• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

One of the most overlooked repunched dates in U.S. numismatics...

16 posts in this topic

I just cataloged an 1852 Liberty double-eagle (EF-40) as follows:

 

No overdates are known to exist in the Coronet double-eagle series (the purported 1853/2 notwithstanding). Therefore, variety specialists must be content with looking for recut dates, and the 1852 offers one of the best in this series, or any series for that matter, with bold doubling north of the existing digits that does not even require a loupe for viewing. In addition, several stars on the left side are boldly recut. This is a premium, original quality example that affords strong detail and hints of underlying mint luster, suggestive of possible upgrade. Lightly patinated with grey toning, and lacking any major blemishes.

 

I think this variety goes unmentioned because of the expense of acquiring an early double-eagle. However, with the greatly increased values of the popular bust half-dollars, I don't think the 1852 is far out of the budget of most collectors today.

 

Of course, this isn't an "overdate", but it is a nice "naked eye" variety. These are scans, so I could pick up the finer details better. Enjoy!

 

r1852sc.jpg

 

r1852sc_.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real reason that it gets ignored is that it is gold--and therefore ugly regardless of the design--rather than some attractive metal like silver or copper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how the top of the "8" is broken off.

Looks like part of the 2 is also...

Yessir... I believe you are correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely cool. With a decent example of the best overdate busties commanding at least $1000 in XF these days (08/7, 14/3, 17/3, 15/2 specifically) you can afford one of these just the same in XF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real reason that it gets ignored is that it is gold--and therefore ugly regardless of the design--rather than some attractive metal like silver or copper.

 

lol !

 

Interesting how the top of the "8" is broken off.

Looks like part of the 2 is also...

Correct on both counts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1853/2 is recognized as an overdate by all the major grading sevices, the red book, the grey sheet, etc. Also, don't confuse an overdate with a repunched date. They are two totally different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attractive metal like copper or silver? Give me a break! I have been collecting for (45) years and early gold such as this "overdate" (not) shown by James is one of the epitome gold coins for gold collectors! Type 1 double eagles are and have been special coins since their investiture 158 years ago. The design may not be enticing for everybody but James Longacre's design is a classic and is a coin design breakthrough for it's era, especially the reverse eagle design. If you don't like the design fine, but type 1, double eagles are special, IMHO attractive, are an obtainable coin, especially considering their price, age and true scarcity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attractive metal like copper or silver? Give me a break! I have been collecting for (45) years and early gold such as this "overdate" (not) shown by James is one of the epitome gold coins for gold collectors! Type 1 double eagles are and have been special coins since their investiture 158 years ago. The design may not be enticing for everybody but James Longacre's design is a classic and is a coin design breakthrough for it's era, especially the reverse eagle design. If you don't like the design fine, but type 1, double eagles are special, IMHO attractive, are an obtainable coin, especially considering their price, age and true scarcity.

 

On the contrary, the design is fine. It's the metal it's made of that is ugly. No gold coin (or gold anything else for that matter) is attractive. There is absolutely NO WAY to make even a great coin design look good though when minted from such an intrinsically ugly material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1853/2 is recognized as an overdate by all the major grading sevices, the red book, the grey sheet, etc. Also, don't confuse an overdate with a repunched date. They are two totally different things.

Yep, I tried to distinguish between the two in my OP - hope it didn't confuse anyone.

 

Almost all the research that I have read debunks the 1853/2, and having cataloged a couple of those myself and examined the coins in detail, I do not believe it is a legitimate overdate. I think the apparent 3/2 resulted from a damaged die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already knew that James, that's why I stated overdate (not) in my post. I don't know what's wrong with gold. I personally have been buying U.S. gold issue coins plus Canadian and British Sovereigns and other gold since the mid-1960's. Gold coins may easily scuff and have a subdued luster. However many older gold coins tone beautifully. Plus, they still are generally considered the pillar of coin collecting by many, many collectors, myself included. I don't care for platinum, myself. It looks more like aluminum to me but some do like platinum. To each his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The design may not be enticing for everybody but James Longacre's design is a classic and is a coin design breakthrough for it's era, especially the reverse eagle design. If you don't like the design fine, but type 1, double eagles are special,

Yes, and they would be truly spectacular in copper. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites