JR Newsletter: 9 October 2011 (57)

David Lange wrote (regarding last week's correspondence about an 1829 half dime):

I read this exchange with interest, since I do the variety attributions
for NGC. I'd like to add my observations as to why this coin was labeled
LM-6.1.

As a matter of policy I've always held that a coin has to have ALL the
features described and/or illustrated for a particular die state for me
to advance it to that listing. Otherwise, it falls back to the earlier
die state. This policy works well for coin series in which the standard
reference books are incomplete and do not address remarriages, such as
is the case with Overton. It is extremely difficult to apply to highly
specific references such as the LM book and the VAM website, both of
which present ambiguous situations. In these instances it is often
exceedingly difficult to make the call, as both Mark and Richard
discovered with this coin.

Typically, for most early coin series the earlier die state is the more
common one and a safer attribution, but 1829 LM-6 is certainly an
exception. In my judgement there were features attributed to LM-6.2 in
the book that were simply not evident on this specimen. I did agonize
over it for longer than I can usually afford to spend, given the large
numbers of coins I have to attribute daily across all series. I can't
guarantee that it would not receive the same attribution if submitted
raw five years from now.

NGC will occasionally make 11th hour changes to auction coins that we
agree are mis-attributed, and Mark has sent back such pieces from time
to time. We can certainly reconsider this piece in light of the
information provided.

David W. Lange
Research Director
Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC)
(T) 941-360-3990 x152
(F) 941-360-2553
www.NGCcoin.com

------

Jeff Tryka wrote:

Thanks for the great and informative newsletter, I appreciate the regular updates and information, even when it relates to areas that I don't really collect.  I have an interesting 1809 bust half that I picked up at a recent show (images below), and it appears to be struck in copper and painted silver (at least that's how I'd describe the appearance).  So my first thoughts were perhaps this was a contemporary counterfeit, struck in copper and painted silver or plated in silver.  Maybe it was a wrong planchet error, given that the large cent was close in size and weight, but then why would it look like it was painted silver?  The mint wouldn't make a pattern in copper or strike a coin on the wrong planchet and then try to pass it off as silver.  The weight was about 13.1 grams, which given the wear would be about right I suppose, and after reviewing it further with the dealer, he thought it might have been in a fire, and that's what caused the appearance.  I am just at a loss on this one, I've seen hundreds of bust halves in the years I've been collecting, but nothing ever like this.  I've attached a few photos of the coin (pardon my meager photography skills) including some that are a side-by-side comparison to a "normal" 1809 half.  If anyone out there has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them!

Jeff Tryka

JR Newsletter: 2 October 2011 (56)

I have an interesting correspondence to share.  I corresponded with Mark Borckhardt at Heritage concerning a half dime in an auction.  I thought the pictures portrayed an 1829 LM-6.2 die marriage, yet the NGC attribution was 1829 LM-6.1.  With Mr. Borckhardt's permission, I have recreated the correspondence here:

From Richard Meaney to Heritage:

There is a capped bust half dime in the October 13-16 US Coins Signature Auction #1160 that I believe is misattributed and deserves a closer look. The coin is described as "1829 H10C --Improperly Cleaned-- NGC Details. Unc. LM-6.1"  I believe the coin is not an LM-6.1, instead it is an LM-6.2.  The difference to a specialist is significant, since the LM-6.1 is very, very scarce. Key attribution points to tell if it is an LM-6.1 as opposed to an LM-6.2 (reference "Federal Half Dimes 1792-1837" especially page 66):

 -According to the die remarriage chart referenced above, the first angle of the N of UNITED fills with a tiny die chip during the second use of Reverse E.
-The first use of Reverse E was for the 1829 LM-6.1, the second use was for the 1829 LM-7.1.
-The first 1829 LM-6 die remarriage to feature the filling of the N of UNITED is the 1829 LM-6.2.
-The coin in the Heritage auction features a die chip in the N of UNITED, indicating to me that it was struck after the 1829 LM-6.1 and must therefore be an 1829 LM-6.2.

 NGC and PCGS have a difficult time with this attribution, as each has made the same mistake at least once  in the last couple of years.

Thank you for your attention,
Richard Meaney
++

Mr. Borckhardt's response to me:

Richard,

I tend to agree with your opinion that the 1829 Half Dime in our Auction 1160 is LM-6.2, however, there are certain features that suggest it might actually be LM-6.1. I have looked closely at the coin, as well as the descriptions and photos in the LM book. Photos can also be deceiving. Take a look at the upper loop of the final S in the LM plates of LM-6.3 (clearly filled) and LM-7.3 (possibly filled but not nearly as obvious), suggesting that LM-6.3 is a later die state. Compare that to the tops of ER in each photo, with a faint crack to the left top of the E on LM-6.3, and a heavier die crack through the tops of ER on LM-7.3, suggesting that LM-7.3 is a later die state.

Below are my observations, and I will look forward to your final thoughts. Afterward, I will see about modifying the description accordingly.
Sincerely,
Mark Borckardt

1829 LM-6.1, 6.2, and 7.1
-The early die states of Reverse E, and the correct attribution of LM-6.1, 7.1, and 6.2, can be extremely difficult. The Logan-McCloskey work records the following die stages of Reverse E:

LM-6.1: Strong devices and dentils. Both berries have distinct stems.
LM-7.1: First angle of N fills with small die chip.
LM-6.2: First angle of N filled with small die chip. Small cud forms in dentils above M. Die crack forms from rim through top of E3.

The reverse die was clearly lapped between its use for LM-7.1 and LM-6.2.  It may also have been lapped between its use for LM-6.1 and LM-7.1.

Admittedly, the presence of a tiny die chip in the angle of the N would suggest die state LM-6.2. The later die state of LM-6.3 has the top loop of the final S filled, so that die state is not applicable to this discussion. There are a couple features visible in the LM-6.1 and LM-7.1 plates in Logan-McCloskey that are not visible in the LM-6.2 plate, and another feature of LM-6.2 that is not apparent in the plates of the earlier die states.

1. Although faint, both berries have complete stems visible for LM- 6.1 and LM-7.1, with the stem of the upper berry actually appearing stronger on the plate of LM-7.1. The stem to the upper berry is
entirely absent in the plate of LM-6.2 and later states.

2. The right base of the F is clearly repunched, visible in the plates of LM-6.1 and LM-7.1, although that repunching is not visible on LM-6.2 or later.

3. Each letter in E PLURIBUS UNUM in the LM-6.2 plate appears to have a reflective appearance, suggesting the die was lapped prior to that die state.

4. The die crack to the left top of E3 begins to form on LM-6.2 and  becomes obvious on later states.

Features of the piece in our sale 1160 suggest more strongly that it is LM-6.1, but other features suggest it may be LM-6.2

A. The upper berry has a complete stem, suggesting LM-6.1
B. The repunched right base of the F is sharply visible, suggesting LM-6.1
C. While the surrounding field is mildly reflective, there is no reflective or mirrored appearance within the letters of the motto, suggesting LM-6.1
D. There is evidence of a tiny die chip in the angle of the N, suggesting LM-6.2
E. There is an extremely faint trace of the die crack to the left top of E3 suggesting LM-6.2

++

My response to Mr. Borckhardt's thorough, in-hand analysis:

Mark,

You have a great advantage of having the coin in hand...a very fortunate circumstance.  It's tough out here in "customer land" trying to decipher die marriages and remarriages without such a benefit.  That being said, it seems to me that the two key factors your description provides are:

D. There is evidence of a tiny die chip in the angle of the N, suggesting LM-6.2

E. There is an extremely faint trace of the die crack to the left top of E3 suggesting LM-6.2

I suggest that these two observations indicate to me that the coin is likely an example of the 1829 LM-6.2, since the LM-6.2 was struck after the 1829 LM-7.1.  One should see the die chip in N and crack at E3 in examples of the LM-7.1 and the LM-6.2, but certainly not in any examples of the LM-6.1.

I know I will treat it as an 1829 LM-6.2 based on the information at hand (and therefore not be part of the bidding...I so WISHED it was an LM-6.1, since I need an example of that remarriage).

If you think it would be helpful, I could solicit opinions of other half dime specialists such as Steve Crain and Glenn Peterson.

Thank you,

Richard Meaney

++

And the final bit of correspondence back to me from Mr. Borckhardt:

I tend to agree with your thoughts. I'll change the description. Thanks so much for your observations and also for letting us know about it.

++

My comments to those reading this edition of the JR Newsletter:  I got a response back from Heritage VERY quickly on my inquiry.  Mr. Borckhardt and I were able to have a substantive discussion via email, allowing us to reach a conclusion that should help collectors or dealers who may be interested in the coin.  The body of Mr. Borckhardt's writings contain some really neat pointers as to how he goes about identifying die states that I think many of us could appreciate and possibly throw into our respective "bags of tricks" when we evaluate coins.  I did discuss this coin with one fellow specialist and he also agreed that it was an 1829 LM-6.2.

I hope you enjoyed this information,
Richard Meaney

------

Bob Stark wrote:

Thank You, Richard. I do enjoy opening the JR Letter each Sunday--and would enjoy it even more if  early dollar scribes contributed.

  Best wishes,
   Bob Stark

JR Newsletter: 25 September 2011 (55)

Lots of responses this week to a question posed last week regarding a holed bust dime sold on eBay.  As readers will see, we have some experts who participate here!

Winston Zack wrote:

Commenting on the 1829 "coin" from eBay, and to answer your questions.  1) The denomination is a dime (which you were probably well aware of). 2) Is it an altered date?  Funny thing about ebay images are that you need to do a lot of self-interpretation - is 'such-and-such' a product of the image (shadow, fuzziness of pixels, etc), or am I REALLY seeing what I'm seeing?  This is a tough one to precisely interpret, but I would say there is a shadow or 'dirt' covering the bottom of the '2' in the date making it appear like the digit is curled. 3)  It is not a JR-10.  It is a JR-3, and you can tell this by how far the top curl of the 2 leans over the bottom base of the two.  Another unique feature of this die marriage is the position of the '9' relative to the lower hair curls of Liberty's Bust.  These two factors narrow it down to the 1829 JR-3 die marriage, unless of course the '2' in the date is curled whereby this would be a new Curled Base 2 die marriage - stranger things have happened, so I'm not ruling out this possibility, but I don't put much weight on it as an outcome!

Best,

Winston

 ------

Dave Shirlen wrote:

I am not sure what it is, but it definitely is not a genuine 29 curl base dime.  The "2" is completely wrong for the variety - a genuine coin has a thin line for the upper curl of the 2 which connects to the knob of the 2.  That 2 is so blundered that I would guess an old altered coin. 
Dave Shirlen

------

David Quint wrote:

The 1829 dime (if it is a dime) looks, based on the positioning of the date and the slants of the digits, like an Obverse 2 to me, making it a JR-3.

 ------

Louis Scuderi wrote:

Hello from Beijing! Definitely not a curl base 2 dime but definitely a bust dime rather than a half dime. The 2 may be altered to look like a curl base but the 9 is positioned incorrectly to be the real coin. The obverse and reverse details, for what little there is of the reverse (the smallish C in 10 C and its position), suggest an 1829 JR3. Not certain what has been done with the 2 but it is way too thick on top and the bottom has been altered from the flat based two of the 29 JR3. All-in-all the curl base on this example doesn't have the same compactness that the real coin has.

Louis

------

Hunter Wunch wrote:

When I saw the last JR Newsletter regarding a possible curl base 1829 dime on Ebay I had my doubts, but because of my interest in bust dimes I wanted to make an effort to figure out what it is.  Many times it can be difficult to determine a die marriage, whether it be from bad pictures, extremely worn details or both...my included picture shows one method I use to help me make an educated guess.  Since the letters and numbers of all the early coinage were hand punched into the dies, none of the dies are exactly alike.  What I like to do is use the details I can see on the coin and connect it with a straight line to another given on the coin.  Once you have a few points of reference, you can use pictures of known die marriages to find the coin that matches your points of reference.  In the included photo (posted below...click on the image to enlarge it), I drew a line through S1, S13 and the left edge of the "9"...As you can see, the JR-10 is quickly ruled out.  The quickest way I've found to use this method at home is a straight edge of some kind (I usually use a business card) right on my computer screen!

Being unable to see the reverse details or hold in my hand the coin in question, my conclusion is this is an altered date 1829 JR-3 dime.  I hope others have some input on this coin, or maybe if we are very lucky a member here purchased the coin and can provide better pictures!

I also want to mention that none of the coins in the included image are mine, though I have obtained permission from the current owner of this JR-10 for my message here.

Hunter Wunch

 ------

Rich Uhrich wrote:  

The coin is definitely NOT an 1829 curl base 2 dime.  The top part of the 2 on that rare variety dime tilts back towards the 9 and on the ebay coin the top part of the 2 doesn't tilt back towards the 9.

Just as a suggestion, a good way to confirm or deny an attribution is to examine a picture of the genuine variety on a trusted website.  Such websites would include reliable auction houses as well as dealers who specialize in that coin series.

Rich Uhrich

------

Now on to different topics!

Ralph Muñoz wrote:

For your viewing pleasure.  Has anyone ever seen a Tiffany & Co. Sterling Silver Money Clip with a Bust Half Dollar?   The initials NRC are engraved on the back.  It's a 1827 O115.

Ralph

#179

 ------

Alan V. Weinberg wrote:

Some recent John Reich engraved mint medal information:

June 16, 2011 a Baker 58 Julian CM  5 , jugated busts of GW & Benj Franklin / 1783  eagle over globe , engraved by John Reich and part of the Jos. Sansom medal series struck circa 1805,  in gem proof silver in the original engraved silver case auctioned for a bit over $21,000 ($18K hammer)  in a small town Pa antique auction. It nevertheless attracted four separate bidders all of whom happened to be on the Balto coin show bourse floor at the time of the PA auction. Ford auction records for a similar specimen approached  $50 grand some 5 yrs ago.

Sept 10, 2011 the owner of a superb silver proof Betts 546 Julian CM 8 , Franklin Lightning Averted.../ Beaver at tree 1776, also part of the Reich Sansom medal series, was on the Long Beach coin show bourse floor and the owner turned down a $35,000 offer. It is the perhaps the  rarest of the six Sansom medals in silver. While Ford cataloguer  Mike Hodder says approx 20 silvers are  known in the Ford Betts II auction, it is in fact known by only 4 or 5  specimens in silver. The only Reich Sansom medal in silver known by 20 specimens (or more)  is the Baker 71 Julian  PR 1  "Presidency Relinquished" silver.

Alan V. Weinberg

 ------

Clay Blaney wrote:  

I enjoy your comments and hope you keep them coming even if you do have other material. 

Thanks for your work, 

Clay Blaney, Member JRCS

------

JRCS Bust Dime Census

Anyone who would like their Draped and/or Capped Bust Dimes included in the upcoming JRCS census, please send a list of the die marriage and grades of your coins to David Quint at dimecensus@yahoo.com

The census will be published in the next issue of the John Reich Journal.

JR Newsletter: 18 September 2011 (54)

We had no contributions this week, so your editor's comments are the ones you will have to live with until next week:

First, I usually limit myself to the early half dime category when searching for coins on ebay.  I saw one coin close last night that was labeled "1829 Dime" although it was in the early half dime category.  I thought the coin would sell for much more than the six or seven dollars that it did...but then again, I collect half dimes and really don't know my dimes too well.

A link to the closed auction is here:  eBay Link

Images of the coin that I took directly from the auction are below:

So, the obvious questions are (1) is it a dime in the wrong category or an early half dime in the right category? and (2) is it an altered date? and (3) is it a genuine 1829 JR-10?  What are the thoughts of the readers of the JR Newsletter?

Second thought and question of the week:  What were your impressions of the recently-closed Stack's Auction?  I noted there were a few nice half dimes in the auction, including at least one capped bust half dime that was from the "Logan Duplicate Auction" held by Brad Karoleff a few years ago.

JR Newsletter: 11 September 2011 (53)

David Quint wrote:

Last call for anyone who would like their Draped and/or Capped Bust Dimes included in the upcoming JRCS Early Dime Census. Please send a list of the varieties and conditions of your coins to David Quint at dimecensus (at) yahoo.com

Thank you

------
We had a few responses to the images of an 1837 LM-1 half dime posted by the editor:


From Rick Beale:  Wow!  Nice coin, nice pics.

From David Perkins:  Great photos!  Thanks.

From Craig Eberhart:  Nice photos Richard!  Did you take these?  If so, what lens are you using for the photo beyond the normal macro of 1:1?  
(Editor's response:  I did not take these photos.  The photographer is Mark Goodman.  I don't know the specifics of what he used to image this particular coin.  Mark has written a book (now in second edition) on numismatic photography that I highly recommend:  Numismatic Photography, 2nd Edition, by Mark Goodman.  Available through Amazon.com and other booksellers)

From Paul Kluth:  Great looking Half Dime and with strong clashing to boot to go with the wonderful toning!  Is that an early stage bisecting die crack coming out of K-12 on the obverse?  The clashed date on the reverse in splendid rainbow colors is just awesome.  Thanks for sharing as it made my numismatic moment+++ for the day.  
(Editor's response:  Thanks, Paul.  I was first interested in the coin for its striking colors.  Further study showed me the die crack which you described, the clashing all over, and the clashing of the date onto the reverse of the coin.  I've not seen too many examples of this die marriage with the date clash on the reverse...definitely something to watch for when looking at 1837 half dimes!)
------

Brad Karoleff wrote:

Dime collectors should submit their collection data to David Quint as soon as possible, since I plan on sending out the next issue of the John Reich Journal, which will include the dime census, in October/November.
------

Harry Cabluck wrote: 

I have inlcuded Bust Half Dollar photos used in the first attempt at axis lighting.

An interesting obverse, it appears the planchet may have been pre-struck under high pressure by the edge of another Bust Half.  One might read DOLL HAL upside down in reverse raised letters inside the gash. Would be happy to send the coin to an expert who might have a better than 30X microscope.

Harry Cabluck

 ------

Nathan Markowitz wrote:

The Dr Hesselgesser Dollar Sale

 

Labor day was a holiday for most but not for the folks at Goldberg who were charged with the auction of the largest die marriage set of early dollars to cross the block since the Bill Luebke collection at the January 2007 FUN sale.  I had a front row seat.  But I did not attend.  Instead the wonders of wi-fi and the iPad allowed me to watch live from my home desk whilst listening to the strong thermal breezes of late summer.  What would Jules Reiver, or AJ Ostheimer think, let alone Mister Bolender himself.   Methinks it was rather cool as 137 dollars crossed the block in addition to those he sold in the June Goldberg sale.  Herein are just a few comments on a very large sale.  I defer to others who may have more knowledge.  In honor of Bill Luebke and his service to JR news; I should start with:  “And away we go…”

One might summarize the sale as loaded with high condition census examples; indeed many of the coins currently graded AU or better.  Given the extent of the collection many R7s and R8s graced the pages of the dedicated catalog amongst the more “common” coins.  Many of the PRLs seemed amazingly close to estimates as I watched the numbers tick by…I have not carefully analyzed the results.  Amongst many examples to highlight I have chosen a few….

Lot 5001, 1795 B3  was an early favorite as a pretty coin and both a condition rarity and with a neat(and rare) reverse die break; hammering for 17K. 

Lot 5014, a 1795 missing leaf Bolender 6 hammered at 87.5K.  I first saw this coin at the inaugural EAC/JRCS show in St Louis.  I sat and watched as John Dannreuther and early dollar specialist David Perkins analyzed the missing leaf and the mechanism whereby this may have occurred in the mint of 1795.  It was a true treat to simply be a “fly on the wall” and listen to their analysis and debate and that immediately made that convention a delight….not to mention the visit to the Newman money museum.  But I digress.  This early dollar has now found a new home... somewhere.

1796 had one of the true rarities, Lot 5024 hammered at 52.5K.  With two known one may scarce see another for years.  Personally, I wonder if others lurk somewhere given the somewhat subtle die characteristics…several dollars are easy to misattribute.

1798 is loaded with rarities.  Lot 5035, the badly vertically shattered reverse hammered at 15K.  Although R6, surprisingly three of these were in the famous 1975 Superior ANA sale and two of these changed hands in August 2011!  I have always been partial to the 1798 B32 with the soft die failure on stars 6-7, the undisputed finest of which sold in this sale(Lot 5033) for 65K hammer.  Additionally, two 1798 B16s sold as lots 5047 and 5048.

Amongst the later dates were several rarities, although less than the early dates.  The 1803 B6 had two examples(Lots 5136 and 5137 at the end), the finer Lot 5136 hammered for 30K on a 25K estimate.

I could add several other interesting comments/favorites but will allow others to analyze and expound on this sale.  Congratulations are due for his assemblage of this extensive collection.  I expect the new caretakers of these coins will enjoy them equally well. 

------

A final note from the editor:  Please, don't forget to submit your dime census to David Quint by sending him an email at dimecensus (at) yahoo.com 

JR Newsletter: 4 September 2011 (52)

No contributions this week, so please enjoy these photos of an 1837 LM-1 Capped Bust Half Dime (click photos to enlarge)

JR Newsletter: 28 August 2011 (51)

Winston Zack wrote:

I think it is an excellent idea to hold JRCS meetings at all/most major shows.  The United States is a very large country, and some of us cannot make the long travel plans to fly across the country to attend the 1 or 2 JRCS meetings per year.  So, expanding the number of locations where JRCS meetings take place will only allow for more members to become engaged with other members, and likely increase organization membership.  This is a step in the right direction for this organization.

Winston Zack
------

Rich Uhrich wrote:

I would not usually use the JR Newsletter to announce new purchases, but this one is quite special:

1800 half dime, LM-2, PCGS F-12, the discovery coin for the variety, 3rd finest known of 6 known specimens of the variety.  Pictures of the coin will soon be on my website www.richuhrichcoins.com and contact information is on the site also.

Rich

------