Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Marshall, post: 4600753, member: 21705&quot;]While I am not familiar with early halves, distinctive new dies are a reason I always attribute coins for myself. </p><p><br /></p><p>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. </p><p><br /></p><p>The 1793 NC-6 wasn&#039;t discovered until 1978. The second was discovered in 1985. And I &quot;Discovered the third while examining S-16s on Heritage Archives in Late 2018 after Jack D. Young&#039;s discovery of a S-16 a little earlier. You can find a journal of this discovery in the &quot;Attribute This&quot; thread under US Coins on this site.</p><p><br /></p><p>I admit that I suspect a little heads up by the submitter spurred PCGS to confirm the new variety, but I&#039;m not certain of it.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Congratulations to the owner of the new 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