1828 Cohen-1 Classic Head Half-Cent

So the "doubling" look is actually coming from the punch and not old wear on the die?

Ribbit

Ps: I did miss that!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In the case of the modern punches (above) if they were "overpunched" the would show a circular outline. On the older punches the outline was in the shape of the "doubling" as you call it.

 

:hatch: BINGO!!!! :hatch:

 

Otay! Now you've got me thinking straight (or straighter). I totally missed that part of what he said. I hate having 20 things going on at once, I always miss something. My bad. :thumb:

So, what about the spurs? Is the wreath punched into the die too? Your spurs are in a different place than mine.

Ribbit

Ps: I will now call it Repunched since that is what causes it and not the old wear like I thought. :thumb:

Pps: Thanks for sticking it out. I'm stubborn and you've got to kick me sometimes to get me to see things correctly. :headbang:

 

The spurs are in different places because they are different dies (spurs are generally die gouges or other die damage).

The letters look the same because the punches used to make the letter impression in the dies were the same.

p.s. you are welcome.

 

Yes, the wreath was punched into the die, IIRC. At this time everything was punched into the die.

I believe that GDJMSP or Conder will know for sure -- they are both more educated than I on this topic.

 

p.s. I have an 1825 too, so you better be careful.

 

Short or long line version?

It's been suggested that the corrosion may be giving a false look of a long line, but the lines end the same distance from the wreath and they are flat on the ends (square) so I don't think corrosion can give the same look to the opposite ends of the line, but I will know very shortly when it arrives.

Ribbit

Ps: Mine looks like a Cohen 2, what's yours?

 

Just curious.

Ribbit

 

Amazing, you've discovered the first 12 star C-2 with 13 stars. Actually it is a C-3 but that doesn't affect the discussion.

The dies are almost without exception NEVER repunched after they are hardened and put into production. I can only think of three cases where it was done. The 1806/5 quarter, 1806/5 half dollar, and one of the five 1/000 cent reverses which produced the 1801 NC-3 variety, then later was corrected to produce the 1803 S-249 variety with the "corrected" fraction. The dies often failed during the hardening process and a die that had gone through the process once already, then been used in production typically had so many internal stresses that it just couldn't survive the annealing and rehardening process without either going to pieces of failing prematurely when put back into use. Any actual repunching you see on the early coins was repunching done to strengthen the details BEFORE the die was ever used. (This includes all of the other pre 20th century overdates. They are all examples of a new date being punched into an unused die that had not been previously hardened.)

And as for repunching with and without doubling, if we are talking about an early die state and it shows repunching ie: a doubled impression we simply say it is repunched. If it doesn't show any evidence of repunching, then we don't know that it was repunched so naturally we don't say anything about it. (saying repunched with doubling would be redundant) In later die states as the die wears and the doubled impression wears away we say "repunching fades". This lets the collector know that this area was originally repunched but the repunching is no longer visible.

Yes the wreath was an individual punch that was forced into the die using the screw press. (too large to be driving in by hand with a hammer.) The mint had made several attempts in the past to create entire dies by hubbing the whole design at one time (a couple of the 1794 half cent rev dies, a couple 93/94 large cent rev dies, the last third of the 1798 cent rev dies and all of the 1800 rev dies) But these were generally failures because so many of the low relief details didn't come up and had to be added by hand to each die that it really didn't save any time. The Mint didn't get around to successfully creating full dies by hubbing until the late 1830's early 1840's. Even with just punching the wreath by itself they still sometimes needed to do some hand strengthening of some features, add stems to berries or leaves etc and sometime the graver would slip. This is probably the cause of the varieous spikes.

 

The C-2 statement was in reference to my question to him about what variety his 1825 Classic Head Half-Cent is, not an 1828.

Ribbit

 

No, in posts 46 asnd 54 he is clearly referring to the 1828 he posted pictures of and calling it a C-2.

From post 46

and then he posts his picture of the 28 C-3 that clearly shows the outlining around the letters.

in post 53 you quote his link to the large picture ofhis 1828 and make a comment that you are referring to the C-1.

Then in post 54 he repilies that his is a C-2.

 

Oops! You're right. My bad . . . again! :hammer:

I know the two 13 star varieties are Cohen 1 & 3 and the 12 star is a Cohen 2. He was probably exhausted from trying to get me to see, what my little pigheaded skull wouldn't see.

Ribbit

 

Yup, my typo. Fat fingers -- Breen 2, Cohen 3. Thanks for the correction Conder.

 

Hey LF? Check your PM's. I sent a question to ya. :hammer:

Ribbit

 

I wish the ANA guide would cite some specific examples because other than the three I mentioned I am not aware of any other cases where a die exists that was used in an earlier state with no repunching and then in a later state with repunching.

Do they say anything about overdates? Many books will say something about how at the end of the year if the obv die was still good or hadn't worn out they would punch in the new date and keep on using it. And that is completely wrong. In the entire US series, other than the 1806/5 quarter and half that I mentioned, not a single one of the many overdated dies is known to have produced coins in its non overdated earleir year. But the "They punched in a new date and kept going" explaination is still commonly used today.

I'm not arguing with you, I just suspect the ANA guide is still repeating old outdated information.

 

I just bought one that is an overpunch/overdate of an earlier un-used die:

http://www.coinfacts.com/half_cents/1802_half_cents/1802_half_cent_c01.htm

Ribbit

Ps: I will have to wait till it arrives to tell you which variety it is. I won't have to tell you which one I want it to be but it is probably the other one.

 

How is it that there are so many overdates if none of the dies were modfied after sinking?