Our own @lordmarcovan was traveling through and stopped by my place today. We oogled coins together and I just had to talk him out of this one. I typically gravitate towards larger coins these days with my old man eyesight... But I grew quite fond of this little bustie and he graciously let me talk him out of it. She shows a scratch or two on the reverse but I think she is lovely. And the little cud on the reverse doesn't hurt either! Thank you for giving her a new and loving home @lordmarcovan
[ LM-17 ] An R-4 Rarity. obv. 4 rev. J https://web.archive.org/web/2018040...es.com/uploads/8/9/5/5/8955938/1829_lm-17.jpg Nice coin....now Randy you know these are addictive.....and Roberson sort of given you a little taste.... Now I'm not saving he's the candy man.....but an R 4 oh he's got the gooooood stuff. Let me give you the link for rehab.....
Ooh! I like that cud. It's a LM-2 die marriage, rarity 2, and many of these do not have the cud which develops late in the striking of this die marriage. First use of Obverse 3 and only use of Reverse C. The reverse shows the 3 pale gules (vertical stripes) in the shield which was replaced with 2 pale gules in subsequent dies that year. I would jump on that coin in a heartbeat if I had the chance. Nice pickup.
Ok one of us are incorrect on the attribution let me recheck. No I believe that I have attributed correctly Check it on the link on my post
Well, as to attribution: The reverse shield of Randy's coin clearly shows three pale gules. There are only three reverses of 1829 that demonstrate three pale gules; Reverses A, B, and C. Those reverses are paired with obverses 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Of those 3 reverses, only with Reverse C does CA touch as with Randy's coin. Here's a blowup of Randy's coin clearly showing the three pale gules. Sorry, but this coin is the LM-3
Well its much easier to have the specimen in hand, other than going back and forth. I do not unfortunately have a reference text . Again working from pictures jumping back and forth. The 1829 has quite a few die marriages as well remarriage specimens . I should using the web site make a written list of pups to check off to eliminate the wrong marriage. I know I love to have a few out of print reference books.
Yes After looking over the pups you are correct.... good eye.I should be better on the 1829 as I believe that I have like 7 all different marriages.
I knew it wasn't a 2 as nothing matched the most prevalent pups for the series... This is one of my favourite specimens of the 29's I have in the collection. If only the berries had stems on the berries.
ROFL My thoughts exactly. Type collectors like me are like: “OK, sharp details on that little gal. Old cleaning, sure, and there’s that rim dam- no, wait! That’s a cud! Cool!” Die variety specialists are like: “That’s the MA2 variety because the third leaf is rotated 22° off from its position on MA1.” Other die variety specialists (because there is invariably a contrary attribution every time) are like: “No, it is plainly the ZX3a, because the pupil in the eagle’s eye is 0.005 mm larger in circumference than seen on the MA1-2abc.” Guess which type I am. This coin was one of many inside a partial Dansco 7070 Type album I bought from a dealer friend on Monday. We had not examined it outside of the album. We agreed that it was sharp, if cleaned, and both assumed the cud was evidence of a rim ding. It was a happy surprise to get it under a loupe (later, in Randy’s office) and discover that cud, instead.
That's what thru me off as I was flipping back and forth and was like...thats not like him to be that far off...I need to find and buy some of the older text on H-10's . The web site works great but unless you have the coin in hand...not a photo its very difficult to remember what checks and what doesn't.
Hey be glad it wasn't a shield nickel..as all of you your heads would of exploded! There's many layers of coin collecting rather than just placing medal discs in a hole. Be thankful us old farts are here to try to enlightened... or even try to share the references to define the difference on many series. As we are the ones who walk a show and drops $40 bucks...on a $800...specimen. due its rariety. But yes it is true even a blind pig finds a truffel....sometimes... Lastly yes we do make mistakes... fat fingers ,old eyes, and just being human as others subject to making mistakes..... Just last week I pm 3 members for their opinions on a specimen ...as I do trust those 3 members to either agree with my attribution or back me up if I made a mistake. And to all 3 of you many thanks again... as I appreciate your help and knowledge. BTW 2 were older collectors and 1 was a YN who has proven to me that there is hope for this hobby....long after the other 2 and myself are gone.
And I hope to god we never see you in a Judy Garland.....Oz dress .... Benny Hill could pull it off...you.... Ewwww that be very weird. Besides there only 2 ruby slippers... you need to go to a shoe wearhouse for a knock off pair...to cover all four feet.