Press release by PCGS yesterday: First major variety discovery of that Early Half Dollar date in nearly a century 1795 Flowing Hair Half Dollar Overton 133, PCGS F15. " style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(66, 165, 245); text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; transition: all 300ms ease-out 0s;"> 1795 Flowing Hair Half Dollar Overton 133, PCGS F15. Click image to enlarge. (Santa Ana, California) – Professional Coin Grading Service (www.PCGS.com) has confirmed a new die marriage for the 1795 Flowing Hair Half Dollar. The coin was struck with a previously unknown obverse die and is now recognized as the new Overton 133 variety. It is the first new major die variety to be discovered on a 1795 Flowing Hair Half Dollar in more than 90 years, according to PCGS. “The new die marriage was discovered by an advanced Early and Capped Bust Half Dollar collector who wishes to remain anonymous at this time,” explains Colorado coin dealer W. David Perkins. He submitted the discovery coin to PCGS and will be offering the 1795 O-133 Flowing Hair Half Dollar for sale. “This newly identified die marriage is significant as there has been only one other 1795 Flowing Hair Half Dollar die marriage discovered since the Haseltine Type Table Sale in 1881! And that new marriage, 1795 O-132, was discovered prior to the 1929 Beistle half dollar book being published,” explains Perkins. The coin has been graded PCGS F15 Overton 133 and has the “Discovery Coin” designation on the label. “The discovery of this variety, struck from a new and previously unknown die mated to a known and previously used reverse die, was previously sold as an unattributed piece, which highlights why having the experts at PCGS attribute your coins can be so important,” says PCGS President Brett Charville. “We at PCGS love stories like this, and we are also proud to have had the opportunity to grade and certify this piece as a discovery coin. With the 1795 O-133 Flowing Hair Half Dollar properly attributed and graded in our holder, it will ensure maximum security, value, and liquidity for the next collector who owns this outstanding rarity,” states Charville.
Alright, which one of you guys was it? More seriously though, if after 225 years this obverse die was never known before, how does PCGS (or anyone) know that it is a true die? I'm definitely not wording my question correctly, but I think you get the gist of it.
I sure do wonder what @Jack D. Young @Conder101 @Marshall think of this. And what are the characteristics on the obverse that make it unique enough to give a new attribution. Maybe just a good paper written explaining the coin in more detail.
What makes it "unique enough" is that it's a different die. The exact specifications would be written by the keeper of the Overton catalog (who is this, BTW?). I imagine there was a lot of scrutiny of the reverse die in the context of its other pairing to make sure it made sense. It would have been nice had PCGS mentioned in their press release for which die pair the reverse was previously known.
Sometimes dies were not annealed properly, so they failed after only a few strikes. As an example of a 1794 NC-9 large cent. Only 4 are known. There is only one known with a “prime” reverse. One with a propagating crack. And two with a full bisecting crack, with one significantly wider than the other. Obviously, it failed very early in its use, and the failure happened very quickly, which makes it exceedingly rare today. Flowing hair half dollars are nowhere near as extensively studied and collected as large cents, so it makes much more sense that this obverse die was ignored for all this time. As for how it can be verified as genuine without a matching die pair, well the edge is distinctive, and the reverse die was known. Couple that with the general style and fabric and the presence of good old-fashioned wear and tear, and you can tell that it is a genuine mint product.
While I am not familiar with early halves, distinctive new dies are a reason I always attribute coins for myself. Verification of a new die discovery from a well documented series has occurred in other series including the oldest collected series by variety, Early Large Cents. The 1793 NC-6 wasn't discovered until 1978. The second was discovered in 1985. And I "Discovered the third while examining S-16s on Heritage Archives in Late 2018 after Jack D. Young's discovery of a S-16 a little earlier. You can find a journal of this discovery in the "Attribute This" thread under US Coins on this site. I admit that I suspect a little heads up by the submitter spurred PCGS to confirm the new variety, but I'm not certain of it. The question of being an actual MINT product does require additional authentication with very good counterfeits now on the market. But with the best counterfeits now using authentic coins to make dies, it would be inconsistent to use a new obverse with a die made from a known reverse. Jack is certainly the expert on this. One way to exclude a newly manufactured obverse is examination of the tools used to make contemporary dies such as letter punches. They have an individual life with breaks and repairs which are known. With this said, if you have an authentic obverse which does not match known obverses, then it is a new variety. The new discoverys certainly become less frequent over time, but this shows not everything has been necessarily discovered yet. Congratulations to the owner of the new variety.
There are 31 known 1795 Half Dollar die pairs. They are mostly sorted based on the bottom two stars. Look at how the top point of the left one intersects the hair curl, and the right star points into the bust tip. Only two obverse dies share this characteristic. Looking at how the B is positioned next to the dentils, it is clear it isn’t either of these two dies. Same with the 7 and T. The reverse was similarly easy. The C of AMERICA is recut. This die was used on four other die pairs, the latest of which was the O-122. Note the die crack in this area. There appears to be an additional crack over the M in AMERICA, which means it was used after the O-122 paired with the O-133 obverse.
There are other things which also indicate a new Obverse. The top variety sits lower than the other two pushing the lowest star on the left further into the hair and the second star almost touching the second hair. On the lower example, both lowest stars point between dentils while the new obverse points at dentils.
You are assuming that the TPG graders know of every die-combination of early US coinage that was made. NONE of us know that! New discoveries in ALL of these series are being identified every year or few. There are still MANY early US coins that have never been die-identified -- and more that have been MIS-identified and not yet recognized for what they are. So ENJOY THE TREASURE HUNT!
This is very true. Just a few years ago, Tom Deck rediscovered the 1825 N-5 large cent, which had not been seen since 1883 (I think). I’m currently studying a 1798(?) large cent that seems to use a currently unrecorded reverse. If so, it will make headlines as a new large cent variety.
Thank you for breaking that down. I really appreciate the education. The release of information was pretty vague.
TypeCoin971793, posted: "I’m currently studying a 1798(?) large cent that seems to use a currently unrecorded reverse. If so, it will make headlines as a new large cent variety." Is it difficult because the date is mostly gone?
Another difference between the three 1795 obverses shown is that point of star 1 where it makes contact with the curl is close to the left edge of the inner oval of the curl on the two previously known dies, while on the new one it is near the center of the curl.
