeting. Come one, come all and bring a friend!
------
Tom Little wrote:
Regards,
Tom Little
------
Michael Sullivan wrote:
notations.JPG)
Brad Karoleff wrote:
Last chance to make suggestions for coins to study at the upcoming EAC/JRCS convention! If there are no suggestions the decisions will be made by the officers. If you are going to be there please let us know what die marriages you want to study. Final decisions after the Baltimore JRCS meeting Friday afternoon. Please check the Whitman website for more information.
If you are coming to the show please bring a show-and-tell coin to share with the other members in attendance. We look forward to having a good crowd for our first Baltimore show meeting. Come one, come all and bring a friend!
------
Tom Little wrote:
PCGS
apparently calls all "L" counterstamped Bust quarters "damaged"; only
NGC will give those coins a numerical grade. I will be getting the coin
back from PCGS and will let the dealer know I bought it from what
happened on the coin. Plus PCGS called it a much lower grade level than
I expected.
The
"Browning 3" 1825 in the PCGS XF40 holder I sold at Great Collections
for $1400. Also I sold a number of bust dimes and some seated
material. They were all good for grade, purchased raw and PCGS graded.
Anyone who has interest I will share the images.
Tom Little
------
Michael Sullivan wrote:
I would like to thank collector Pete
Mosiondz, Jr., book dealer Bryce Brown, and early dollar enthusiast and
researcher David Perkins for information on the HIGHLANDER
COLLECTION.
An auction catalog search,
communication with collectors, and contact with PCGS had been under
way. David Perkins' effort to locate the HIGHLANDER Early Dollar
registry set did provide a descriptive match with the 1795 BB-52 XF-40
in my collection. Unfortunately, the registry set lacks photographs
for the "definitive match", but I am very pleased and appreciative of
the added insight on my collection. I learned something
new which is what makes this hobby so enjoyable.
If other collectors would like to add to this discussion, feel free to contact me at numisbookmjs (at) gmail.com.
Michael Sullivan
------
David Quint wrote:
I want to pass along to other collectors that I have recently had a lot
of success selling some of my bust dime duplicates on eBay (just sold a
bunch over the past month). JRCS member Bill Hancock basically does this
for me as I'm not interested myself in dealing with the eBay selling
process (while this isn't an ad for him, I must say that he's done a
terrific job on my dupe circulated early dimes). By setting the reserve
levels low, we have found that there is tremendous interest in virtually
any variety. For those of you who like the idea of selling to the
highest bidder but don't want to deal directly with eBay buyers, the
listing process, etc., the level of interest in early silver on eBay is
really quite good in my opinion compared to just a few years ago, and
there are people out there (like Bill) who can make the process pretty
painless.
David Quint
David Quint
------
Winston Zack wrote:
While the newest Bust Dime census compiled by David Quint was
recently published in the Vol 21 / Issue 3, December 2011 issue of the
John Reich Journal, I would like to add my comments on the (revised)
rarity of several die marriages and create a discussion to further
refine the rarities of several other die marriages.
After reading the census information a second time, it
is understood that 16 die marriages (cited as "varieties" in the
article) were nominated for rarity revision; I am assuming these were
all of the Capped Bust design, at least this is how I infer it from the
article. Seven of these die marriages had their rarities revised since
the last census (Vol. 19, Issue 3, March 2009). Those include: 1809
JR-1, 1823 JR-1, 1824 JR-1, 1829 JR-8, 1829 JR-11, 1833 JR-4 and 1835
JR-7.
I have no immediate objections to these revised rarity
ratings, although the 1824 JR-1 being changed from R3 to R2 was the most
surprising.
I would like to add several other die
marriages which I feel should be changed based upon my experience in
the field (coin shows, eBay, structured auction appearances (e.g.
Heritage, Bowers and Merena, Stacks-Bowers, etc)). Undoubtedly some of
the die marriages I will comment on likely overlap the remaining 9 die
marriages up for nomination but subsequently not revised.
1823 JR-2 is almost certainly an R4+. While a paltry
27 examples were reported in the most recent census, I have seen at
least 6 examples appear on eBay in the last 8 months; I own 2 of those
6. I also recently acquired a 3rd example (no, I'm not starting a
hoard) as an upgrade. At such a rate of discovery, I do not feel it is
unreasonable to assume at least 70 examples of this die marriage exist.
1825 JR-5 is more likely an R5- than an R5. Again,
while a small quantity were reported in the most recent census (n = 29),
this die marriage survives in unusually high grade relative to rarity.
While average surviving grade shouldn't correlate to rarity, in this
case it should be expected that a relatively large quantity of this die
marriage should exist in lower grades but were subsequently not
reported, all things being equal. This author owns two high grade
examples - AU-55 and VF-35.
1827 JR-2 in my opinion is an R5- rather than R5+. I
do not make this exceptional jump in rarity lightly. I have traced at
least 6 or 7 raw examples of this die marriage on eBay in the past
year. For a die marriage with a presumed survival of 30-40 pieces (as
an R5+), that is an exceptional quantity of observed examples, assuming
none of those appearances were reported in this census. I also feel
that the discovery of the 1827 JR-14 die marriage is accentuating the
search for Flat Topped 1's, and new examples of this die marriage are
showing up at a more rapid pace. Nevertheless a revision to R5 should
have been implemented.
1829 JR-10. Louis
Scuderi can comment more definitively on this die marriage, but his
input on this die marriages rarity should have been the only advice
taken seriously for this die marriages true rarity. His tracking of at
least 35 examples in the Vol 21 / Issue 2 was not enough then to revise
the rarity from R5+ to R5, but in light of additional specimens, a more
accurate revision to R5 should be taken as absolute; I have acquired
another previously unreported example of this die marriage since the
most recent census was published!
1832 JR-3 in my opinion is an R3 and not an R4. I
personally own 3 examples which I acquired years ago in order to track
die stage progression. While I have declined to acquire several other
low grade AG/G/VG specimens in order to upgrade the pieces I own, I have
seen many examples of this die marriage at shows and on eBay. This die
marriage is fairly common. Despite a reported quantity of 32 examples
in this most recent census, it is not a die marriage which grabs a lot
of attention in terms of value for its respective rarity. I would like
to hear what objections may be about revising this die marriages rarity
from R4 to R3.
1833 JR-8 in my opinion is an R4+ and not an R5, or at
the very least an R5-. This is the more available of the 4 R5/R6 die
marriages from 1833. It survives, like the 1825 JR-5, in relatively
high grade when compared to perceived rarity. I have personally
owned/own an AU-55 and VF-35; VF-35 being the average grade from the
last census. While I have not seen many of this die marriage at shows,
it is just a gut feeling that the rarity of this die marriage is more
realistically around R5-/R4+.
1837 JR-3. While it's nice and convenient that the die
marriages of 1837 consistently become more common as the JR numbers
increase, from JR1 (R4) to JR4 (R1), it is my opinion that this die
marriage should be considered an R1 and not an R2. It is very is to
spot by the bisecting die crack through the date. I have seen too many
of this die marriage to keep track of over the past year. I own/have
owner 3 examples in AU, and never seemed to have any difficulty
acquiring this die marriage in high grade; that goes to say I
more-or-less ignored lower grade examples. One quick note, I've had a
very difficult time (until recently) acquiring a nice example of the
1837 JR-4 which is considered an R1! Does that make the JR-4 rarer than
the JR-3? I would be bold enough to say yes, that is quite possible. I
know a revision from R2 to R1 is not going to make headlines,
nor should it be cared about as much as an R5 moving to R4, but for
consistency I propose this revision!
I would like to know what other die
marriages were up for consideration for revision. I pondered discussing
the R6 rarity of the 1820 JR-12 die marriage, but refrained for lack of
more definitive evidence (other than that I now own 2 examples) to
revise the rarity to R6-.
I should also note that my opinions here are mine
alone, maybe with some exception from correspondence with Louis Scuderi
about the 1829 JR-10. Also, revising some of these rarer die marriages
to become more common likely hurts the value of some of the examples in
my collection. But for the matter of the "greater good", and obtaining
more accurate data on the rarity of these die marriages, I feel it must
be considered.
In closing, I ask this very pertinent
question, which likely affects a majority of collectors in the John
Reich Collectors Society to some extent: How should we cite
problem coins in the census? Should we report a 'details grade', 'net
grade' or 'give a consistent grade of "1"'?
I'm looking forward to added discussions on this topic.
Best,
Winston
------
Robert Stark wrote:
While looking forward to the next JRCS e-Letter several thoughts come to mind, almost simultaneously.
* I appreciated Dave Perkins' notes in last week's e-Letter.
* I appreciated Dave Perkins' notes in last week's e-Letter.
* The 20 Year Journal Index is perhaps the most useful such Index I can recall. Brad's offer is too generous--The Index is worth much more than he's asking. The topical index has made past issues far more accessible. I'm enjoying cycling back to some articles--and thinking of past issues--I have to seek a new owner for my complete set in new condition before very long, unfortunately. A set at Kolbe's recently fetched $500 and they had still another buyer for a set.
* Offers of early dollars seem scarce since the Hesselgesser Sale. Also, I seem to see more offers of lower grade dollars, including many that are damaged, than I can recall from years past. One such, an 1800 B20, an R-6 and rarest of that year, was offered by Harry Laibstain last I looked at his website.
*The new JRCS Index and recent articles on countermarks had me ponder whether any of those found on early dollars also appeared on lower denominations. Countermarks on early dollars were often those of silversmiths and gunsmiths.
* Thinking of the Baltimore Show coming week, there is a JRCS meeting on Friday afternoon, if I recall. Unfortunately, at the moment it doesn't seem that I can make it--I would appreciate having someone who attends to post some "minutes" in a following e-letter.
* And, finally, putting Baltimore and countermarks together, a neat display might bring the famous Houck's Panacea countermark on half dollars and the frequent newspaper ads back to their Baltimore home.
* Offers of early dollars seem scarce since the Hesselgesser Sale. Also, I seem to see more offers of lower grade dollars, including many that are damaged, than I can recall from years past. One such, an 1800 B20, an R-6 and rarest of that year, was offered by Harry Laibstain last I looked at his website.
*The new JRCS Index and recent articles on countermarks had me ponder whether any of those found on early dollars also appeared on lower denominations. Countermarks on early dollars were often those of silversmiths and gunsmiths.
* Thinking of the Baltimore Show coming week, there is a JRCS meeting on Friday afternoon, if I recall. Unfortunately, at the moment it doesn't seem that I can make it--I would appreciate having someone who attends to post some "minutes" in a following e-letter.
* And, finally, putting Baltimore and countermarks together, a neat display might bring the famous Houck's Panacea countermark on half dollars and the frequent newspaper ads back to their Baltimore home.
All the best
Bob
Bob
------
Chuck Allen wrote:
In looking at some pics of a coin I was interested
in buying, which I wondered if it was the elusive R.6 Lapped Die
State O-116a, I looked at many detailed photos of O-116's ( for several hours
) and noticed a detail not mentioned in Overton, and thought it appropriate
to mention it here for some discussion and possibly inclusion in
future attribution information.
The most noticeable detail not mentioned is a
graver slip or die line protruding straight back off the outer top rear of the
top arrow, specimens under VF20'ish seem to possibly depend on strike
but anything above that (including details/ cleaned coins), there was no problem
seeing the line.
Is it a graver slip (trying to touch up the arrow), or is it a die
line?
In comparing the 116 to the suspected 116a, the leaf
/stem and berry stem connections were hard to see with the resolution of
the pic and a straight on view so, I drew 2 lines, one from the tip of
the olive stem to the a point where the arrow shaft and left "toe" of the right
claw meet and notice that on the 116, the talon tip touches the line. When
I drew the same reference line on the coin I thought was the 116a, the talon tip
falls noticeably short of the line. As I thought on this, I concluded that if an
impression in a die rises at an angle to the surface, and you removed some of
the surface, the impression would be reduced in size in the die and show a
reduced device on the struck planchet.
I now have the coin and included better pics of
berries and leaf detachment. BTW, the graver slip is gone , lapped away, and
also on the obverse, only the slightest hint of only the deepest
recutting point ( the one with the arrow in Dr.Glenn Peterson's "The Ultimate
Guide To Attributing Bust Half Dollars" book picture # 712) is
discernible at an angle with light just right on S-12 on the obverse,
which I understand was lapped also
Thanks to Steve Herrman, Tom Palmer, and Dave
Manevitz for looking at the pics and giving me their valued opinions.
Any comments would be appreciated --
Chuck
e-mail DC44A (at) aol.com
editor's note: clicking on these pictures will open up a much larger and more useful version of the same image.
notations.JPG)
------
Jim Matthews wrote:
Sorry I've been absent so long--too many weeks on the road and never enough time at home to catch up.
Important Capped Bust Dime
collection coming up for auction at the ANA Auction, virtually complete
by die marriage from 1809 through 1837 including many of the rarest
varieties in high grades. Furthermore, a separate group of rare die
marriages has been consigned to our June Auction in Baltimore, including
a few Rarity-7 (1827 JR-10 dime) and several Rarity-6 die marriages
from cents to half dollars. More on these important collections to
follow as the coins are reviewed and cataloged.
I have not found anything new in half dime or dime cud department, but Winston seems to be on top of that lately!
Jim
------
David Kahn wrote:
Although I must apologize for such late notice, I am very
pleased to announce that I will be offering the complete, 563-piece Bust Half
dollar collection formed by Hall Arnold of Charlotte, NC at this week’s
Baltimore Coin Expo.
The coins will be net priced and ready for sale at
10AM on Friday morning – yes folks, that’s THIS Friday morning – March 23rd,
at table #1600. The coins will not be
out in the cases until Friday morning, so please do not try to get a head start
on Thursday.
There should be something of interest for virtually any
collector. Among the 563 coins are
examples of virtually all dates from 1795 through 1836. Well over 1/3 of the coins are slabbed,
including 59 that are freshly back from PCGS within the past week. Grades run from Good thru AU-58, and many
significant and affordable Overton rarities are included.
Please do not hesitate to contact me by email or phone, and
I will be happy to provide more information and answer whatever questions you
may have. If you will not be in
Baltimore, please try to make arrangements with another collector or dealer who can view coins for you and help you make any purchase
decisions.
I look forward to seeing many of you on Friday morning.
David Kahn
David Kahn Rare Coins
POB 1637
Olney, MD 20830-1637
David (at) DavidKahnRareCoins.com
(301) 570-7070
