An interesting find. 1 1

[dprince1138]

The coin in question is an 1832 capped bust dime.  The 1 on the reverse for the denomination is a "flat" 1.
The only occurrences that I could find of a flat 1 are the 1827 and 1824\2 dates.

This may be an example of counterfeiting, but I was not able to identify any other anomalies.
 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by dprince1138

[Coinbuf]

[Sandon]

On 11/4/2023 at 8:17 AM, dprince1138 said:

The only occurrences that I could find of a flat 1 are the 1827 and 1824\2 dates.

    The reason that the "Redbook" and other major guides distinguish between flat top and pointed top 1 varieties on these two dates is that one of these characteristics--a pointed top 1 on the 1824/2 and a flat top 1 on the 1827--is considerably scarcer than the other and is considered to have sufficient collector interest to warrant the listing. Such major guides do not list all varieties of early U.S. coins.

   I checked the six die varieties of 1832 Capped Bust dimes that have photos on NGC VarietyPlus, and all of them appear to have "flat top" 1s in the same style, which has a tiny point on the right side, as the one shown on the well-worn (Good or so) but apparently genuine example in your initial post. Early Dimes (1796-1837) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com).  You might want to do some research before making claims such as the one quoted above.

[Mike Meenderink]

@dprince1138 If you only knew how stupid you sound you would stop this immediately.  Please take a break. You are not impressing anyone with your idiotic banter.

[dprince1138]

Generally, I do not respond to trolls, and I have no idea what these trolls are saying.  However, after I had posted this thread, I thought that it may be a good idea to post some of the comparisons that I had done.

 

[EagleRJO]

On 11/4/2023 at 8:17 AM, dprince1138 said:

The coin in question is an 1832 capped bust dime.  The 1 on the reverse for the denomination is a "flat" 1 ... The only occurrences that I could find of a flat 1 are the 1827 and 1824\2 dates.

On 11/4/2023 at 12:34 PM, Sandon said:

I checked the six die varieties of 1832 Capped Bust dimes that have photos on NGC VarietyPlus, and all of them appear to have "flat top" 1s in the same style, which has a tiny point on the right side, as the one shown on the well-worn (Good or so) but apparently genuine example in your ... post.

I agree with Sandon that your 1832 dime and almost all of the NGC VP 1832 dimes referenced appear to have "flat top 1s", with some minor variations within reason considering different wear or contact marks on coins, or slightly different working die date punches.  One seems to have taken a hit at the "1" and "8" (The first JR-2 example) which I wouldn't include as a date comparison.

On 11/4/2023 at 1:19 PM, dprince1138 said:

... after I had posted this ... I thought that it may be a good idea to post some of the comparisons that I had done.

Did you look at the 1832 dimes Sandon referenced?  I think you need to start over from scratch with how you are doing your variety research and attributions.

Where did you get the example dates you identified as an "1832 Pointed 1" you were comparing the coin to?  At least one has taken a hit at the top which shouldn't be used as it could be distorted in that area, and the other one is somewhat blurry.  And one comparison date included is from a different year, which can be expected to have a different shape.  Also, If you got them off raw coins listed on Etsy or eBay, which you have suggested as a reference in other topics, that could be the discrepancy.

The date examples you found may be the anomaly, or perhaps there are different date fonts in the same year not noted in the Red Book, which would not be unusual.  I would check NGC VarietyPlus, PCG$ CoinFacts or VarietyVista.com when looking for various examples or varieties, maybe all particularly when someting doesn't appear to match.  There are also additional reputable references for DD's and RPM's.

Edited November 5, 2023 by EagleRJO

[Mike Meenderink]

@SandonThis guy is a more on.

[zadok]

On 11/4/2023 at 12:35 PM, Mike Meenderink said:

@dprince1138 If you only knew how stupid you sound you would stop this immediately.  Please take a break. You are not impressing anyone with your idiotic banter.

...irony at its best....

[Sandon]

   Part of the problem is that we're trying to compare coins from different years and sub-types (open collar strikes and close collar strikes), when different punches may have been in use, on coins in different conditions. There are also limitations in working from photographs instead of examining the actual coins.

  1. Here is a photo I cropped from the VarietyPlus image of the reverse of an 1824/2, flat top 1 (JR-1):

  

  This "1" is the same or similar to the 1827 flat top 1 in the OPs last post but definitely not the same as the "1" on the initially posted 1832 that the OP is calling a "flat top 1", which has a small but distinct point on the upper right end of the top of the "1". Note also the shortened or missing right foot of the flat top 1 on both the 1824/2 and the 1827, which doesn't appear on the OP's coin. The "1" on the die that struck the OP's coin is evidently not from the same punch used on the 1824/2 or 1827 flat top 1's.

 2. Here is the VarietyPlus cropped photo of an 1824/2, pointed top "1", JR-2:

 The left side of the "1" is clearly much more curved than what the OP is calling an 1832 "pointed top" 1.

   3. Here is a photo I cropped from the VarietyPlus photo of the reverse of an 1832 JR-2, the second of the two examples shown there:

 

This "1", which is the same or similar to that on the image posted as an 1832 "pointed 1" by the OP, doesn't match either the flat or pointed top 1's from the 1824/2 or 1827 issues, but I would describe it as "flat" due to the straight or "flat" top to the left side of the "1", followed by a steeper angle ending in a small point. On a coin as worn as the OP's, the straight and angled parts may have blended together and appear to be one line, but the point is still visible, so I don't think one can declare this to be some new variety and market it as such.

   The OP should check the images on both VarietyPlus and PCGS Coinfacts and see if the posted coin can be matched to any of the known varieties notwithstanding its wear and whether there are distinct differences in the "1s" of certain varieties without regard to wear. If you are unable to locate a copy of the JR "Dime Book" that we discussed in a previous topic, you may find additional images of attributed pieces on the auction archives of major auction houses, such as at ha.com and stacksbowers.com. 

 

[Mike Meenderink]

On 11/4/2023 at 3:45 PM, zadok said:

...irony at its best....

Right back at ya  Z

[EagleRJO]

On 11/4/2023 at 6:47 PM, Sandon said:

Part of the problem is that we're trying to compare coins from different years and sub-types

Had they started using gang punches for the entire date by the 1820's, which should be more consistent, by creating a master date hub from a steel block which was then used to produce working date gang punches from a softened and then quenched steel rod?  I recall reading that process was being used in the late 1830's but I am not sure when it started.

I also seem to recall that after creating the working date individual punches or gang punches from a master hub they would sometimes touch those up during use, which could lead to some very minor variations.  Like perhaps at the top of the 1832 10C "1" which does seem to have some very minor variations, but not to the extent of resembling a 1827 10C "flat top 1".

Edited November 5, 2023 by EagleRJO