1888 IHC Poss Overdate w/Updated Photos & Superimposed Overlay

[Die Varieties]

A little while back I posted about an 1888 IHC that might have some possibilities of exhibiting an "8/7" overdate. Since that posting and to further update forum members, I have been able to obtain an 1887 IHC to photograph the digit "7" and be able to conduct a transparent overlay.

 

Below are two photos. Obviously the top photo is without a digit "7" overlay. I have used two arrows annotated as 1 and 2 to help point out portions of the remnants within the upper loop of the last "8" digit we see in this photo. Arrow 1 is pointing to the right edge of the raised remnants. Arrow 2 is pointing to horizontal portion of the top right corner of the raised remnants. These two arrows and more importantly, arrow 2 is very crucial.

 

 

Below is the same photo but now with a transparent digit "7" overlay superimposed over the remnants in the upper loop of the "8" digit. It appears that the upper right edge of a digit "7" follows along the right curvature remnants as pointed out in arrow 1 and also the horizontal segment of the remnants as pointed out in arrow 2.

 

 

(1) Is this a possible new 1888 IHC overdate?

 

(2) Or is this a neat looking die chip or die gouge that just so happens to match the curvatures of a "7" digit within the upper loop of the "8" digit?

 

(3) Or is this remnants of a RPD "8" instead of a "7" digit OVD within the upper loop?

 

I'm thinking about doing an article and submitting to NN to help alert readers to be on the lookout and maybe someone could come across another specimen that may show additional remnants that could shed further light.

 

Where it stands now -- I'm not 100% sure. I'm not an IHC expert. It looks like it has some great possibilities -- but I don't want to jump-the-gun.

 

Your thoughts are welcome? Please be on the lookout and let me know if you come across another specimen.

[Tradedollarnut]

I think that requires too huge a stretch of the imagination - to place the 7 in that skewed position and then not show any trace of any other part of the digit outside the 8. Nah.

[Die Varieties]

I think that requires too huge a stretch of the imagination - to place the 7 in that skewed position and then not show any trace of any other part of the digit outside the 8. Nah.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you TDN. You make an excellent point about the "7" being really skewed in its position.

 

But -- doesn't the IHC series have a lot of digits skewed all over the place especially way down in the denticles?

[Buffalo_Pete]

You create an excellent case, Billy.

 

It DOES line up....and quite well.

 

The abscence of any other identfiers makes me suspect, though.

 

There should be some more identifiers outside the loop.

 

I don't think...only my opinion....that the Mint was that good at abraiding

away all traces around the 8.

 

....But what do I know? I collect Buffs.

 

Pete

[IGWT]

Assuming a four-digit punch -- which I believe was used for this series and period -- the angle of the 7 suggests that there would be remnants in the denticles. Also, I would be more convinced if there were part of an underlying 7 in the lower loop of the second 8. Is there something in the shadow of the lower loop?

 

Edited to Add: Super pictures.

[Jazzy]

Assuming a four-digit punch -- which I believe was used for this series and period -- the angle of the 7 suggests that there would be remnants in the denticles. Also, I would be more convinced if there were part of an underlying 7 in the lower loop of the second 8. Is there something in the shadow of the lower loop?

 

Edited to Add: Super pictures.

 

I thought the dies were prepared sans the last digit and then finished with a single-digit punch. If that's the case, the mint employee could have started out with a number 7 punch, realized his mistake, and switched to an 8. That would account for the missing remnants of the 7. After all, they weren't punched in one fell swoop or else you'd risk some major die breaks.

[Architecht]

I suppose the condition of the coin isn't clean enough to look for a difference in flow lines around the 8?

[IGWT]

After all, they weren't punched in one fell swoop or else you'd risk some major die breaks.

 

A 4-digit logotype was used to punch the dates on the working dies of the Shield 5c series 1866-83. Here's just one of many examples that leave no doubt on the issue.

 

 

I'm extrapolating information on the Shield series to respond to Billy's question on the 1888 1c. The dies were annealed after the final hubbing to soften and to decrease the brittleness of the steel so that the dies could be cleaned up and the date punched. The dies were then tempered before coining.

 

We discussed this subject some in this thread.

[Newmismatist]

Rick Snow is the person to check with (Eagle Eye Rare Coins) - I think it's a die chip - if a die setter was getting ready to punch the date and mistakenly picked up a 7 you would think he would align the punch correctly - and not skewed - JMHO

[cpm9ball]

Billy, I have to agree with Ron that it is a die chip. Your photo shows a pronounced indentation near the top right (inside the loop of the 8) that does not align with the upper, right-side curvature of the 7. I think it is just coincidental.

 

Chris

[Die Varieties]

Yep -- at this stage, a die chip. Oh well, it made for interesting study. As far as the 4 punch logotypes I'm not sure. I think some were and I think some were punched with the last digit. Some even show "1s" up in the pearls and other areas. Interestingly, the 1888/7 (Ruddy variety) that is known and listed overdate doesn't show any repunching on the other "188" digits.

 

Thanks for the replies. Onward and forward.

 

IGWT: Nice pic on that 1874 RPD. That's a nice one!

[Tradedollarnut]

Interestingly, the 1888/7 (Ruddy variety) that is known and listed overdate doesn't show any repunching on the other "188" digits.

 

IMO, that's not an overdate either. Somebody posted a huge pic of it across the street and it just didn't look like an overdate would.

[Die Varieties]

I have been told by others too that they don't feel the Ruddy type is an overdate either. Do you have a link to that post across the street? I was trying to find it but I guessed I overlooked it.

 

I would like to be able to do an overlay on the Ruddy type just for the heck of it. Might be interesting to see what would happen?

[cpm9ball]

 

Hey, Billy, maybe this will make you feel better. I got it in change at a 7-Eleven. I'm still trying to fool around with the lighting, color, etc.

 

Chris

[Die Varieties]

OUTSTANDING!!! I luv it! Aint it cool to come across something like that in change? Those are tuff too because the Mint clamped down. Congrats Chris.

 

Hey -- I don't feel down on the 1888. Doing things to prove or disprove is what it's all about. It's the researching, studying, analyzing and sharing with members here -- that's the fun part.

 

Your pics are coming along nicely. I wish I could take full coin shots like you guys. I may have to invest in getting a macro attachment.

[Tradedollarnut]

I have been told by others too that they don't feel the Ruddy type is an overdate either. Do you have a link to that post across the street? I was trying to find it but I guessed I overlooked it.

 

I would like to be able to do an overlay on the Ruddy type just for the heck of it. Might be interesting to see what would happen?

 

Thread

 

 

 

If you think about how dies are created, you will wonder like I do how in the world it could be possible to eradicate the stem of the 7 that should show through the bottom loop of the 8, yet leave the butt showing so strongly.

[Die Varieties]

Thanks for the link. I read the complete thread and very interesting. Did you get to see that article that was mentioned about being in Longacres Ledger? Was there an overlay done? I'm only asking because speaking only for myself -- I have never seen an overlay done on this Ruddy variety. I'm not saying there never has been an overlay done -- just that I have never seen one.

 

Is Lakesammman a member on this forum? I can do an overlay with those pics -- but their his photos and would like to ask him about it first. I don't want to upset anybody. ... I could post on that thread and ask.

 

I understand what your talking about the "butt" of the "7" showing really strong protruding from the lower left of the "8" but nothing showing in the lower loop.

[Die Varieties]

I posted on that thread. Will see what happens.

[shylock]

If you think about how dies are created, you will wonder like I do how in the world it could be possible to eradicate the stem of the 7 that should show through the bottom loop of the 8, yet leave the butt showing so strongly.

 

This is a great question. As an IH variety lover it's one of the great mysteries of numismatics I've yet to hear a good answer to. On the one hand, these coins are rare and I think very original. But a good explaination of how the details disappeared almost completely in the loops of the 8 is an interesting subject.

[skippy]

A 4-digit logotype was used to punch the dates on the working dies of the Shield 5c series 1866-83. Here's just one of many examples that leave no doubt on the issue.

 

 

I had an interesting discussion on this subject with Cindy Mohon several years ago.

 

There is no doubt that a four digit punch was used to punch the date on the example shown above. But Cindy told me that she had encountered in her research some indications that the die sinker had some individual freedom, and that Longacre in particular preferred to use individual numeral punches when he entered a date.

 

This is all second hand, and I have no convincing evidence on a nickel that individual punches were used. But there are numerous examples of repunched dates on shield nickels where only one digit is repunched. It's impossible to tell the difference between that being the result of individual punches or just that the mint was sometimes pretty good at effacing mistakes.

[skippy]

I forgot to reply on the IHC at hand!

 

I disagree with the posters who say that because nothing else shows except within the upper loop of 8 that it cannot be an overdate. Take a look at some of the accepted Morgan dollar overdates for 1880/79. Some have little pieces like this IHC.

 

That doesn't mean that I necessarily think it has to be an overdate. There isn't really enough present to convince me, but it is certainly intriguing. What would be nice to find is a late die stage of this coin - on later die stages underlying metal sometimes shows more readily as the surrounding metal wears (for the same reasons that acid can be used to raise serial numbers on guns that have been filed off).