Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="900fine, post: 1538605, member: 6036"]Yes, which begs the question - why bother overdating the die at all ? It's clear the early US Mint was playing fast and loose with The Calendar vis a vis The Date on the Die vis a vis Mintage Records. In other words, it was not hugely important that the date on the coin was the calendar year in which it was struck; it was hugely important to pass the precious metal audit. It was vital that "consumed metal" balanced out with "coins produced" in a given period. Put another way, mintage records state how many coins were produced in a given year - but nowhere does it state the coins were dated that year. Mint Director reports had little to do with the dates on the coins; it was all about making sure nobody was stealing precious metal. A famous case is the King - the 1804 Dollar. Mint records indicate 19,750 silver dollars were minted in 1804, but no where does it say there were dated 1804. Evidence strongly suggests they were dated 1803 (possibly earlier). Flowing hair half dimes are dated 1794 and 1795, but there are no Mint Director reports indicating any were actually delivered in 1794; rather, all were delivered in 1795. Moreover, it's clear some 1794 half dimes were minted after the earliest 1795 issues; they share the same reverse die, and that die is less worn on the 1795 coins1. With all that going on, why overdate ? For some critics of the Mint, it reflects poorly on quality control to have an overdate. Why not just use the early date die with the date as punched ? 1  1794 h10c LM-4 shares the same reverse die as 1795 h10c LM-1 and LM-2, but the 1794 has a more advanced die state as indicated by several advanced die cracks.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches