Barber coin varieties

I also did a search and found that PCGS has certified 6 coins as a 303, NGC none and ANAC has 1 listed. I don't think VSS offers a searchable data base so I will just have to assume my coin is the 8th one found. james

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interesting (perhaps) tidbit - the pattern coin for the Barber dime series simply reused the Seated Liberty reverse. I don't know if that was the original intention or if Barber just wanted to test his new obverse before redesigning the reverse. Another thing I find interesting is that the changes made to the obverse in 1901 implemented features of his original pattern coin - the strong cartilage in the ear and the pointy leaf tips - and on the reverse he also added the extra fold in the right ribbon. It's like it bugged him for 9 years that the coin wasn't more like his original.



(I wish I could credit these images, I think they came from the Smithsonian where this coin resides)

 

I would say that like yours, other people have them and know they have them, they just haven't bothered getting it attributed. Nice score!

 

@KBBPLL . Yes. I have always thought the fees they charge to attribute coins has always had an off putting affect. james

 

@KBBPLL . On a side note, my copy of the cherrypickers guide lists in their guide that up to that date they had only heard of 1 and wanted to hear from anyone who found another. I would have to check the publish date but I think that was around 2016. James

 

@KBBPLL . I have no wish to be a pest but I have just begun my Barber collection. I have decided to focus on only the dimes at this point in time for various reasons.
I do believe though that earlier this year you made mention of Barber coin varieties you had submitted to the Cherrypickers guide coming out in 26 but that they were not picked up.
I understand if you are less than enthusiastic to have competition in the marketplace but if you are overcome by a benevolent feeling I would be thrilled to know what those varieties might be (Again my focus will be on Dimes). James

 

Sorry for the delay, I missed your reply. My CPG five are in post #7 on this thread. I think CPG then wanted it trimmed to 3 or 4. I wrote up and submitted a bunch of stuff. Then they told me it was not going in due to space. This was all what, four years ago? For the 5th edition. Two years later (not kidding) the editor contacted me and asked me to send him that stuff again. (5th edition still hadn't been published). Apparently they lost it? I didn't respond, kinda seemed like a clown show at that point, honestly. Which was the right call, because they cut two dozen dimes from the 5th edition so I would have wasted my time twice. Yes, it took them that long to get the 5th edition out. I hadn't heard that there would be another new edition in 2026. Source? Don't hold your breath.

(We're approaching Festivus so it's time for the airing of grievances)

 

There is also a 1901-S OBV 1, REV 2. I've discovered two different OBV dies for this anomaly, and believe they both share the same REV.

 

Fantastic! You must be the person who posted on Facebook around April 2024, or you acquired your first coin (above) from them. I saved off the FB images and it's clearly the same coin. I hunted high and low for another one for a little while after that. None in Heritage archives and one possible on Great Collections. It's already a semi-key so the Obverse 1 anomaly must be quite scarce, and yet you have two of them from different die pairs!

I think the reverse die is also different. On your first coin, the MM is centered, but on the second it's marginally left of center - note that the gap between ribbon and MM is slightly wider on the right side. The first coin has 5 notable die cracks, whereas the second has one, in a different location (upper right wheat leaf to the rim). On the second coin I also notice that the bottom of the left corn leaf is polished off and wheat kernels at the top are floating, also due to excessive polishing.

Have you published this anywhere? I'm sure BCCS journal would love to have an article on it. You can get your name up there in lights as the discoverer, if you're into that sort of thing. I'll note this as a confirmed transition variety. I wasn't certain before.

I put your images together, if it helps people see that the two obverse dies were different (date position), and see if I'm right about the reverse dies also being different.




Here is the GC coin mentioned above. Poor image so I wasn't sure. I think it's the same die pair as your first coin. https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1407619/1901-S-Barber-Dime-ICG-AU-58-Details

 

You are correct, I recall you mentioning your discovery of the 1901-O OBV 1. While I'd like to write something for the Journal, that is not really my strong suit. I should put some effort into it (again), but always end up unhappy with my commentary and end up scratching such submissions. It would be nice to have my name associated with the discovery, but... again.. I'd have to write something.

I believe you are correct, and this is a type 1. While some of the leaves look sharp rather than rounded, not all do. Further, the proximity of brow to O and ribbon to UN, the shape of the inner ribbon notch, as well as the cartilage in the ear all indicate type 1 to me. I wish I'd caught that in 2023 as I'd have snatched it up! Further, if it is, it appears to be a 3rd OBV die for this anomaly (which is crazy considering how few have been found).

 

That is definitely crazy, considering how scarce the Obv1 anomaly seems to be. I agree after taking a closer look that if the GC coin is also Obv1, it is a third die. While the first 1 aligns with the B designer initial in close to the same location as your first coin, the right edges of both 1's align with the middle of a denticle. On the GC coin they align roughly between the denticles.

This is quite perplexing. SF only coined dimes in 1901 during March and September, according to the monthly coinage report. 519,330 in March, 73,692 in September. I did a census of the Reverse 3 (thick ribbon) coins and found 13% with Rev3, which aligns almost exactly with the September coinage, 12.43% of the 593,022 total. This and other similar evidence indicates that the Rev3 hub was introduced around April 1, 1901. Because all three of these Obv1 examples are paired with Rev2 (thin ribbon), my hunch is that they were coined with the 519,330 in March.

Unfortunately when I was doing this research 6 years ago there were no die shipment or destruction records for 1901. But there are for 1900. SF was shipped 50 die pairs and produced 5,168,270 coins in 1900, a little over 100,000 coins per die. If this average was maintained for 1901-S, only 5 or 6 die pairs were used to produce the entire mintage. During this era dies were almost always shipped to the branch mints in multiples of 5. So if 3 out of 5, or even 3 out of 10 obverse dies for 1901-S were the Obv1 anomaly, where are all the coins? Did the dies quickly fail catastrophically? I don't see any obv die cracks on these three examples.

Oh well, I love to speculate about this stuff. I'm always tracking any 1901-S dimes that come up on Heritage, GC or Stacks, sometimes DLRC, so maybe I'll get a chance to own the Obv1 someday.

 

@justafarmer @messydesk Following up on the "beer belly B" for 1909, I obtained an AU58 example which just arrived. I wasn't completely certain that it was the BBB from the auction images, but now I am. I'll quickly post some images. I note that the L has the same "ghost" of the regular B used for most 1909 nickels on the left hand side that the proof examples show. Also a hint of the "hook" at the top of B where the regular B extends the upper loop to the right. Seems to me that the proof and circulation BBB either came from the same die, or the dies were created from the same BBB hub.



(Sorry about the pointer in the eyepiece but I can't do anything about it)








Here's the collage of the proof examples I did a while ago to compare.

 

I half-heartedly looked for one at the FUN show. No luck, but I didn't look at many coins. Didn't have much time to.

 

Your images hi-lite the coin's design detail much better than those used for the auction. Good cherrypick.

 

Going back to this (post #17), I guess visually in hand you could say mine, and probably some others seen in images, appear "unbroken." The upper loop is just so thin that it appears like a single line. You can see in the microscope image that it's all still there but extremely light and narrow. Other images do seem to show a complete separation (which could be strike or die state). I suppose the important thing is that for the B of the BBB in all other years, the upper loop is fully formed. And the majority of 1909 coins have a fully formed "regular B."

I'll be on the hunt for a proof example, and maybe a "regular B" to compare in hand.