Read all about the Grand Numismatic Alliance
Started by Thulium, November 13, 2015, 11:06:45 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Figleaf on November 14, 2015, 10:17:53 AMThe mother die was prepared for the 1890's, but unprepared for the century change. Peter
Quote from: Figleaf on November 14, 2015, 09:04:21 PMThe date was re-engraved to 1901 in a thin font (hence the need to redo the first 1), but the engraving job was not satisfactory, e.g. because the old date was showing too clearly or the style of the font was found not to match that of the letters of the legend or of earlier dates. The date was re-engraved a second time, this time with a bolder and more rectangular font. If so, the correct description would be 1901 (thick font) over 1901 (thin font) over 189.Peter
Quote from: Thulium on November 14, 2015, 10:32:41 PMI appreciate your insights...it keeps me thinking. Yes, that may partly be the explanation. From my studies, I would just like to add that remaining digits on overdates or repunched dates (such as a 1/1) often appear "thin" due to an incomplete impression or that much of the prior digit has been polished away. What's left on the die are the deepest points of impression by a prior digit, and it very often looks like a thin or incomplete mark. This is supported by the consistent style of digits from the 1890s to the 1900s. Even for overdates from different mints, the principle holds true. Below is a very striking example of how digits can appear when they are partially removed--they take on an odd (or thin) appearance that don't fully represent the original digits. This is 1894/1894.