Opinion needed

Okay folks, here is your chance to help me. The following photos are from an 1846 Large Cent. Small date. Here is the interesting part. Breen lists a double die. Then says the doubling was fixed.

Does this look like a fixed doubling to anyone?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

3 closer images to help.

 

im really not sure what you mean about fixed doubling. but the 8 looks really funky. wouldnt it look smoother on the top 0 of the 8. to the right of, what is that big flat spot underneath. is their known 7s under 8s?

 

Sorry I should have been more specific. The first die made had doubling in the 1, 8, and 4 in the date. The mint employees polished/reworked the die to remove the doubling. Breen doesn't state what form of fixing took place. Since there is only one mention of this doubling for the date, and the doubling shown on this coin does not match the original doubling, I was thinking it could be an example of the fixed die. I certainly see a little doubling in the first three digits.

 

Newcomb 4 is the listed double die that Breen cites. This coin is not one of those.

Looks like either Newcomb 1 or Newcomb 5. I'm leaning toward 5, but I would have to se the whole coin to attempt to properly attribute.

 

Doesn't match the Newcomb 1 or 5 either. I know it doesn't match the Breen either. That is why I have considered that this "POSSIBLY COULD BE" the fixed die. We currently have 60 examples of this date in stock, with multiple examples of the various date sizes, but only this particular coin is showing a weak form of doubling only on the first three digits of the date.

This is my thinking. If the original doubled die was polished and then the date repunched.........

 

Maybe

It appears that the grains of the coins are running in a vertical patern therefor stating that it might be a fraud but many times this would happen but i would consult a coin expert and get him to qualify the coin or naot but the computer pic dosent give enough detail thank u the estimated value if it is real i would say is 120-1300 dollars!!

 

Let me first welcome you to the forum.

Now...A Coin Expert?

WOW, I have never had my credentials questioned in that manner before. You have me at a loss of words.

This coin even if it is attributed as a true double die, the value will still remain in the $15 to $20 range.

 

This is a very interesting example. I have a question....

In the examples with the 8, does the void at 6 o'clock appear to be strike related? It does from the pics.

It looks to me as if someone botched this die, and tried to repair it. I tried my normal sources and couldn't find a fixed doubling example to draw from.

The doubling on the 4 is severe. I guess in 1846 you made the repairs and moved on....

 

What characteristics of the date "doubling" lead you to believe that it could be a fixed die as opposed to a re-punched date?

 

The characteristics are different from a repunched date in and of itself. The flow of the date resembles a double die. This particular date has one strong doubling in the first three digits, but this coin does not match that. It doesn't match any smaller doubling that I can find. That is why I am researching the possibility that this could have come from the fixed die mentioned by Breen. I stress the "COULD".

 

Please excuse my potential ignorance here ND, but to my eye it does not look like there was any true doubling at all. When you say the flow of the date resembles a double die, what do you mean by this?

 

Here is a photo of a true Repunched date. If you look at the how the dates look, you can see the difference.

 

Sorry ND, I should have been more specific. I have seen many repunched date marks and numerous examples of doubled dies. In the case of this specific coin, to my eye (based on photos of course) I just could not see what characteristics indicated doubled die. Again, to my eye, it looked like a repunched mint mark.

 

I can't seem to get the detail when I upload this photo. Since our site is currently down, I can't link from there to here.
The doubling on this coin appears to be along the lines of class 2 doubling. The first three digits of the date spreading towards the rim.

Like I said, I am not positive about this coin. Since the only referrences I can find do not match this coin, I am kind of at a loss. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that this particular die used to create this coin could have been polished and the date repunched. I just can't justify that thought though. The punch would have to have had 3 digits. That just doesn't add up. If all four digits or two would have been out of line, that would make more sense. Many early punches used were single or double digit.
No other doubling appears on any other area of the coin. Some of the more obscure doublings for this date all exhibit something more than just these three digits.

In the end, it could boil down to a worn die. I will have to have some others look at the coin. Maybe I am just missing something.

Drop me an email with your address and I will ship the coin up to you for your opinion.

 

Gee, why didn't I think about advising you to consult an expert?

How about a pic of the full obverse and reverse?

 

Not a problem. Though not much detail on the full photos.

 

ND, here are my obversations...

1. Look at the "doubling" in the 4. It looks flat from the photo - not rounded as would be expected.
2. Looking closely at the 6 in the first set of photos, it appears there is flat "doubling" on the 6 as well.
3. The spread is uneven - but that would not be inconsistent with a Class II.
4. What throws me for a loop is the break in the "doubling" on the 8.
5. If the fixed die was N-4, I think you can rule this one out.

 

She's been around the block.

After looking at the whole coin, I'm revising my uneducated guess to N7. I believe the doubling is "strike doubling".

-OR-​

New variety.

 

Well I am going to reserve judgement on this coin. The coin is going to cdcda for his evaluation. I hope that you members see just how much effort is put into a coin. By the time I am finished, I will have hundreds of dollars in time wrapped up into a $15-$20 coin. Now that is based on the fact it is doubled. If not, I have wrapped hundreds of dollars in time into an $10 coin.

I just love the variety search. Now so far in my variety searching.

1865 Three Cent Nickel with repunched date
1854 Three Cent Silver with regular date

Today, I start on the Five Cent coins