I was looking at Heritage archives for comparison coins for my 1907-D this morning and got sidetracked. I sorted by at the best grades and looked at the first 50. After eliminating wrong descriptions, no picture and multiple sales of the same slabs, I was left with 33 ranging in grades from MS68 to MS65. Now I noticed 2 things. One, almost all had trace evidence of earlier off center strikes leaving ghost like images of the headband, letters, stars or denticles. Second, the position and rotation of the MM is all over the place. Ther are at least 5 locations/rotations and possibly large and small D varieties. Some of the images took enlargement better than others so I can't be precise. Does anybody have a reference to the known varieties for these? With this many variants in such a small sample, they have to be common enough. Did I remember right that each die produces about 50,000 coins which would make about 20 dies (Mintage 1,030,000) that year?
Well there's quite a few varieties, I think most of them are either listed in the gold books or the Cherrypicker's Guide. What ones in particular are you interested in ? As for rotation differences, that is typically not even noticed or counted as a variety unless the rotation is more than 15 degrees off center. And I won't swear to it, but I think you need to up your die minatge estimate a good bit. I would say at least 150k - 250k per die. There were exceptions of course when a die failed early on. But it's pretty safe bet that with a mintage of a million that under 10 sets of dies were used. For the 1907-D $10, there are no varieties listed in the gold books I have or the Cherrypicker's Guide.
At that level, 4-6 dies are likely which matches well with the number of variants I found. I was getting overwhelmed. This may be doable. I think step one is to eliminate any fuzzy images and stick to the good examples so I don't read too much into bad images. You know, I think I was OCD, ADD and ADHD before pharmacies learned to make money off of them. This is a magnificent obsession and compulsion, though I get distracted. I've outgrown Hyper.
Attempt 1 at 1907-D Eagle varieties Please see if it works for you. Variety M1 - D Leans Left - It is by far the largest group and may contain subtle variants upon closer examination. 20 observed. Note the Tail feather almost reaches the inner curve of D. Variety M2 - Level D - 7 observed. It matches my own. Variety M3 - D Left - Similar to Leans Left, but I believe it is sufficiently different to be called a separate variety. 2 observed and they were both highest grade. Doesn't lean quite as much as M1 and tail feathers are just past the outer curve of D. Variety M4 - D Far Left - This one is far enough left that the left edge is under the middle talon of the Eagle. 2 observed.
I guess what you're trying to do Marhsall is establish various die marriages. But dies mariages are not varieties per se, at least not in the common sense of the word. To be classified as a variety there usually has be some difference of note. Like an RPM, RPD, OMM, DDO, DDR etc etc. The diagnostics you are pointing out work to help establish authenticity, but again it really wouldn't be classified as a variety. As for the ghost images you mentioned. They are not evidence of a previous strike. But rather evidence of a coin being struck with very worn dies. That further backs up the die minatge estimate. Those ghost images are often found on coins with high mintages like Lincoln cents. The ghost image is actually transferred to the opposing die through the planchets by repeated use. But occasionally you find them on coins like these too where only a few sets of dies were used, perhaps over-used would be a better term. One other thing, typically the numismatic community, at least the powers that be within the community, will not accept studies like this based on images, even very good images. They insist on such studies being conducted with the coins in hand. This is because pictures have a way of distorting the way a coin looks because of angles, lighting, focus etc. For example, I know of a member of this forum, a YN, who did just such a study as you doing on the '32-S quarter and found several varieties, and varieties of the type that are readily recognized as varieties, not die marriages. Seeing the evidence myself I was 100% convinced of its accuracy. But the numismatic community, several recognized experts and the coin magazines refused to accept his work because he did it based on pictures, and a few examples he was able obtain for in hand examination. Of course I rather think the youmg man's work was disavowed because here was a YN finding what the so called experts had missed for decades. They don't like being one-upped like that by YNs and nobodys. So the work was squashed and failed to be recognized. But I know of it, and I still have the evidence of it to back him up. Just be aware of that while you continue what you are doing.
I wasn't sure what coin issue you were talking about until you included the images. Just as a suggestion, help us "less aware" people by including that sort of info. And I agree with GDJMSP's definitions as to the topic you're addressing.
I've noticed that "experts" in all fields discount observations by non-experts without really examining the information. I guess information is POWER and they're not good at sharing. It's like interviews with experts on National Geographic or Discovery who always say something like, "I've been studying this for years and since neither I or my colleagues has ever seen it, then it DOESN'T EXIST! End of story. It's pretty arrogant to think that perhaps 10 observers perhaps 1,000 times more observant would see as much as 6 billion other less distinguished observers. Anyway, back to the subject. My real goal in closely examining coins with an open mind to all possibilities is not to be the first or final word or authority. It is to add some little piece of the puzzle to advance the science of the hobby which has given me so much pleasure because of the work of others who preceded me and my contemporaries who continue advancing the science. The 1907-D Eagle simply allows me to walk in the footsteps of the early observers of Early Date Large Cents. This is what I am calling varieties because the differences are relatively easy to see. Only since I started reading CT last year have I learned that the MM provides some variation that I thought was impossible since the use of hubbing became standard practice. There are lot's of people who can observe more subtle and distinctive differences than me. My concern has nothing to do with marketability or value so I don't really care if it's in a cherry picker's top 100 list. I understand the limits to variation for those in the business. On some level, every coin is unique and you can't have the entire US coin supply in your shops. It appears that most people limit the 'variety' label to to those TPGs are willing to attribute or on some registry list. Anyway, are these differences easily recognizable to most of you? Is it presented in a way which helps or is it confusing or worse, uninteresting?
I'd love to learn more about this transfer of images on worn dies since I come across it frequently and couldn't explain it properly. I've called it understrike and been told in no uncertain terms that it's NOT. They are also NOT clashes as they are frequently described. Clashes should line up with the opposite side of the coin with which it clashed. This is usually, the same pairing, but occasionally the die causing the damage has been replaced for a new pairing but leaving the old clash marks. As always, your responses are wonderful for feeding my addiction for more and better information.
Then you should be interested in this - http://users.scronline.com/lockem/20thcentury.txt - it's only good for 20th century coins and non gold at that. But it is a listing of all hub design changes and it helps greatly in understanding things that most collectors are not even aware of. So dig your compulsions into that and you'll stay busy for a looooooong time Sure, I can see 'em. I've always seen 'em. I just haven't ever had any interest in that sort of thing. Varieties, errors, VAMS - ehhhh you can have 'em. They just don't ring my bell, never have. You have to study them to a certain degree just to keep up. But my interest has always been more the who, what, where, how, when, why kind of stuff. I'm more of a generalist, quite well versed on some things, minimally versed on others.
Not much more to say other than what I have said. That's how it happens. The ghost image is transferred from one die to the other right through the planchets by repeated strikings.
