Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;bear32211, post: 25386528, member: 73759&quot;]Lots of reading, thanks Paddy54 for suppling the text for me. Still the 68 over 69 or 69 over 68 enludes us and I believe those who look for the actual coin now believe, that it is a 9 over 9 repunch. </p><p>As one op stated, The confusion whether it is an 1869/8 or 1869/69 may be attributed Longacre&#039;s doubling from the softness of the working die and the composition of the copper being used by the Mint during this period of time, often making it difficult to distinguish the correct attribution on darker toned and or corroded specimens. (if you collect Indianhead cents, you know the bulk of 1869 suffer from major corrosion problems.) As this variety became recognized as a varient, old collections were scoured for it and in the last few years a few rare examples in high MS grade surfaced and brought to the attention of knowledgeable numismatists who had mint-state examples to study, and they have pretty much agreed the coin is not an overdate, (eliminates the 1869/8), but a repunched date.</p><p>Thanks James </p><p>So the elusive 1869 over 1868 is a myth? Now think of those collectors, who have the Old Whitman books that have that space. Is&nbsp; there more value to the book itself ? Do you stick the 1869 over 1869 in the spot ?[/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