1796 Half Dime, Normal Date, V-1

[BillJones]

 

Here was the last important silver coin that I purchased at this year's EAC show. It's a 1796 half dime with the "normal date." I had been jousting with the dealer who owned this piece for over a year. I was not totally pleased with it, and thought the price was high. Still given that there is virtually NOTHING available on the market, I finally gave in.

 

This piece is in a green label PCGS EF-45 holder. My grade on it is cleaned with AU sharpness, down graded to EF-45. I could not get a sharp picture of this. It has more detail that what is showing.

 

This piece fills a long-standing hole that has been in my early half dime set. I've been very lucky though the years with just about every other date in the early half dime series except this one. I guess I shouldn't complain about overpaying for ONE coin in the set.

[BillJones]

Here's a follow-up.

 

I'm beginning to think that the 1796 LIHERTY half dime is myth. The coin is only supposed to be die state of this variety, but it got listed in the Red Book. As a result there has been a hole in the coin in albums and now in the NGC registry.

 

I once owned a 1796 half dime that got body bagged for "damaged." The coin got far enough so that the slab graders called it a "LIHERTY" piece. The "B" on that coin was the same as the one on this one, which was slabbed as the normal coin. I've never seen a full "B" on a 1796 V-1, and the latest book on early half dimes hardly lists the "LIHERTY" as a die state.

 

So what gives. Does anyone think that a 1796 "LIBERTY" half dime exists?

[WinstonWare]

Amazingly cool looking coin

[okbustchaser]

Of the 5 or 6 1796 half dimes I have seen (never owned one but I can wish can't I?) all have been the LIKERTY variety. It is the 6/5 that I don't think exists.

[Cladiator]

It exists and I believe what we are seeing here is indeed die state deterioration.

 

Here is a photo of a 1796 LM1 sold by Heritage in Aug. 2006. This coin clearly has a full B. The top and bottom of the B is definitely thin but it's definitely there. To see the die state progression compare to some LDS LM1's where there is no sign at all of an upper or lower crossbar in B.

 

 

[BillJones]

 

Here's the coin that I once owned that was declared to be a "LIHERTY" bofore it got a body bag.

[bsshog40]

Nice Half Dime there Bill!!

[MikeInFL]

Wow. Another beauty. Great coin, Bill. Thanks for sharing..Mike

[Cladiator]

 

Here's the coin that I once owned that was declared to be a "LIHERTY" bofore it got a body bag.

Bill, that looks to be a MDS to me. I think the upper crossbar is still complete and the bottom crossbar is clearly gone at this point.

 

Maybe a MDS coin such as this would be more accurately referred to as the LIRERTY die state. Personally I don't see the need to put labels such as LIKERTY, LIHERTY, LIRERTY on such coinage. The condition of the coin can be much more accurately described with VEDS, EDS, MDS, LDS and VLDS. It's all the same coin and die...just different moments in their life span.

 

As for why the TPG said what they said, well, you know as most of us know that when it comes to accurate attribution of any bust coinage there are no TPG's that can be trusted. For whatever reason they all pretty much blow chunks at it.

[michael]

bill please post your/the ulitmate half dime

 

first year 1794

 

and please tell us about it

 

 

i think your 1796 is okie but it is just too cleaned/white for me and ugly..........i would want to break it out of its holder and put it in an older sulfur envelope and let it re-tone over for the next two decades or so

[RGT]

There are only two die marrages recorded for 1796. Both of the coins you have shown are V-1 or LM-1. According to Breen the "LIHERTY" is a late die state of the V-1 after the die was polished enough to remove that part of the "B". The LM book lists the V-1 as a R3 but makes no distiction about the so-called "LIHERTY" die state.

 

The V-2 or LM-2 is the 1796/5 and is listed as a R6. In the text it is described as having a defective "B". From the pictures in the text the B's look very similar on both obverse dies but other markers show that they are definately different dies.

 

Since it seems that the Redbook "Normal Date" and "LIHERTY" are just different die states of the V-1, I suppose the attribution could be correct on your earlier coin. In reality they are just different die states of the same die marrage. But we know that sometimes that can make a big difference on price. Just look at the 1937-D Buffalo nickel.

[BillJones]

bill please post your/the ulitmate half dime

 

first year 1794

 

and please tell us about it

 

 

i think your 1796 is okie but it is just too cleaned/white for me and ugly..........i would want to break it out of its holder and put it in an older sulfur envelope and let it re-tone over for the next two decades or so

 

Well, Michael, I've been looking for 1796 half dime that I could afford (Under $15,000) for ten years and have found nothing. It is truly a "bad luck" date for me. A year ago I bought one raw and tried to get it slabbed. All I got was a body bag, and I sold it at a $950 loss. I rarely lose money on anything.

 

Yes this coin has been cleaned, but I'm not going to mess with it. It's in a green label PCGS holder, and if I crack it, I could be looking at body bags again.

 

No, it's the not the ideal coin, but I've come the conclusion, this is best I'm going to do. Like I said the 1796 half dime is a bad luck coin for me, and I'm tied of fooling with them.

 

As for the 1794, I'll post that one up when I get the time. You can check out of my early half dime set here on the NGC registry if you would like a preview. That one was a "good luck" coin.

[TomB]

I agree with your observation that the coin likely has AU details, but is cleaned. It is easy for me to write that I would pass on the issue, but I have not studied this niche and it is apparent that the piece has historically been a beast for you to obtain. Therefore, you purchased it. This is one reason why I do not totally embrace collecting date/mintmark sets.

[michael]

wow that is a really rare half dime

 

if it took you years to find this one

 

please kindly post a link to your 1794 halfdime registry set coin

 

this is the ultimate coin for me

 

i could live with the 1796 half dime if i could break it out and re-tone it then i think the coin will easily slab as xf-au

[leeg]

Another very nice piece of history. Nice pick up and thanks for posting it!

[BillJones]

wow that is a really rare half dime

 

if it took you years to find this one

 

please kindly post a link to your 1794 halfdime registry set coin

 

this is the ultimate coin for me

 

i could live with the 1796 half dime if i could break it out and re-tone it then i think the coin will easily slab as xf-au

 

 

I not quite sure why this date draws your attention more than the 1792 half disme, which was really the first half dime, but here it is. Although these coins bear the date 1794, they were all issued AFTER the mint struck a small number of 1795 dated half dimes. Since the first delivery of half dimes was recorded in 1795, it follows that these coins were struck in 1795 not 1794.

 

There are four varieites of 1794 half dimes. This one is listed as Valentine 3a (the "a" for the late die state - the reverse die is badly broken) or in the new book as LM-3. It is an R-4 rated variety with and estimated 76 to 200 pieces known.

 

This coin is in a PCGS AU-50 holder. The scrach in the photo is on the holder not the coin. It was graded over 10 years ago and might get an extra 5 points if it were to be submitted today.

[toyonakataro]

Cleaned or not, it's a nice looking half dime and I like it a lot.

I like 1796 better than 1797 because of the better strike on the reverse.

I once dreamed of owning 1796, but the price went high while I was looking for one;)

 

Your 1794 is awsome.....great half dime set

[michael]

i still love the 1794 half dime as it is easily ten times rarer than a 1795

 

as it goes well with the other two silver flowing hair the half and dollar

 

no dime or quarter

 

the half has got to be a 75k coin in au50

 

the 1794 dollar has to be 500,000 in au50 this is why i love it

 

the half disme is for me not a coin at all does not have the sweet sexy appeal as a 1794 date

[michael]

also bill a superb 1792 half dime