Photoshop proves the 1888/7 doesn't work

[shylock]

After much frustrasion I finally created an 1887/1888 overlay that proves the 1888 S1overdate has a serious problem.

 

 

The top image is an overlay of the two bottom images. The second image is Lake's 1888/7. The third image is a Heritage 1887. Overlayed, the "188" line up perfectly. But the 7 on the 1887 doesn't quit work over the 1888/7.

 

We have a serious problem here. The first 3 digits of the 1887 align perfectly over the 1888/7. But the last digit -- the 7 -- doesn't fit.

 

If the seven doesn't fit we must acquit, until someone proves otherwise.

 

I think this proves the 1888/7 overdate is a figmint of our imagination. Kudos to Lakesammmon for selling it for $85K.

 

Show me I'm wrong in agreeing with TDN, after much research, that the 1888/7 overdate is a misatributed variety.

[Tradedollarnut]

The human mind likes to connect the dots....

[Newmismatist]

Your conclusion rest's on an important, but unknown (unproved) implied assumption. Your implied assumption is this: Only the EXACT 7 die punch used on the imaged 1887 was available to the die setter who made that 1888/7 IHC die.

 

I'm not a die setter, but I believe the mint had an assortment of different 7s in stock. I believe that overdate variety occurs when the die setter "punches" in the numbers on the current year's die. I don't think they took a previous year's die and "grind it down" (ie remove sufficient metal from the face of the die to "remove" the date, because if they did this the would also remove the other incuse portions of the die - ie the devices - and essentially they would have a useless die). I think they would get new dies and punch 4 new digits in the new dies.

 

So what your overlay seems to establish is that the "7" used on the 1887 die might not be the same 7 1st punched on that 1888. BUT does that eliminate ALL 7 die punches that the mint had in stock? And further, did the die setter - who punches the numerals by sight only - punch the under 7 in exactly the same position as the 7 on the 1887?

 

Quary: In 1888 did they have a means of punching the entire date into the die as 1 proceedure? (ie the punches fixed together and impressed all at once?) or were there 4 separate punches with each punch set separately?

 

Another thing that is unknown is how the die setter on THAT die (the "8/7") punched the numerals into the die. Did he position the punch on the face of the die and hit it with sufficient force to set the number in the die on his very first blow?

 

Or did he 1st softly strike the punch so he could check the positioning of the date before the final hard blow(s). A light "tap" to check thr position of the numbers could allow a die setter enough of a "fudge" factor to correct an incorrect position (a light basining and re-position the punch) or even an incorrect numeral punch. A light tap is going to give the initial incuse number a narrower width and a shorter length, with the narrower widith being proportionately greater than the shorter length (you have to think in 3 dimensions here - the highest part of a rounded numeral on the punch is the 1st portion of the punch to impress the die, thus a light "tap" impresses only the highest portion of the punch into the die).

 

In addition to having the exact numeral that was punched into the die, you must know how deep the under-punch was impressed into the coin and IF the under-punch was "skewed" when struck, before you can use an overlay to match the under-punch on that 8/7 that we are discussing.

 

I'm not sure that all the assumptions that are implied here as accurate (and necessary) to draw the conclusion given are in fact correct assumptions.

 

We need more information on what the other available "7" punches that were used in 1888 looked like before we can definitively conclude that the coin in question is not a true over-date. We would also need to know the initial depth of the understrike and whether there was any effort to basin the "mistake" off (and if so how much basining was done) before the correct 8 punch was used to complete the die. I think a 3D cad-cam program would be necessary to give 3D views of the various configuations that could occur to determine whether that bottom "nub" is the actual tail of a 7 that was 1st punched into the die.

 

Just some thoughts on this fascinating subject.