1828 Cohen-1 Classic Head Half-Cent

I am trying! All of the varieties and die states of varieties, is something else but I find it very interesting. There are some varieties that are Rare or Unique and it's easy to pass one up on Ebay, if you don't know any better or don't take the time to check it out. It's no different with Early Cents than Draped Bust Halves and I know we have some DBH enthusiasts in here who love to "play the variety game" with the DBH's, as I do with the EAC's. I liken it to buried treasure, cept'n the treasure ain't buried, it's right under your nose if you'll just take the time to see it. :kewl: But I understand how some peeps wouldn't get into this but for those of us that are into it, we're in it for life because it gets under your skin and becomes a part of you. :thumb:

Ribbit

Ps: I tossed the 1825 @ the same person who attributed my 1828 (actually attributed his own coin but they are both the same variety & die state) so hopefully he'll crack open his Breen Early Half-Cents and let me know what's up with mine. :hail: I really need to get the books so I can look stuff up and not have to rely on others to do it for me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There is a great deal of wisdom in this statement, Mr. Toad. Please consider taking it to heart...Mike

 

I can appreciate you trying to argue your point, but you're wrong. You were not arguing that your die state was rare, you were arguing that a coin with shadowing around the letters (which you called "doubling") is rare. While coins in the same state as your own are a bit hard to find, they are not rare. Even more to the original point shadowing around the lettering on a C-1 of this year is NOT RARE -- in fact, finding one without this feature is much harder.

Respectfully...Mike

 

Yes, and as GDJMSP has pointed out, the letters are punched by hand in the first place, so they can show Longacre doubling when being prepared. However, they can also be prepared without longacre doubling -- depending on how hard/deep the letter punch is driven into the die. If the sinker drives it in too far, it shows Longacre doubling (actually that's an impression of the letter punch not ever intended to show on the coin). If he does it just right, only the letter shows. Here's a picture of a die (not quite what they used in the mint, but you can get the idea:




That said, It is not clear to me if the Longacre doubling is a result of the original sinking of the die (the reverse of your coin was used in 1826 C-2 first, and it shows even more strong Longacre doubling then) or repunching after repolishing, but I'd be careful examination of the Longacre doubling on the 1826 C-2 and 1828 C-1 could determine it.

If you understand what I'm saying, and have some spare time, examine carefully a few Heritage picures of both reverses, and tell us what you find -- was the reverse die repunched or was it simply polished between its usage in 1826 and 1828?

 

I did not say anywhere that a repunched coin is rare, I was referring to a 1828 Classic Head Half-Cent Cohen-1 coin, EXACTLY like mine (aka: OP Coin). Since mine happens to be a Die State II, even though I did not know this when I made my statement, it falls right in line with what I said and proved what I said was TRUE! I have looked at well over 100 1828 Half-Cents (13 star variety) and I haven't found no more than 5 with the repunched HALF-CENT and about 15 to 20 percent were Cohen-1's.

Simple math is all I used in the beginning. I looked at the rarity of all 1828's:

Cohen-3 is Very Common (13 Star Variety)
Cohen-2 is Common (12 Star Variety)
Cohen-1 is Scarce (13 Star Variety)

Now, my coin automatically is Scarce and since I had less than a 5 percent find ratio of my coin with the repunching, that qualified as saying it is MORE RARE than without and Breen has backed up my math. Maybe I got lucky or maybe it worked out in the wash, as statistics have a tendacy to do.

Needless to say, it is neither here-nor-there that mine is a Die State II, what I said in the beginning has been proven by the fact my coin is a Die State II and thus, ones with a repunched HALF-CENT are more UNCOMMON (aka: RARE) than ones without the repunched HALF-CENT (and that is still holding to the discussion within this thread, which, if you don't remember what that was, is a 1828 Classic Head Half-Cent 13 Star Variety).

Ribbit

 

Here's what you said:

Perhaps you meant something else, but both those statements are wrong. Your subsequent comments on the rarity of your coin (in the state it is) are accurate (although I would suggest they exhibit a naive undestanding of rarity).

For the third time, finding an 1828 coin with lonacre doubling is not rare, in fact finding one without it is. If you look at the Heritage archives, or look at a few examples of this date in-hand, I'm sure you'll agree but for some reason you're digging your heels in here.

I'm not so sure why that's so hard to understand, other than perhaps you have problems with others/me correcting you. And if so, I apologize...Mike

p.s. by the way, the reason I know so much about this coin is that I own a [correction] C-3 of the same year with...gasp...longacre doubling on the reverse.

 

Makes a lot of sense.

In his landmark book "Encyclopedia of US Half Cents", Breen addresses a very important topic - "How Half Cents Were Made". Long BEFORE getting near the topic of attribution.

And here is the very first sentence :

"Understanding any feature of a coin's appearance requires understanding how the coin was made."

This book is available on E-Bay and Amazon. Very strong piece of work.

 

I will see what I can do about getting my hands on a few. In person is always better or even ones with great pics work, but if all you judge by are Heritage Coins with awesome pics, you miss out on all the other ones. I have carefully looked at many with pics (not as good as Heritage's pics) and I have seen many without the doubling, including Cohen-1's, and if you will take the time to look at the one on CoinFacts, you will notice it doesn't have the doubling (aka: repunching) and I still stand by what I said about repunching. Repunching without doubling showing, is repunching but repunching with doubling showing, is repunched doubling (aka: doubling). You cannot possibly classify a repunching without doubling as repunching with doubling, the two are not the same. However, maybe what you don't realize is that repunching without doubling isn't seen so how can you call it repunching if you can't see it, yet I believe there are logs at the mint concerning what actions are taken with the dies and if repunching occurred and you can't see it, it's still said that it was repunched (see what Breen said about repunching to correct certain things like the 2nd star).

You and the world may wish to call repunched doubling, just repunched but considering what occurs with the repunching, changes the parameters and when it creates a spur on a star, then that is repunching with a spur effect and when it is repunched and creates a doubling effect, then that is repunching with a doubling effect (aka: repunched doubling). That's what I wish to call it and you and anyone else can call it what you want to call it. I just call it as it as I see it, not necessarily as everyone else calls it. So, I am not saying that is the official term for this, I am saying that is MY term for it.

Ribbit

 

p.s. here's a huge photo of the reverse:

http://www.pbase.com/miker/image/93216625/original

 

I don't have a problem being corrected, I have a problem with being corrected incorrectly. What I mean by that, is taking my words out of contest and the context here (this thread) is a 1828 Cohen-1 Classic head Half-Cent and nothing more. It looked to me like you were saying I was referring to ALL Classic Head Half-Cents and I wasn't.

As to the repunched doubling, I will find ones without the doubling and post them. And to be fair, I will also post the ones with the doubling that I find.

Ribbit

Ps: I may not post ALL that I find because some will still be open auctions and I may be bidding on a few of them and I wouldn' want to increase my bidding opposition.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about Toad. I meant this will all due respect.

VIRTUALLY ALL 1828 C-1 HALF CENTS SHOW EVIDENCE OF LONGACRE DOUBLING. I HAVE LOOKED AT HUNDREDS OF THESE COINS.

Please do some reading on the subject and come back when you better understand minting methods and we can have a discussion on the topic if you so wish. But for now, I'm done because you don't listen...Mike

 

And amazing color on both sides !

Hoochie mama !

 

Do you know what Die State that is? It's also got spurs and clashes all over the place and the HALF-CENT repunching is almost identical to mine.

Ribbit

Ps: Your's falls outside my comment about rarity because your's isn't a Cohen-1. I was specifically speaking of Cohen-1's, but your's is awesome!

Pps: You may not have known I was referring to Cohen-1's spcifically since I did not state it but since this post is about Cohen-1's, I thought it wasn't necessary to be that specific.

 

Mine is a [correction] C-3, Toad; I'm not sure what die state it is; and I knew exactly what you were referring to.

 

p.s. the repunching is almost exactly the same as yours BECAUSE THE SAME LETTER PUNCHES WERE USED TO IMPRESS THE LETTERS IN THE TWO DIES -- think about it, then look CLOSELY at the outline around the letters and you'll see the evidence with your own two eyes. Remember, these were handmade instruments, so they have pecularities. For instance, look under the crossbar in the A at the outline on your coin and mine -- you'll notice the shape is exactly the same. For a second example, look at the lower left side of the left upright of N, you'll notice a small chiplike shelf above the serif. These unique characteristics can be used to identify the particular punches used to impress the letters, and in this case show the same punch was used. If you look at lots of examples of these coins across the years you can even see when these punches were damaged, repaired, and eventually replaced.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read up on how these coins were made, because until you do, it is very difficult to have a conversation on these topics with you.

Hell, if you PM me your address, I'll mail you my copy of Breen if you promise to return it when you're done -- just so I don't have to argue with you any more.

Respectfully....Mike

 

I have several questions about your's:

1 - is the first "S" in STATES repunched?
2 - Have you ever noticed the way the left top part of the "U" in UNITED looks spur'ish?
3 - Have you ever noticed the weird indent on the left bottom part of the last "A" in AMERICA?
4 - Have you ever noticed the spur off the right end of the line below CENT?
5 - Have you ever noticed the square berry to the right of T in CENT?

I'll stop with the question there but reserve the right to ask more later.

ribbit

 

I want you to think about something too . . .

The punches you refer to are the actual letters, not the doubling underneath. You need to think backwards when thinking about dies, they are inverted so the top of the punch, is the top of the letter in the finished product and the doubling is the leftover portion of what was punched over. Therefore, the punches have nothing to do with the wear on the dies that caused the dies to need to be repunched in the first place and caused the doubling on the repunched letters (unless the dies are messed up in the first place, but then they'd look the same from the beginning).

Ribbit

 

1. No, I do not believe it is repunched.
2. Yes.
3. No, I hadn't.
4. Yes -- that looks like re-engraving of the line, happens on this issue, and quite a few other issues.
5. Yes.

What's your point?

 

YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The punches include the letters and the outline (what you're mistakenly calling doubling) underneath.

I've already posted what you clearly don't understand in a post above... I'll quote it again below...

 

Here it is: