Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;V. Kurt Bellman, post: 2526586, member: 71723&quot;]I&#039;d call it, if anything, initially hubbed from a 5 and then hubbed by a 4, like the 1942/1 dime, but with less even pressure. No one re-dated a working die. The position of what looks like part of a 5 is all wrong. Too far right. Besides, has ANYONE ever authenticated a 1964/5 overdate? Anywhere? Not that I know of. Far more likely is you&#039;re seeing die breakages around the 4.</p><p><br /></p><p>What&#039;s the latest overdate ever authenticated? Is it the 1943/2 nickel?</p><p><br /></p><p>If you stop and think about it, there is far LESS reason to ever re-date a die from that era, since multiple dates were being struck concurrently in the mid-60&#039;s. There was no hard cutover of dates on a particular day, unlike in most years. By the 1960&#039;s, die making was a piece of cake, not the difficult matter it was in the 19th and early 20th century.[/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