Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Leadfoot, post: 376817, member: 2972&quot;]Yes, and as GDJMSP has pointed out, the letters are punched by hand in the first place, so they can show Longacre doubling when being prepared.&nbsp; However, they can also be prepared without longacre doubling -- depending on how hard/deep the letter punch is driven into the die.&nbsp; If the sinker drives it in too far, it shows Longacre doubling (actually that&#039;s an impression of the letter punch not ever intended to show on the coin).&nbsp; If he does it just right, only the letter shows.&nbsp; Here&#039;s a picture of a die (not quite what they used in the mint, but you can get the idea:</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.goldyindustries.com/Images/Jewel%20Images/NUMBER-PUNCH.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>That said, It is not clear to me if the Longacre doubling is a result of the original sinking of the die (the reverse of your coin was used in 1826 C-2 first, and it shows even more strong Longacre doubling then) or repunching after repolishing, but I&#039;d be careful examination of the Longacre doubling on the 1826 C-2 and 1828 C-1 could determine it.</p><p><br /></p><p>If you understand what I&#039;m saying, and have some spare time, examine carefully a few Heritage picures of both reverses, and tell us what you find -- was the reverse die repunched or was it simply polished between its usage in 1826 and 1828?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in