1828 Cohen-1 Classic Head Half-Cent

Again, that's not a new variety nor a discovery coin, it is simply a die state of a know variety (C-1), which is most easliy distinguished by the position of the first S in STATES. On the C-1 the leaf point below the S is just left of the S. On the C-2 it is under the right side of the S.

The Breen book has great pictures of these varieties (and the plate coin shows the same repunching as your coin), and if you are interested in the series, I highly recommend it...Mike

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I figured it was repunched but when it was done is what I wasn't sure about. It could have happened in the beginning, to one die only, then once it was caught, that die could have been taken out of service. I do know that ones with the doubling are more scarce than ones without it, but I haven't a clue what the actual numbers are.

I've only seen one like it and it was on Heritage but I check any I run across, just like I'm doing with the one I haven't posted yet and as of now, I haven't found another one like it.

Ribbit

 

I was talking about a 1825, not the 1828 of this post. It's another coin I haven't posted yet. I need to know the differences between the two known varieties of that one (1825).

Ribbit

 

Going from memory... The difference between 1825 varieites is the placement of the date. In the C-1 the 5 in the date is directly below the curl. In the C-2 it is to the right of the curl.

 

Just confirmed in Breen, the above is correct.

 

How do you know "ones with doubling are more scarce"?

Remember, repunching of dies (and reusing of dies) was very common back then. A die wouldn't be "taken out of service" because of this -- in fact they were often polished and repunched just before being put into service.

To wit, and if I had to guess, the reverse die in your 1828 was used on an earlier issue, then polished and repunched before being used to strike your coin.

 

More scarce - looking around. I found one out of of fifty so far but I'm still looking. :kewl:

I know that dies wear with use and it was common to re-do them as they wore down but I also know that when the dies are originally made, sometimes the engraving wasn't considered deep enough so they'd cut a little more out and from that, doubling can then occur from the beginning of the die's existence and it doesn't have to be from wear that they repunched the die but I know that was the most common cause.

I forgot about the 5 on the 1825. I knew there was one more thing I saw different in the pictures. I'll re-compare my coin to the dates of the others and post it shortly.

Ribbit

 

I don't think you're looking very closely. Virtually every example of a C-1 I found had some remnants of repunching of HALF CENT...Mike

http://coins.ha.com/common/search_r...tt=1828 c-1&Ne=304&N=51+790+231+306&TnD=0&Ns=

 

p.s. Again, this is NOT doubling, it is repunching.

 

Answer me this:

Can repunching occur and no doubling be seen in the end product?

Answer: If the repunching is done correctly, signs of the repunching would not be visible to the naked eye but if the signs of repunching is visible, that's repunched doubling. You can't just call it repunching (IMO). The two are the same but the outcome is different

Ribbit

 

I've seen many that didn't show it but I also didn't have them in hand and the pics weren't the best so maybe there was some repunch doubling and I didn't see it. What I looked for were ones with the extent of doubling mine has and I only found the one on Heritage.

Ribbit

Ps: Should I call it Repunched Blurring instead of doubling? I can't bring myself to call it just repunched since that in-of-itself does not explain the condition. They could have also repunched something and caused a ridge, which isn't anything like the doubling, so the only thing that corrrectly explains it is repunched doubling since the letters are blurred/doubled/tripled and not ridged or some other weird looking letters.

 

I thought it was what could be called re-engraving the die. When the die gets worn, they re-do (repunch/engrave) the worn areas so it looks like it's suppose to.

Ribbit

 

That's interesting. So the HALF CENT was on a hardened steel punch (or individual letters) and they alligned it/them to the die and whacked it?

Ribbit

 

Then please explain this one (note the bar below Half-Cent)? Does the mint make a habit out of lengthening the line when they re-punch the die? And if they do, why can't I find anymore like it?

Ribbit

Ps: I'm busy working so I may be guilty of some typos tonight. I'm posting in-between working.

 

Ps: I just learned the 1828 is a Die State II. That explains why this wouldn't be another variety since they keep up with that with Die States instead. I really need to get the book on all of this. :headbang:

Now, the question is, what die state is the 1825? I have yet to find another one with a full line beneath Half Cent, like mine has.

Ribbit

 

Just thought I'd hit on this, since I finally got the skinny on these. On another forum, someone said:

"I also checked Breens Half Cent Encyclopedia for some information. Breens says the C-1 is a rarity 3 which surprised me. I also checked the die states and I believe mine is a state II. The C-1 used the reverse die 2 from 1826 which had some die marks that Breen called spines sticking out from the wreath. Die state II also has some clash marks showing on the reverse. The die was later polished and the clash marks go away and the spines are greatly reduced. This is die state III. Breen said that die state III is the usual state that is found and calls die states I and II rare. There is also a die state IV where the spines are entirely gone and a die crack is starting to form. On the obverse the second star is repunched. The repunching is polished off in die state III."


My coin has the spikes, the repunched 2nd star, and if you know where the die clash is, you can make it out but it is very faint (circulation wear). A C-1 1828 Classic Head Half-Cent is Scarce in-of-itself, but Breen stipulated that a Die State II is Rare. Hence, I believe my statement about them being more scarce, is corroborated by Breen himself, may he rest in peace.

Ribbit