Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;KBBPLL, post: 25377434, member: 104064&quot;][USER=22377]@ddddd[/USER] got it right out of the gate.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1624683[/ATTACH]</p><p>[USER=107309]@Anthony Mazza[/USER] you were on the right track as far as hub types. The obverse change you remembered occurred in 1901, but there are no &quot;early releases&quot; of it yet discovered for 1900, and I don&#039;t expect any. I did discover (and publish in BCCS) that 1901-O used the old 1900 obverse, likely a single die, quite scarce. Very recently a 1901-S using the 1900 obverse was posted in the BCCS Facebook group, but not confirmed.</p><p><br /></p><p>No, this 1900-S is the reverse of 1892-1899. I discovered about 5 years ago that there was a third reverse hub type, introduced in 1900. Previously John McCloskey discovered in 1980 that the obverse and reverse hubs had changed in 1901, and the details in his Coin World article have been repeated in the guide books by David Lawrence and David Bowers (and also on NGC, with quite a few mistakes). The reverse change noted by McCloskey was the addition of an extra fold in the right ribbon end - the &quot;thick ribbon.&quot; However, the reverse had actually first changed in 1900, and then the extra fold was added to that design in 1901.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here the differences are highlighted between an 1899 proof and a 1900 proof:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1624684[/ATTACH]</p><p>Compare the subject coin to my other 1900-S with the &quot;correct&quot; reverse:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1624685[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1624686[/ATTACH]</p><p>Notice the obvious differences in the lower left leaf veins, and the corn kernels. As part of discovering the third reverse type, I also discovered that San Francisco minted a small number of coins using the old 1892-1899 reverse in 1900. One or possibly two reverse dies used the old type. After posting this, I went back through my research and 6 out of 7 coins with this anomaly are demonstrably from the same die pair. The 7th coin (ex-Simpson) had different die cracks, many of them, and I suspect that die did not produce many coins before being retired.</p><p><br /></p><p>Philadelphia also minted a small number of coins with the 1900 reverse in 1899 - an early release.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is a comparison of the ribbon area for all three reverses - 1892-1899, 1900-1901, and 1901-1916. The latter &quot;thick ribbon&quot; is what McCloskey originally published.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1624687[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve been obsessed with these dime transition varieties for a while now, as you can tell from this diatribe. 1901 had a mix of the 2nd and 3rd reverse types at all three mints, and SF continued to use the 1900 reverse sporadically through 1905. How and why is a mystery. To collect all of the variety mixes from 1899-1905 requires 21 coins, possibly 22 now if 1901-S Obverse 1 exists.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have a special obsession with the 1900-S anomaly because I found it. I had bought a raw one early on and then an AU-53. When I saw this gem example at auction, I couldn&#039;t resist. Looking back on my earlier research yesterday, I realized that this coin is the one where I originally noticed the transition anomaly in Heritage archives, and now I own it! Pretty crazy.</p><p><br /></p><p>I agree that the flaw in the lower left bust is noticeable, and maybe the CAC is debatable. But I bought it for the stellar reverse strike of an uncommon variety.[/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