I see in Doug Winter's blog that there is controversy over the status of this Type 1 Double Eagle variety - as noted by NGC and PCGS now designating it as 1853/'2' instead of 1853/2. A subtle, but not insignificant difference. What I want to know is, how do they determine this? The middle leg of the 2 on an 1852 Double Eagle seems to line up pretty close to the double lines on an 1853/2. What methodology do the experts use inform their educated opinions?
This has happened several times in the past. For example, in the 1970's the 1869/8 1C was changed to 1869/9 by ANACS authenticators. More recently the 1914/3 nickel has fallen out of favor. In recent times, overlays have been used to prove or disprove overdate coins. For this variety, not much shows inside the 3; however, the fact that other 53/2 coin types exist argues in favor of keeping the old classification as a true overdate. It is their choice and it seems they have made it.
Interesting - other 53/2 overdates? Can you suggest some? I'd like to see what they look like. I've tried some primitive overlays myself. It seems to me that considering the two fairly sharp lines in the bottom loop of the three - the lower line seems to line up with the top of the bottom leg of the 2 - and the upper line with the bottom of the middle leg of the 2. I don't see how those lines would have anything to do with a re-cut three? But yeah, It's up to them. I wish they would provide a bit more explanation. I've noticed that the 3 on the 1853 and the 1853-O double eagles that I have pictures of is low compared to the other numbers in the date. That is not the case on the 1852's.
Wow - only one line, but it's in exactly the same position as the top line on the $20. Can't be a coincidence - and if they are both re-cut dates, why would they be exactly the same? I don't what the mint's process would have been for "re-cutting" a date - I assumed it would have been due to an error. But I could be way off on that. $10 has the arrow, $20 below it. I notice that PCGS is using the 53/'2' designation on the Eagle now too.
Then what they have decided is there was an "artifact" on the punch that was made during its manufacture rather than a "2." Thanks for posting this info!
Well - maybe. Here's another diagnostic picture from a different $10 (this picture is attributed to NGC, the first one was PCGS - the double eagle is my own picture. That's some artifact on this one (if that's what it is)! Lines in nearly the same place place as the others (but not quite exactly - the lower line is in a different place than on the $20). The coin in this picture has a lot of other die lines - so maybe that has something to do with it. Does the artifact explanation assume then that they used the same date punches for eagles and double eagles? The dates do look to be about the same size font. I don't have any to physically measure, but the date looks relatively larger on the eagle, as it should/would if they use the same punches.
I should say yes. But I ALWAYS considered the coin in post #7 to be an overdate. Now, based on your study, I don't believe it. Live and learn.
Ah, but what about the $20? The upper line in the bottom loop of the three is in the same place on both issues - but, the shape of it is different and the bottom line is in a similar but clearly different place. That would, to my uneducated perspective, lean more toward over-date rather than artifact because it may indicate that they are not the result of using the same punch (if it was the same punch, they should be the same, right?) but date remnants would still be similar - what do you think? I'd love to know what specific evidence the PCGS/NGC people actually are using to determine this.
These coins will probably continue to be traded as over dates due to past history...too much money involved. Same thing happened with the counterfeit micro "O" dollars. Decades ago, these would have been declared C/F and prices would have dropped 90%. Too much money/TPGS's, Morgan dealers involved so now these fakes have become very popular - prices stayed the same or went up and one major TPGS - ICG is grading them! How could the '53/2' label come about? Ask them? Some of the graders are at Summer Seminar. Get a CT member who is out there to ask for you.
