1839/41 Bronzed Proof Halfpenny

[Rob 2,998]

An 1839 bronzed proof halfpenny which has been made from an 1841 obverse die after the 1839 die was deemed to no longer be fit for purpose. The use of an 1843 die for the same reason is already known, but this appears to be the first time one of these has been reported. ex Goldberg sale last September lot 446. the die axis is inverted (cf. P1523*)

Edited November 5, 2007 by Rob

[Art 0]

That's a super looking coin.

[Colin G. 147]

An 1839 bronzed proof halfpenny which has been made from an 1841 obverse die after the 1839 die was deemed to no longer be fit for purpose. The use of an 1843 die for the same reason is already known, but this appears to be the first time one of these has been reported. ex Goldberg sale last September lot 446. the die axis is inverted (cf. P1523*)

I still can't believe they missed an overdate that clear when preparing the auction. Congrats on a great find, nothing quite like the buzz of bagging a bargain. I aslo echo Art's comments, it is a beauty of a coin!!!

[Rob 2,998]

An 1839 bronzed proof halfpenny which has been made from an 1841 obverse die after the 1839 die was deemed to no longer be fit for purpose. The use of an 1843 die for the same reason is already known, but this appears to be the first time one of these has been reported. ex Goldberg sale last September lot 446. the die axis is inverted (cf. P1523*)

I still can't believe they missed an overdate that clear when preparing the auction. Congrats on a great find, nothing quite like the buzz of bagging a bargain. I aslo echo Art's comments, it is a beauty of a coin!!!

It's not perfect. There are imperfections to the hair detail as a result of being a recut used currency die. I'm also not convinced it was that much of a bargain after premiums and shipping costs, although quite reasonable for an unambiguous unrecorded variety.

They may or may not have noticed it when drawing up the catalogue. However, it would probably be frowned upon to list it as an 1839/41 when the "experts" have positively identified it as an 1839. Don't forget that Peck didn't list either the 1839/41 or 1839/43 and so ipso facto they cannot exist. That's another incorrect attribution folks, bought to you (almost) exclusively courtesy of NGC.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

That's another incorrect attribution folks, bought to you (almost) exclusively courtesy of NGC.

Not as bad as this ebay listing was....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018

[Hussulo 6]

That's another incorrect attribution folks, bought to you (almost) exclusively courtesy of NGC.

Not as bad as this ebay listing was....

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018" target="_blank">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018</a>

Great coin Rob. It's a super find.

BCC I saw that listing too and even from the bad pictures thought it can't be a small (narrow) date. Which brings me onto a post I had on another forum in were I was shocked to hear that NGC do not guaranty the authenticity of the slabbed coins claimed variety, only that the coin is genuine. As you know the difference in a coins variety can be big difference in value. So if you bought this coin and it was genuine but not a small (narrow) date variety NGC would not give you the book value of the small (narrow) date coin. Moral of the story I guess is if buying a slabbed coin don't accept what variety it is stated to be on the plastic but do your homework on varieties before buying.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Hussulo

[Rob 2,998]

That's another incorrect attribution folks, bought to you (almost) exclusively courtesy of NGC.

Not as bad as this ebay listing was....

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018" target="_blank">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018</a>

Great coin Rob. It's a super find.

BCC I saw that listing too and even from the bad pictures thought it can't be a small (narrow) date. Which brings me onto a post I had on another forum in were I was shocked to hear that NGC do not guaranty the authenticity of the slabbed coins claimed variety, only that the coin is genuine. As you know the difference in a coins variety can be big difference in value. So if you bought this coin and it was genuine but not a small (narrow) date variety NGC would not give you the book value of the small (narrow) date coin. Moral of the story I guess is if buying a slabbed coin don't accept what variety it is stated to be on the plastic but do your homework on varieties before buying.

I'm not surprised they don't guarantee the variety and only that it is genuine given the number of incorrect attributions. It all suggests that they value the number of dollars coming into the business rather than their reputation for accuracy. Most respected business acquire their reputation for doing what they do well. This is more a case of "we slab coins, so any coins can be slabbed. Just don't take as gospel what we say. We're only in it for the money and any accurate attributions are entirely coincidental and unintentional".

Edited November 7, 2007 by Rob

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

Sort of reminiscent of the PCGS Farthing Mule dispute earlier this year........

[Colin G. 147]

Sort of reminiscent of the PCGS Farthing Mule dispute earlier this year........

Oh no not that one again!!

[Colin G. 147]

Rob,

Can I ask how much it totalled including shipping and premium? I can appreciate it is a probing & personal question, so you can tell me to mind my own business if you want

I cannot believe that something that clear can remain unrecorded. You would have thought that the clarity of the error and the fact that 2 digits are involved would have put quite a premium on the variety. I know absolutely nothing about halfpennies, but I would anticipate that placed in fromt of the correct buyer it may be worth more than you think.

I would almost guarantee that if it was re-sold through the same auction house with the error highlighted and listed it would have fetched considerably more, especially when you consider the American error collectors!!

[Rob 2,998]

Rob,

Can I ask how much it totalled including shipping and premium? I can appreciate it is a probing & personal question, so you can tell me to mind my own business if you want

I cannot believe that something that clear can remain unrecorded. You would have thought that the clarity of the error and the fact that 2 digits are involved would have put quite a premium on the variety. I know absolutely nothing about halfpennies, but I would anticipate that placed in fromt of the correct buyer it may be worth more than you think.

I would almost guarantee that if it was re-sold through the same auction house with the error highlighted and listed it would have fetched considerably more, especially when you consider the American error collectors!!

It isn't a problem as the hammer price ($775) is listed on the website as are premiums payable. The total cost was about $920 including postage. My maximum was higher than the hammer and it takes two people to reach this price, so I appreciate it could possibly sell for more.

Firstly, it has been removed from the slab which will put a significant number of Americans off. The slab grade of PF63 is not very high so will also put off those who collect by numbers. It would only really appeal to knowledgeable collectors which is probably a good thing. It is unlikely to be slabbed as 1839/41 because the variety isn't in Peck or Spink. Having an inverted die axis will increase its value as these are decidedly uncommon and interestingly the die axis is not recorded on the slab insert, a listed variety that could easily be identified by anyone with an IQ of 80.

Hussulo's point about grading companies not guaranteeing the variety on the slab, but guaranteeing the coin is genuine will probably come into play here. It is a perfect oxymoron. They have with a cursory glance attributed it as 1839 which it isn't and if studied carefully is obviously not a straight 1839. If they had identified it as 1839/41 would they then have slabbed it as a seemingly improbable overstrike? Or would it be rejected as an altered date by someone other than the mint given it isn't recorded in the "official" books?

Edited November 8, 2007 by Rob

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

The powers that be need to terms with the fact that the accepted references were compiled by field research and by documenting the results.... It is in no way absolute nor accepted to be complete.... new discoveries are made every day....

This is accepted by US collectors regarding US coins, so why should they have a closed mind regarding world coins..... although they do......

If not for the collectors with eager and eagle eyes, these new discoveries would not be made, so why not believe their own eyes....

I agree with your assessment that most people accept the authoritative reference works as the final authority, without accepting the fact that they might be incomplete insofar as discoveries made since (whatever book is involved) it was published.....

Just look how many new varieties are now accepted since the last (1986 {the 2006 was essentially just a reprint} edition of Freeman..... Were their existence denied because Freeman did not document them???

Was the discovery, in a junk box, of a UNIQUE US 1870-S HALF DIME refuted because no one had ever seen one before??? Or because it was not in the Redbook (the OFFICIAL Guide Book of US Coins)???? I think not.......

http://www.coinfacts.com/half_dimes/seated...s_half_dime.htm

Ultimately, Service providers will have to learn that if they want to succesfully provide a service, they will have to provide the service that the consumer wants.....

[Red Riley 2]

The mint's motives behind this coin strike me as thoroughly curious. I can understand the reason for a later date being engraved on an earlier die (although personally I wouldn't bother...) but why put an earlier date on a later die. I just can't follow the logic. Do we have an explanation as to why they did it?

[Rob 2,998]

The mint's motives behind this coin strike me as thoroughly curious. I can understand the reason for a later date being engraved on an earlier die (although personally I wouldn't bother...) but why put an earlier date on a later die. I just can't follow the logic. Do we have an explanation as to why they did it?

The original 1839 die was deemed to be worn out and so a later date obverse die was changed to 1839 to satisfy the need for the 1839 proof sets which were produced later than 1839 and according to demand until superseded by the 1853 sets. The use of a modified 1843 halfpenny die is already documented, but an overstruck 1841 die has not previously been recorded.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

I think mine is the 1839/43