1864 Two Cent Piece W/ Repunched Date - Grade and Comments

Here's the "in depth" description of the triple punched date"

Triple punched 1, first and second 1 seen above the base, to the left and the top of the 1.
Repunched 8 seen in the lower and upper loop and to the left of the lower loop of the 8.
Triple punched 6, first 6 seen in the lower loop, second 6 seen in the lower loop and below the 6.
Triple punched 4, first and second 4 seen to the left of the vertical bar of the 4.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Without a doubt the date is repunched and since the 1 show triping the entire date is actually triple punched but only shows two of the punchings. (after 1840 a full four digit logotype was used to punch the date into the die so you can't repunch just one digit, it's all or nothing.

Jazz's picture of Longacre doubling is an excellent example, but it is also from an eary die state that has had minimal lapping of the die before it was put into use. Not all Longacre doubling is going to look like that.

The areas indicated on the T E and D do look a lot like MDD but if you had MDD that strong on those uprights I would also expect to see it to the out sides of the serifs as well. And the right side of the I and N and both sides of the inside of the U show traces of the Longacre doubling. Notice also on the I how the doubling is strong at ht etop of the upright and fades as you go down to the base. So there MAY be MDD present, but there is definitely Longacre doubling. (the focus and distortion present in the image also add to the problems of definitive identification.

 

Wow, thanks a lot for this, it helped me understand what's actually there I'm happy that it's a tripled date. Most 64's are doubled, and it's quite common, so I didn't think it was a big deal until I saw that the 1 was tripled! :bigeyes: Which made the whole date tripled like you said

Thanks everyone for your comments and opinions!

 

Just don't try claiming it as a tripled date because you will have a lot of people claiming your wrong because they don't see it on all the digits. You could call it a "triple punched date with tripling showing only on the 1 and the rest showing doubling." Accurate description, some people will understand, and the rest will still ask why you say tripled date when it's only doubled. Then you get to teach them about die production.

 

Does anyone have an example of a coin that shows both mechanical AND Longacre doubling?

The point being, this coin CLEARLY has evidence of Longacre doubling. But I wonder if it isn't also machine doubled too.

 

1864 Re-punched date L-7H w/ a little dirt Two Cent XF