• 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.


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

What's your thoughts on the 1934 1c FS-013.79?????

6 posts in this topic

Since we have been exploring some various errors and varieties -- I thought I would throw this one on the floor for discussion. What's your thoughts on the 1934 1c FS-013.79 that is illustrated in the CPG on page 101 to exhibit extra remnants of an extremely wide errant "3" and "4" digits below the date in the field? What's your opinion?


Later -- I will show the photos and overlays from a very high grade specimen I examined. Here's a hint -- you are going to be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this is a "WC" variety or may be people are a little hesitant to comment.


At any rate -- here's the photos.


This photo provides an overall view of the 1934 1c FS-013.79. We can see the remnants wide south in the field pointed out by arrows. CPG believes this is remnants of the digits "3" and "4" of the date resulting from a doubled die obverse. I recently finally got a chance to examine a specimen and this is photos of it.




This photo shows an overlay transparency of the digits "3" and "4" from the date. This was the closest I could get the overlay and it is not even close to matching. This is definately not remnants of a 34 in the field. So -- what is it?




Finally -- I went a step futher and superimposed the digits "9" and "3" of the date over the remnants. Well -- look what we have here. We can see the shape of the remnants follow exactly inside the parameters of the digits "93" too include the spacing apart alignment matches as well.




So -- how in the world do we have the digits "93" in that area??? Or is that remnants of a 93??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Billy --


Your overlay lends much more credence to the idea that the remnants are the 93 instead of the 34 from 1934! That's a huge spread for a DDO. Why is it thought that the doubling is hub doubling instead of a modern repunched date, i.e., a date that was repunched into the master die and then transferred via the hubbing process to the working dies? If I were to try to answer my own question, I would guess that the rarity of the variety suggests that it occurred on just one working die. Still, it just seems easier to believe that this degree of spread is the result of an errant punch instead of a hub/die misalignment.


If this is hub doubling, as opposed to an RPD on the master hub, it appears from your overlay to be an example of offset hub doubling. What's your take?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on the numbers and will tell you that I thought it looked like a "93" before you posted your overlay.


I had the same thought. I also agree with IGWT on the idea of a modern RPD that occurred on the master die. I recently read that testing the metal with a light strike to the punch, not necessarily in the right place, may be one of the more likely explanations for misplaced dates, mint marks, and repunched dates and mm's.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was a RPD on the master die -- then that would lend to the thought there would be a bunch of these.


I just don't think this is a result of hub doubling. If it was a result of hub doubling, then in my opinion the only class it could start to be is a Class IV offset but still -- there is nothing else visible on this coin anywhere on the obverse. So, I don't think it's a result of hub doubling.


I can go with RPD but why? I always was under the impression that only the last two digits were left off, and in some cases just the last digit left off -- not the entire date. We can even see this in modern-day coinage. For example on the 1985 cents (and other dates) I have seen many where the entire obverse is of a late to very late die state. The entire obverse design and date digits "198" are extremely washed-out and mushy looking -- however, the last digit "5" is needle sharp, crisp and distinct. This tells me the last digit was left off and then punched. This technique would allow carrying over date years for production.


This is another one of those CPG varieties that brings up a lot of questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites