Seems like a very popular coin. I don't know how may times I've seen threads entitled something like 'I have this 1888 IHC - is it the 1888/7 ? ' or some such like full of hope. So, how many are estimated to exist today?
It seems like the S1 variant is the money maker. The s2 and s3 variants don't seem to be considered actual overdates A G4 goes for $1650. I can understand why so many newbies would be chasing it. Heres one below: https://www.ebay.com/itm/1888-7-Indian-Head-Cent-Copper-Penny-PCGS-G-04/254342105615?hash=item3b37f88a0f:g:yWQAAOSw2kpdW14-:sc:USPSPriorityMailSmallFlatRateBox!94404!US!-1
Thank you @Hookman and @mullah for the information. I had read somewhere that only 30 or so existed. I see now that is way off the mark. It is interesting that even low grade examples of the 1888/7 seem to sell for such considerable prices. I know that one cannot strictly compare, but the 1867/7 is scarcer at 250 estimated, yet it sells for less than the 1888/7. I guess the 1888/7 is just that popular.
I don't really know. I'm not an IHC kinda guy. I just researched that link out of curiosity sparked by your question. I just collect silver, of all kinds, as close to melt, or under, as I can get it. Thanks.
The 1867 is a repunched date while the 1887 is an actual overdate. That makes all the difference. I cherried the 8/7 in Good around 20 years ago. Paid a buck; sold it for $1200. To me, it's not much of an overdate, at least in low grade.
Thanks for the explanation. I will have to google the difference between a repunched date and an overdate since I am not knowledgeable in this area.
It is quite simple - a repunched date is the same date punched over again (just like a repunched mintmark). In the example above, the 7 was repunched over the first 7. Or on a mintmark, it would be D over D. An overdate is a different date punched over the top. It started as a 7, and then an 8 was punched over the top. On a mintmark, it would be something like a D over S. "Overdates" or "Over MintMarks" are considered cooler than "repunched" dates, are thus usually in higher demand, and thus sell for more.
Not to mention is how unbelievable it is to have proof that at one time a bureaucrat actually tried to save taxpayer money instead of wasting it like a drunken sailor. Apologies to drunk sailors.
Honestly, bureaucrats probably had little to do with it. The mint was a factory, and the die sinkers were craftsmen. They had a die, it had the wrong date, they tried to efface the date and punch in the new date. They had no idea that 150 years later some geek with a huge magnifier would examine every little mistake they ever made. They had no idea that someone with more money than sense would pay ridiculous amounts for their coins. They were literally just trying to make enough coins that the butcher could effectively sell his pigs.
Nor did they care but the reason that the dies had the "wrong" date is politicians who ordered that all coins bear their date of manufacture. At the end of the year any unused dies had to either be discarded or reworked. I applaud their reworking as a cost saving measure. If a similar thing is being done these days I haven't heard about it. I would agree that the 1841/81 cents and the ones where a number was upside down or in the wrong place were starting with defective dies.
Again, unless you can show me the bill where congress mandated this... I'm not sure this was being driven by the politicians. You seem to really have it out for them. This was a point of technicality. In fact, you can look at the mintage records for many, many early US issues and you'll find that quite a few of them were minted with dates which didn't match their issue dates! @Conder101 can probably give you more examples than I can, but there are several dates across multiple issues.