What a discovery! Breen was WRONG! At least this time.

I was attributing coins on eBay and came across a S-221 and found something that I thought was BIG. Holmes Early state S-221 had the obverse of the S-216 (Obverse 4) and not the his Middle State S-221 (Obverse 8).

Because they are so close, I had to use a die scratch or break running from the E to the hair to make the distinction. On the better specimens the difference can be found in dentil location underneath the 1.

Low and behold, while reading Breen to find any alternative die information to confirm my find, I see he calls both Obverses his Obverse 4. Now I think I can prove that Breen was wrong on this one with dentils and that the Holmes Early die is Obverse 4 and not Obverse 8 by use of this die scratch.

I'm only a few hours into this find with jury duty squeezed in (I was elected foreman again, even though they don't call it that anymore). This is a significant claim which requires significant evidence, so I'll try to provide it. Pictures to follow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Breen was very good (numismatically speaking anyway) but he was not infallible. As his work has been scrutinized many errors have been noted. Some say he was not above making up a "fact" if he needed to.

 

Agreed. Breen, from what I heard from people who knew him, was a legend in his own mind, and never let inconsequential details get in the way. That said, he was a great numismatist who contributed greatly to the hobby. I am sure any correction of one of his books is indeed great to know. At a minimum, its great to document in your own references, and take advantage of that knowledge if possible. All of the great collectors did just that, they filled their references with errors so they could be more knowledgable than others. Knowledge is money in this hobby.

Does anyone know if any website collect errata from Breen's books?

P.S. I didn't mean to thrwo Breen under the bus, its just what contemporaries of his told me. You want to hear about horror stories, have a Sassanid collector tell you about Gobl! lol.

 

Are dies really different if the only difference is one has a die scratch and another doesn't?

Said a bit differently, aren't these two dies simply die states not different dies?

Perhaps that explains what you're seeing.

However, I'm having a bit of difficulty following you, and I didn't go to my references to see pics.

Looking forward to more info.

 

Bravo sir! I would love to see a write up with pictures!

 

First step is to show beyond reasonable doubt that the obverses are DIFFERENT!

The following images are from this sight and no claim of ownership is attached to my use of them for strictly numismatic scholarship. I have modified them to show the points of interest.

http://www.icollector.com/The-Pre-Long-Beach-Sale_as14916

This is Obverse 4 from S-216



This is a closeup of the Date and the denticles or dentils beneath the date.



This is the second Die State S-221 from that collection:



This is a closeup of the date and denticles or dentils on that coin:



I think the markup is quite sufficient to positively show that there are two different Obverses here.

 

I don't understand where yout "obverse 8" is coming from? I see no problems in the Holmes sale catalog between his early and mid state 221's. I see no difference in dentical placement below the 1 (Which 1 are you referring to?). I don't see how you could judge dentical placement between his early and mid state 221's since the denticals are not visible on his mid state piece.

Sorry you posted your pictures while I was writing. I see your point about the denticals. But the pictures of the Robbie Brown (216) and Naftzger coins (219) in Breen do seem to show the same dentical placement. So is Breen wrong, or was Holmes 216 not a 216? The reverse is right for 216 so was there a photo problem or is there now an NC-3?

If it is just a scratch then no they are the same die, but if the dentical placement differs then they are different dies.

 

Next, and this is the more difficult to see, I will show the early die state S-221 shares a die scratch with Obverse 4.

This is the early die state S-221:



This is a closeup of the verticle scratch or break under E:



This is a closeup of the date, though it is difficult to make out, what can be seen appears to show the 1 pointing between dentils.



This is the closeup of the E of the S-216. While fuzzy, I believe you can see the same scratch or break.

This is the closeup of the E on the later state S-221 which I consider the Obverse 8, using Sheldon's ID.



If I'm correct, then the Early Die State S-221 was actually a 4G and a new variety, yet still part of the greatest set of Early Large Cents ever assembled.

I know this is big and requires substantial proof. How am I doing?

Oops! I forgot to show the similar die break/scratch on the S-216 which we know is Obverse 4. Here it is:

 

I don't know if you wrote this before or after I posted the pictures of the S-216 and the S-221 second die state, both of which show sufficient detail for dentil comparison. Both of these obverses are called obverse 4 by Breen, but Sheldon called the S-216 Obverse 4 and the S-221 Obverse 8.

I beieve I can show Sheldon was right using the dentilation.

I will attempt to show that the early die S-221 is actually Sheldon's Obverse 4, but need additional reasoning due to the poor condition of the dentilation on that coin. This is why I show the field under the upright of E. I think I see enough evidence for this particular coin to show it's Obverse 4, but it is not nearly as strong as the evidence that there are 2 different obverses in play between the S-216 and S-221.

 

Reread post 8 which was edited to add the closeup of S-216 which is definitely Obverse 4.

 

I think this is a better picture of the S-216:

 

This is back to Statement 1. There are two different obverses.

This should cut through the noise and put the essential markups together so you don't have to go back and forth.



Not only is the first one different, but you can see that the others show differences as well. The Last 1 shows the opposite location from the first on each coin.
Obverse 4 is between dentils on the first 1 and at a dentil on the last 1.
Obverse 8 is at a dentils on the first 1 and between dentils on the last 1.

 

I must apologize for creating some confusion. I swapped out the early and middle die states of the S-221 in my mind. The lovely brown specimen is the early state and I was calling it the middle state. The reverse with the Grey Middle state which I was calling early state and the one which I believe is the 4G, rather than the 8G or S-221.

 

Here is the side by side for the mark beloe E for the S-216 and the S-221 Middle Die (reverse has CUD)

 

I rest my case.

 

FWIW, Noyes states that s221 has Obverse 8, which is a reworked Obverse 4 (used on s216). Did someone say something like that earlier in this thread?

I don't have Breen handy, but Noyes does seem to contradict him (if I follow what you're saying). But frankly, if they are simply a reworked die (i.e. a die state), it's splitting hairs if you call them different dies or not (which is what I was trying to suggest in my first post).

So in a sense, I think they are both right.

 

p.s. why in the heck are you using Breen? His work is dated.

 

What I'm trying to show is that Obverse 8 IS NOT a reworked Obverse 4, but a different obverse die which is almost identical, but not when you can see the denticles. The scratch or break could be explained by reworking the die or die deterioration ONLY if they are the same die. If the dies are different, then the break/scratch becomes a second marker (after dentil differences) to use in distinguishing between them.

I've laid out both cases, but the second one (Holmes Middle State is actually a 4G and not an 8G) fails if the first (Sheldon was right in calling it two different dies) fails.

I haven't actually gotten confirmation of my original point and it should be the easier to see. Now I haven't ever heard of any reapplication of the dentils as part of reworking a die, so I'm assuming that showing the differeces in the dentils is sufficient to prove a different die. I had not mentioned that the dentils on Obverse 8 appear slightly closer to the 18 than on Obverse 4 because I'm not sure how strike and wear would affect the distance in which they appear to extend into the field. But that is another area to consider.

I do not quote Noyes because I haven't successfully bid on his books yet, I'm usually there until the last few seconds. I'm just learning of Breen's work after getting his book a few months ago. Of course the first thing I looked up had a wrong photo. But his information on die states has been very useful. I have collected most of my life with only the miniature photos in Penny Whimsy.

 

Agreed, Walter never met a fact that he couldn't make up.

 

OK! I must do a Mia Culpa here. Looking at several higher grade specimens on the Heritage Archives produced this result:

The photo interpretation of the dentil location must be adjusted as the die deteriorates. What appears to be the dentil location on the worn die is actually the gap. This would explain the apparent opposite effect where the worn die dentil location is always opposite the new die location. The Scratch or break I observed can be seen on both S-216s and S-221s and also missing on both. This would indicate a die state about the time of the switch of the reverses and not a different die.

I also notice that some of the 8s seem to be larger on bottom and others on top, but the reason must be something to do with strike or wear since I don't see a a pattern any different than that of the scratch/break with some occurring on both S-216s and some S-221s.

Sorry for the mistake. I just get excited about this stuff and post well before the research is complete.