I have more pics of this 1888/7 possibility...

[lbinc]

This one is going to have me scratching my head for a minute.















Sent from my LG-LS980 using TreasureNet

 

[BigWaveDave]

let it go

 

[cosmic]

Large die cud above the e on obverse .. Bottom of the 7 clearly shows on bottom of the 8.. Front of 7 just shows at the top of 8.. found this on the net.. Get the red book guide flying eagles and indian head cents

 

[huntsman53]

lbinc,

I would suggest contacting Coneca and send the coin in for attribution. Make sure to note all your findings concerning the coin compared to a known 1888/7 IHC. Check out the link below for more information.

CONECA Atrribution Process


Frank

 

[lbinc]

Thanks Frank! Your the reason I will continue to use forums. Chances are that it's not an 88/7 but that YOU can have an intellectual conversation about it and discuss the points and possibilities is what it's all about. People like you discover new errors and varieties. Your help is appreciated!

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." ~Albert Einstein

Sent from my LG-LS980 using TreasureNet

 

[Joe777Cool]

"Removing the build up" and "applying some good coin oil" to a coin you suspect could be worth thousands?

 

[huntsman53]

"Removing the build up" and "applying some good coin oil" to a coin you suspect could be worth thousands?

I wasn't going to go there but since you brought it up! We all make mistakes as amateur MD'ers and as Coin Collectors and one of the biggest mistakes is cleaning a coin in such a way that it is apparent to many and especially graders with Coin Grading services and wise old Coin Collectors. We all want our' coins to look great and some, especially amateurs with little knowledge, do it the wrong way with good intentions. However, there are ways to conserve (i.e. clean and preserve) coins that won't effect or significantly effect the time old toning that they have accumulated over the many years in a drawer, in a safe, in a Coin Album or in the ground. First off, Acetone should only be used to remove Verdigris and/or heavy and stubborn crustations from a coin. All too often and especially so with Copper and Bronze coins, the Acetone removes the time old toning and then the appearance of the coin jumps in your' face and says "I've been cleaned!". This is not such a big deal with Silver coins that are in Uncirculated condition but have some stubborn stain or substance on them which can't be removed otherwise. If uncirculated, high grade and with most or all of the Mint Luster, then these coins will benefit from removing the stain or substance but you must use due care in doing so as Acetone like many other substances, can totally destroy the Eye Appeal and Mint Luster of a coin. In the case of a need to remove a stubborn stain or substance from a beautifully Rainbow toned Silver coin, then you have to bite your' lip and dip the coin in Acetone. There is no way to preserve the beautiful Rainbow toning and even if you could as many, many folks have found, that once you remove the stubborn stain or substance from a portion of a coin, the surface of the coin that was underneath the stain or substance is totally untoned and therefore shows a significant break in the toning on the coin.

For these reasons of removing dirt, grime and less stubborn crustations, I always recommend soaking the coin in Mineral Oil or Extra Virgin Olive Oil for weeks up to several months. Once removed, a lot or most of the dirt, grime and crustations can be removed fairly easily. However, if they are still stubborn, then place the coin back in the Oil for a few more weeks or even a month or more. Silver coins are the trickiest coins to remove any left-over dirt, grime and crustation from as most things that are used on them, will leave scratches, scrapes or at the least hairline (very minute scratches that are almost invisible to the naked eye). For these, I have found that a soft fingertip to work the best. Just don't drag any crustation across the surface of the coin as in rubbing your finger up and down or from side to side. Try to loosen the crustation where it is and rinse it away under the faucet with water. Copper and Bronze coins are somewhat easier as first off, I have never known Mineral Oil or Extra Virgin Olive Oil to remove toning. However, in some cases, they have been known to actually darken the toning which really isn't a bad thing but to some, they feel it is. Once soaked in the Mineral Oil or Extra Virgin Olive Oil, most if not all of the dirt, grime and/or crustation can be removed with a green Rose Thorn, not a brown Rose Thorn from a dead Rose stem. The softer green Rose Thorn will actually remove the dirt, grime and/or crustation and will not scratch, gouge or harm the surface of Copper or Bronze coins in any way. I have read and heard of folks using toothpicks but I really don't advise this and advise to only use a green Rose Thorn. It is ironic when you think about it, a green Rose Thorn will not harm or effect the surface of a Copper or Bronze coin in any way other than remove the dirt, grime and/or crustation but a soft tooth brush or even an even softer brush, will actually leave hairline scratches on them. Once you have removed the dirt, grime and/or crustation from the coin or coins, rinse them under the faucet, pat dry between the soft folds of a towel, then 2x2 them and you are done.

In closing I would add one thing! As knowledgeable members or at the least some with more knowledge than others, need to understand that many of the folks that come here for help and advice, are amateurs or total newbies to metal detecting and/or coin collecting. Therefore, we all should strive to help them out and cut them some slack when they do something that makes some of us cringe, like cleaning coins the wrong way. Besides, the coins are their's and who are we to chide them unless they have asked and gotten our help and advice but still went ahead and cleaned their' coins the wrong way!


Frank

 

[jerseyben]

Nice attitude...

 

[coinguy*matthew]

First off lets have a look at two real 1888/7....

Yours is lacking the bump below the 8 and also the cud at 9 O'clock im gonna have to say yours shows no evidence of the overdate.

 

[huntsman53]

First off lets have a look at two real 1888/7....

Image attachments removed to save space.

Yours is lacking the bump below the 8 and also the cud at 9 O'clock im gonna have to say yours shows no evidence of the overdate.

coinguy*matthew,

Do you know if all known specimens of the Overdate which can be linked/attributed to one Obverse Die were struck with the same mated Reverse Die? I ask because the O.P. asked me this and if all nown specimens were struck with the same two mated Dies, then this absolutely rules out that the O.P.'s coin is an 1888/7 Overdate. I just don't have the references to answer this question. Also, the question also came up as to why many or possibly all of the known Variety specimens and even many of the non-Variety specimens have the Reverse details (i.e. Wreath and Shield) closer to the denticles (** see below) and in some cases, the Shield appears welded to the denticles while on many other non-Variety specimens, this is not the case. I have studied and studied this and can come up with only one explanation. This must be a case of thicker planchet stock for some strikings and thinner planchet stock for others. Since the Collar is set in place and is always the exact same diameter with every striking to form the rim, this could not be the cause (i.e. an undersized Collar). The settings for transferring the images (details, lettering and denticles) from the Galvano to the Master Dies are exactly the same for each Master Die produced, so this can't be an issue of a wrong adjustment which would result in larger than normal details, lettering and denticles. To surmise what I believe happened, is that most or all of the known Variety specimens and many non-Variety specimens were minted with thicker Planchet Stock. That when the coins were minted, the pressure exhibited on the Planchet during the striking process, pressed the metal of the Planchet outwards into the Collar as it normally does to form the rim. However, since the Planchet Stock was thicker and the pressure of the press was set for thinner Planchet Stock, this extra pressure actually pressed the metal of the Planchet outwards into the Collar and when the pressure became too great, the metal of the Planchet actually began pressing backwards away from the Collar. This resulted in the denticles to be pushed or stressed inwards toward the Wreath and Shield on the coins. Would you agree that this is the likely cause of the Wreath and Shield being closer on most or all of the known Variety and many of the non-Variety specimens?

(**)
For the O.P's information, the case where the Shield appears to be welded to the denicles, this is merely due to Die Breaks in the Die due to the upper portion of the Shield or Die element being closer to the edge or denticle Die element of the Die, resulting in a weak spot on the Die and prone to fracturing or failure in this area. This (thicker planchets and this weak spot in the Dies) was probably the main cause for the failure of all of the Dies produced in 1888 for Indian Head Cent production and made it necessary to pull an 1887 Die from retirement and manually punch an "8" over the "7" in the Date, so that production for that year could continue.


Frank

 

[coinguy*matthew]

coinguy*matthew,

Do you know if all known specimens of the Overdate which can be linked/attributed to one Obverse Die were struck with the same mated Reverse Die? I ask because the O.P. asked me this and if all nown specimens were struck with the same two mated Dies, then this absolutely rules out that the O.P.'s coin is an 1888/7 Overdate. I just don't have the references to answer this question. Also, the question also came up as to why many or possibly all of the known Variety specimens and even many of the non-Variety specimens have the Reverse details (i.e. Wreath and Shield) closer to the denticles (** see below) and in some cases, the Shield appears welded to the denticles while on many other non-Variety specimens, this is not the case. I have studied and studied this and can come up with only one explanation. This must be a case of thicker planchet stock for some strikings and thinner planchet stock for others. Since the Collar is set in place and is always the exact same diameter with every striking to form the rim, this could not be the cause (i.e. an undersized Collar). The settings for transferring the images (details, lettering and denticles) from the Galvano to the Master Dies are exactly the same for each Master Die produced, so this can't be an issue of a wrong adjustment which would result in larger than normal details, lettering and denticles. To surmise what I believe happened, is that most or all of the known Variety specimens and many non-Variety specimens were minted with thicker Planchet Stock. That when the coins were minted, the pressure exhibited on the Planchet during the striking process, pressed the metal of the Planchet outwards into the Collar as it normally does to form the rim. However, since the Planchet Stock was thicker and the pressure of the press was set for thinner Planchet Stock, this extra pressure actually pressed the metal of the Planchet outwards into the Collar and when the pressure became too great, the metal of the Planchet actually began pressing backwards away from the Collar. This resulted in the denticles to be pushed or stressed inwards toward the Wreath and Shield on the coins. Would you agree that this is the likely cause of the Wreath and Shield being closer on most or all of the known Variety and many of the non-Variety specimens?

(**)
For the O.P's information, the case where the Shield appears to be welded to the denicles, this is merely due to Die Breaks in the Die due to the upper portion of the Shield or Die element being closer to the edge or denticle Die element of the Die, resulting in a weak spot on the Die and prone to fracturing or failure in this area. This (thicker planchets and this weak spot in the Dies) was probably the main cause for the failure of all of the Dies produced in 1888 for Indian Head Cent production and made it necessary to pull an 1887 Die from retirement and manually punch an "8" over the "7" in the Date, so that production for that year could continue.


Frank

The variety was discovered in 1970 by Jim Ruddy in virginia, he searched for others and could not find any. He then contacted Coinworld and the variety was featured in magazine which led to a few others being found. There are less than 30 known examples because of a die cud located at 9 o'clock, a diagnostic on ALL examples. I'm positive that they all came from the same mated die pairing and about your second question let me get back to you.

 

[coinguy*matthew]

the question also came up as to why many or possibly all of the known Variety specimens and even many of the non-Variety specimens have the Reverse details (i.e. Wreath and Shield) closer to the denticles (** see below) and in some cases, the Shield appears welded to the denticles while on many other non-Variety specimens, this is not the case. I have studied and studied this and can come up with only one explanation. This must be a case of thicker planchet stock for some strikings and thinner planchet stock for others. Since the Collar is set in place and is always the exact same diameter with every striking to form the rim, this could not be the cause (i.e. an undersized Collar). The settings for transferring the images (details, lettering and denticles) from the Galvano to the Master Dies are exactly the same for each Master Die produced, so this can't be an issue of a wrong adjustment which would result in larger than normal details, lettering and denticles. To surmise what I believe happened, is that most or all of the known Variety specimens and many non-Variety specimens were minted with thicker Planchet Stock. That when the coins were minted, the pressure exhibited on the Planchet during the striking process, pressed the metal of the Planchet outwards into the Collar as it normally does to form the rim. However, since the Planchet Stock was thicker and the pressure of the press was set for thinner Planchet Stock, this extra pressure actually pressed the metal of the Planchet outwards into the Collar and when the pressure became too great, the metal of the Planchet actually began pressing backwards away from the Collar. This resulted in the denticles to be pushed or stressed inwards toward the Wreath and Shield on the coins. Would you agree that this is the likely cause of the Wreath and Shield being closer on most or all of the known Variety and many of the non-Variety specimens?

I think the answer to your question is in the alignment of the die. If its just a little to the north it cuts off part of the denticles design making it farther away than normal. This slight discrepancy is throughout the entire series so that would rule out thicker planchet stock because most certainly at 4.67 grams the copper nickel planchets are thicker than the later 3.11 gram bronze planchets. Although its an interesting question and i could always be wrong let me know if you dig up more on this.

 

[fistfulladirt]

Somewhat off-topic but I've used the hot peroxide bath to remove corrosion from coppers. If I happen to hot peroxide the coin and then olive oil soak for a month, it seems to make for a dark-colored coin. I no longer do the hot-peroxide bath for any decent-looking copper, but that's just my 2c.

 

[huntsman53]

Somewhat off-topic but I've used the hot peroxide bath to remove corrosion from coppers. If I happen to hot peroxide the coin and then olive oil soak for a month, it seems to make for a dark-colored coin. I no longer do the hot-peroxide bath for any decent-looking copper, but that's just my 2c.

Although a lot of folks put Copper and Bronze coins in a cold or hot Peroxide bath, it is really not good for the coins. If a Copper or Bronze coin is left too long in the Peroxide, it will start eating into the surfaces of the coin. I can tell you this from experience because all of things and methods that others use, have used or are starting to use, I tried them all back when I was a newbie and did not know better. We all learn from our mistakes and using Peroxide on Copper and Bronze coins is just one of them! Also, even with or without a Peroxide bath, Olive Oil will darken most any Copper or Bronze coin that has been left soaking in it too long. That is why I either use Mineral Oil or use Extra Virgin Olive Oil which is less detrimental to the color of a Copper or Bronze coins but I still don't leave a coin in it for very long, just to be on the safe side.


Frank

 

[huntsman53]

I think the answer to your question is in the alignment of the die. If its just a little to the north it cuts off part of the denticles design making it farther away than normal. This slight discrepancy is throughout the entire series so that would rule out thicker planchet stock because most certainly at 4.67 grams the copper nickel planchets are thicker than the later 3.11 gram bronze planchets. Although its an interesting question and i could always be wrong let me know if you dig up more on this.

coinguy*matthew,

Maybe I am wrong in my knowledge but were not the denticles a part of the design (details) on the Dies and not a part of or function of the Collar? If I am correct in my knowledge about this, then your theory about the Die alignment would be incorrect and is clearly shown in the pics you provided of the genuine 1888/7 IHC specimens. In your theory, if the problem of the Shield being too close to the denticles was caused by a Die alignment problem during the Striking (Minting) Process, then the Reverses of all of the known specimens would be somewhat off-center (i.e. the Strike would be shifted Northward on the Reverses with little if any rim and a thicker than normal rim to the South), correct!!?? This is definitely not the case with the coins in the pics you provided! Please correct me if I am wrong. I am just trying to provide the correct or most plausible theory to explain this irregularity on some of the 1888 and all of the 1888/7 Indian Head cents! In my nearly 40 years of searching for and collecting Error and Variety coins (I am nearing 61 now and started when I was 20), I still find myself learning more and more.


Frank

 

[CoinHELP!]

No way to be certain with the OP's image of the date, it could be a late die state and stage, so you can barely see remnants of the 7 OR it's just not a 8/7. Also, iding varieties via die markers and such is not an exact science, plus there's more than one 1888/7 variety.

So I recommend the OP to add a better and larger image of the date or visit this link to see more examples Search: snow 1888, Indian Cents [51 790 231 327]

 

[coinguy*matthew]

coinguy*matthew,

Maybe I am wrong in my knowledge but were not the denticles a part of the design (details) on the Dies and not a part of or function of the Collar? If I am correct in my knowledge about this, then your theory about the Die alignment would be incorrect and is clearly shown in the pics you provided of the genuine 1888/7 IHC specimens. In your theory, if the problem of the Shield being too close to the denticles was caused by a Die alignment problem during the Striking (Minting) Process, then the Reverses of all of the known specimens would be somewhat off-center (i.e. the Strike would be shifted Northward on the Reverses with little if any rim and a thicker than normal rim to the South), correct!!?? This is definitely not the case with the coins in the pics you provided! Please correct me if I am wrong. I am just trying to provide the correct or most plausible theory to explain this irregularity on some of the 1888 and all of the 1888/7 Indian Head cents! In my nearly 40 years of searching for and collecting Error and Variety coins (I am nearing 61 now and started when I was 20), I still find myself learning more and more.


Frank

You are absolutely correct Frank and quite frankly (pun intended) I am just as puzzled as you. This phenomenon is not isolated to this particular year or variety its across the board on all years and compositions. I have some friends who are serious Indian head cent registry set collectors and fanatics i can fish around im sure they will know more ill get back to you.

 

[huntsman53]

You are absolutely correct Frank and quite frankly (pun intended) I am just as puzzled as you. This phenomenon is not isolated to this particular year or variety its across the board on all years and compositions. I have some friends who are serious Indian head cent registry set collectors and fanatics i can fish around im sure they will know more ill get back to you.

coinguy*matthew,

Thanks for the response! At least now, I know that I am not totally crazy, maybe half but not totally. LOL!! I still suspect thicker than normal Planchet Stock and if one could get a weight on the known 1888/7 examples, it would verify or dispell my theory. In my many years of searching and collecting coins, I have found that the Flying Eagle, Indian Head and Lincoln Series of Cents were often struck on thinner or thicker than normal Planchet Stock. Case in point, is the 1944-P "Piefort" Cent (Pollock 2078 Variety) that was struck on either Experimental Planchets or thicker than normal Planchet Stock (see the link below to the one I found back in 2005). While some were skeptical that it was one, I later sold it to a Piefort Cent Collector for $135. While I can't find where I posted the weight of the coin, if my memory serves me correctly, it weighed in at a whopping 4.11 grams (63.427 grains) compared to the 3.11 grams (47.995 grains) of a normal 1944-P Lincoln Cent.

1944-P "Pierfort Cent" Lincoln Cent - Pollock 2078 Variety! | Coin Talk

My theories are: 1) That these were struck on thicker than normal Planchet Stock. 2) While minting Indian Head Cents with thinner than normal Planchet Stock and having compensated for this on the Minting Press (closer tolerance and more pressure), that the Mint Workers did not re-adjust the Minting Press when thicker Planchet Stock began feeding into the Press, thus resulting on more pressure placed on a thicker than normal Planchet. Either one of these would have caused the metal in the planchet to spread out rapidly, make contact with the Collar, then begin to back flow inwards towards the Shield and Wreath thus pushing the Denticles closer to the Shield and Wreath.


Frank

 

[coinguy*matthew]

What i was told by a few serious collectors is that more than one hub was used for the reverse of the indian head design and not all were exact carbon copies. Due to the length and high mintage numbers of the series it was necessary to have more than one hub to make dies.

http://www.cointalk.com/threads/indian-head-cent-reverse-design-question.243052/#post-1870029

 

[huntsman53]

What i was told by a few serious collectors is that more than one hub was used for the reverse of the indian head design and not all were exact carbon copies. Due to the length and high mintage numbers of the series it was necessary to have more than one hub to make dies.

Indian head cent reverse design question? | Coin Talk

Well, maybe that explains it then but I sure would like to see all of those Dies!


Frank