Transitional Reverse 1 1

[Stackerdude21]

What is a “Transitional Reverse” coin?

[Woods020]

Transitional denotes that it was a design change. Usually from one major design to another for example going from Lincoln wheat cent to memorial. 
 

What coin/context are you asking the question in?

[Stackerdude21]

K/Half ‘64.

[J P M]

1964 is the last year for normal silver coinage, So a transitional year for coins 

[Stackerdude21]

Yes, I know about the change in silver to clad. Is T/R a coin with one side different, say a clad layer on only one side of a 90% silver? Is that possible?

[Oldhoopster]

The 1859 seated dime struck with an 1860 reverse is considered a transitional pattern since the reverse was supposed be used with a diff obverse.  It also has been called a transitional reverse at times.

http://www.seateddimevarieties.com/date_mintmark/1859transpage.htm

It is not possible for a coin to have a clad obverse and 90% silver reverse.

[Mohawk]

Hoopster is exactly right....there is no way to have a clad obverse and a 90% silver reverse.  It cannot happen.  As for the "Transitional Reverse" on the 1964 Proof Kennedy, I think you're probably thinking of this variety on our hosts' Variety Plus page:

https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/half-dollars/kennedy-half-dollars-1964-date/820152/

It looks like this variety is more properly called the Type 1 Reverse for the 1964 Proof Kennedy Half.  Since this reverse appeared on both the Accented Hair and the regular 1964 Kennedy Proofs, I'm guessing this is what you're looking for. "Transitional Reverse" is actually a bad name for this coin because there was no major design transition.....this reverse is found on two varieties of Kennedy Halves with slight changes to the obverse design from early issues to later issues.  If you had a reverse that was common to the 1963 Franklin Halves and the 1964 Kennedy Halves, that would be a more proper "Transitional Reverse".  

Edited December 25, 2021 by Mohawk

[RWB]

"Pattern" dimes with 1859 obverse and 1860 reverse were made several years after those dates. They were never legitimate pattern, experimental or transition pieces and not legal tender.

Edited December 25, 2021 by RWB

[Stackerdude21]

Ok, got it. So it’s kinda like a “goof-up” coin at the mint. Say a ‘78 Morgan with a ‘79 reverse for example.

[Mohawk]

On 12/25/2021 at 12:45 PM, Stackerdude21 said:

Ok, got it. So it’s kinda like a “goof-up” coin at the mint. Say a ‘78 Morgan with a ‘79 reverse for example.

A goof up or a cost saving measure.  I think things like this often result from the simple use of the dies on hand.  They're there, so why not use them?  You know, that kind of thing.

[RWB]

On 12/25/2021 at 12:45 PM, Stackerdude21 said:

Ok, got it. So it’s kinda like a “goof-up” coin at the mint. Say a ‘78 Morgan with a ‘79 reverse for example.

Use of older dies on hand was an approved procedure until 1882. There's a thread "1877 Cent video by Rick Snow" referencing this subject. Also, an article has been submitted for publication titled "Little Letter Explains a Lot" explaining reuse of reverse/undated dies, and presenting director Burchard's letter in full.

Edited December 25, 2021 by RWB

[Woods020]

There was a minor reverse change in 64. I don’t remember the specifics but remember reading an article a while back. The rays were a little different and something else. I can’t remember if it was only proof like circulation also, but the article was addressing proofs I remember. 

[Conder101]

The 1992 Close AM cents are a transitional reverse error.  The 1992's were supposed to all have a Wide AM, the 1993's are all the Close AM design.  But at least one (and probably only one die at each mint) 1993 rev dies was used at the end of 1992 and created the 1992 with the transitional reverse..