Latest Half Dime-1830 LM-1.2-Middle Die State

This is the latest acquisition, an 1830 LM-1.2 remarriage in a Middle Die State. I already had an early die state example of this remarriage which is the fourth use of the reverse die. In the late die state condition, a cud develops through ERI and another one at the top of A2. You can see in this coin that those die cracks are developing and growing but not yet at the cud stage. My addiction went from a Red Book set of Capped Bust Half Dimes - to a collection by die marriages - and now to die states. I probably need an intervention.

BTW, that weakness at the left of shield and the eagle's neck and wing is due to die bulging, not wear or a weak strike. They were getting all the use out of these dies possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice catch....however the addiction to half dimes I have warned of many times. I do have a date set, 29-37 /37- 73 ...only missing a few mint marks on the seated and on the cap bust now searching die marriages,and varieties.

 

My 1830

 

Interested in knowing what die marriage it is, if you don't already know?

 

I'm gonna tell you anyway. It's the LM-9.2. A bit on the scarce side with an R-4 rarity rating.

 

one of mine I have 5 1830 so far.

 

I remember picking it off eBay for just that reason!

 

Happy holidays all! @Publius2 , I enjoy your posts and really like the details on Reverse G in the images here. I'm wondering if you have an opinion about the proposition that its remarriage chart be realigned so as to eliminate 1829 13.1 and 13.2 as separate? https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/529800?page=4

 

Let me get back to you on this tomorrow. I read that article when I was going through all the back issues of JRCS Journal a few months ago. But I didn't form an opinion at that time. I just retained both remarriages in my collecting list and said "Fiddle-di-di, I'll think about that tomorrow".

So, now tomorrow has come.

 

@bikergeek: Alright, I've refreshed my memory of Mr. Meaney's proposition, reviewed the relevant passages in LM, and taken a look at my own coins and here's what I think: I don't have an opinion. Or, at least not much of one.

I don't think Mr. Meaney's case, as presented, is robust but he has one. It is mostly based on two examples of high-grade coins of an admittedly rare die remarriage, the 1830 LM-1.1 where he has not observed the clash marks reported in LM.

In the original LM remarriage chart, the 1829 LM-13.1 is struck first during which striking the dies clash. The next use of Reverse G is the 1830 LM-1.1. But Meaney says he's got two high-grade examples of 1830 LM-1.1 which must show the clashes, but don't. How can this be? The only way this occur is if 1830 LM-1.1 actually precedes 1829 LM-13.1. And if that's true, then there is no distinction between 1829 13.1 and 13.2, hence the proposed modified remarriage chart

I have not seen any 1830 LM-1.1 coins without the clash marks but that means nothing since I've never seen a high-grade one in-hand nor in high-resolution digital photos. I just don't have enough experience to have an opinion on this.

So, here's a theory with some evidence in support of it and some sound and straight-forward logic to it. All it takes is many more examples of 1830 LM-1.1 without die clashes to provide further support. Conversely, all it takes is one example of a high-grade 1830 LM-1.1 to blow the theory to shreds.

Although I'm not part of the inner or even outer circle of Capped Bust Half Dime experts, I have not heard anything to lead me to believe that Mr. Meaney's proposition received wide or even limited adoption and this was published in 2012. Also, I've not seen anything further in the literature on this proposition.

I'm going to FUN next week, so I'm thinking about taking the article and asking W. David Perkins about it. Richard Meaney might even be there.

What are your thoughts on it?

 

A couple of additional interesting sidenotes.

In looking at David Perkins' sale of the Richard Meaney collection, I came across the listing for the 1830 LM-1.1 shown below. In the last paragraph, it's stated that the plate coin in LM for 1830 LM-1.1 is actually LM-1.2! I checked my copy of LM and that statement is correct.

I also took a look to see if RM's collection stuck with the LM version of the Reverse G remarriage chart or adopted his own proposal of combining 1829 13.1 and 13.2 in just one as LM-13. Apparently, he did not as the below catalog listing is for his 13.1. Note that this coin is an EDS since no clash marks are evident.

And finally, in the latest JRCS Half Dime Census of April, 2019 collated by Richard Meaney the 1829 13.1 and 13.2 are still individually reported. Richard is now collecting data for the 2023 census, hopefully to be published in the next issue.

 

@bikergeek, I see your profile puts you in Merriam, Kansas just outside KC, KS. When I was growing up in the 1960s at Whiteman AFB (Knob Noster, MO) from 1962 to 1970 we used to drive across the river to pick up beer. The drinking age was 18 in Kansas but 21 in Missouri. Got my first McDonalds burger in Kansas City during that time - it was a novelty then. Lot of firsts during that 8 years.

 

Lol. Keep climbing that latter. It’s still fun ain’t it

 

@Publius2 if you ever get to KC again let me know! Regarding the rev G reclassification, the jury's still out for me too. I even have the advantage of owning one of those clashless 1830 LM-1.1s and will put the pics below. But my question is, could it be that there's a completely clashless 29 13.1, then 30 1.1, and then a 29 13.2 where clashing first occurs, finally followed by the 30 1.2 where the cud happens? To answer that would require my peeping at a lot of coins/hi-res pics. I've been saving images off the internet but the quality (and grade) is pretty variable.

I'm in frequent contact with Richard and am in fact assisting him in this year's census collection, which is a very interesting task! But although we talk a lot, we haven't met in person yet, and even if you guys get together at FUN I won't be there for the, uh, fun. My own 1829 LM-13.1 is a very clean coin so I need to be educated on how to prove (if possible) that it came later than my 1830 LM-1.1. That might seal a conclusion for me. I just haven't done the legwork on this yet, and I think it's not a hill that Richard will die on, so he's not foot-stomping it. These things take time. Now, without further chatter, here's the 1830 LM-1.1 NGC/CAC 65PL. (My own pics, since PCGS didn't elect to cross it at 65PL so it's not in my reg set, nor true-viewed; I don't know if they dispute the PL or the 65 or both...)

 

@Publius2 The NGC coin was offered in Dave Perkins' 2019 Crain sale, but didn't meet reserve at that sale. I didn't start my set until April 2020 and acquired the coin in September of that year, happily. If I were to re-take my photos again today they might be lighter, although I think the coin is darker than the 2019 catalog showed.

 

First, what a wonderful 1830 LM-1.1!!!! Glad you got it after the auction. But since it won't cross to PCGS in your favor, I'm sure you want to dispose of it. Let me know-LOL!

OK, to the idea of a clashless 1829 13.1:

LM states that the dies clashed during the initial striking of 1829 13.1. So there should be 1829 LM-13.1 coins without die clashes. I show below closeups of my 13.1 showing the clashes. Where are the clashless 13.1s? Presumably, LM saw them in order to for them to state that the clashes occurred during the striking of 13.1.

Meaney's argument relies not on a clashless 13.1 but on a completely clashless emission of 1830 LM-1.1. That doesn't preclude that the clashes occurred during the striking of 1829 LM-13.1.

So, I don't think I agree with your proposition that the first clashes show up with 13.2.

 

@bikergeek, I looked at your PCGS Registry Sets - very impressive. I'm not nearly as far along as you and my overall grade is only 48 for 69 coins and 58 die varieties. Maybe I can add to that at FUN. Sorry you won't make it - I would have enjoyed making your acquaintance to discuss our esoteric quest.

 

@Publius2, thanks for the kind words! I'm sure our paths will cross, and I look forward to it. Your own set is absolutely enviable as well - the half dimes you've posted have always been goodies in my judgment.

My idea about "delaying" the clashes to a later 1829 LM-13 was just a wild hypothesis... I ran it up the flagpole, and nobody saluted. hehe. I am going to re-immerse myself in the reverse G study again and I'll reach out to you and others as I formulate more disciplined questions/hypotheses. And I will make a FUN show at some point, although my track record isn't good in that regard. Yet.

Happy New Year!

 

I have a NGC 1854 Half Dime that doesn't have a graded. All it has is "Genuine-Arrows." What does that mean?