Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Leadfoot, post: 1100494, member: 2972&quot;]FWIW, Grellman does not mention die rust on this variety.&nbsp; He also does not mention any prior or subsequent use of the reverse die.</p><p><br /></p><p>Heritage archives show 3 examples:</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://coins.ha.com/common/search_results.php?Nty=1&amp;Ntk=SI_Titles&amp;N=51+790+231+307&amp;Ntt=1840%20n-9" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://coins.ha.com/common/search_results.php?Nty=1&amp;Ntk=SI_Titles&amp;N=51+790+231+307&amp;Ntt=1840%20n-9" rel="nofollow">http://coins.ha.com/common/search_results.php?Nty=1&amp;Ntk=SI_Titles&amp;N=51+790+231+307&amp;Ntt=1840 n-9</a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Both the bottom two are clearly later die states (see progression of die crack on obverse and die flow lines on reverse), and show NO rust on the reverse, <b>therefore it is safe to assume that my coin, an earlier die state than either of the two above, did not have die rust either.</b>&nbsp; QED.</p><p><br /></p><p>That doesn&#039;t say, however, what caused what we&#039;re looking at, but it does seem to suggest we can rule out die rust.</p><p><br /></p><p>That said, and in RLM&#039;s defense, it is worth noting the bottom two coins (NGC 65 &amp; 58) on HA have some die &quot;roughness&quot; in this area -- looks like plain old die wear to me -- perhaps that&#039;s what RLM is seeing and can comment after looking at the above coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>Another interesting thing is the reverse of the nicer Reiver example (NGC 65 BN) also has a planchet defect (see I in AMERICA), and it is my experience that the large cents of 1839 &amp; 1840, for some odd reason, seem to suffer from this particular malady.</p><p><br /></p><p>I will double check the coin tomorrow -- have to run by the bank in the morning.....Mike[/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