1880 Indian Head Cent Proof RPD

[foxpigsquid]

Picked up my first proof IHC recently and it looks like a minor RPD, though in general I'm finding minimal variety info on these. With a relatively low mintage (though 1880 is one of the higher mintages for proofs), I'm seeing almost all examples display a RPD - guess it makes sense that most were impacted.

I found many examples of Snow-PR1 RPDs listed and a mention of a Snow-PR2 (which shares the OBV with PR1) but no images to compare against. I can convince myself that there are raised die lines on the 'O' in ONE that would correspond with PR1 but the shape of the lines don't seem to match attributed examples I found online. Anyone have additional resources to share? Does Snow's variety book cover these?

* https://indiancentvarieties.com/1880_proof001.html
* https://stacksbowers.com/coin-resour...dian-head-cent
* https://www.pcgs.com/auctionprices/i...11385532975422 (my example is a far cry from the coin here but the info listed in the lot description was quite helpful)

[MintErrors]

I am not at my PC, but i remember reading about a bunch of broken punches used for the 1880. I think they did repunch the date over the broken punch. If I can find the info on it, I will pass it along

[occnumis2021]

Picked up my first proof IHC recently and it looks like a minor RPD, though in general I'm finding minimal variety info on these. With a relatively low mintage (though 1880 is one of the higher mintages for proofs), I'm seeing almost all examples display a RPD - guess it makes sense that most were impacted.

a skill you may desire to hone/acquire, searching big auction houses archives BUT by collections, not specific coins as you'll run into full date/variety runs when people sell off their sets. not to mention see some extraordinary quality coins en-masse PLUS hone/acquire another extremely desirable skill, provenance awareness.

appreciate you adding links. for my part, it makes assisting/adding to a post MUCH more convenient and effective. also possible vetting of information OPs are looking at sometimes when making a post.

i have nothing to add for the hubs/dies of indian cents at this point.

edited to add:

that's weird. i THOUGHT i had another bit typed up before the above?

lovely coin and images.

it is really quite enjoyable and lovely to comb over the details of the fully struck proofs that encompasses the artist's full intent of design brought to fruition.

[MintErrors]

foxpigsquid , I looks like there were 5 potential varieties used on the proof coins. Four had broken punches.

Here is a little more info

---

---

The digit punch(es) deteriorated throughout the die making process. On some dies one or both of the 8’s are broken. On others this is corrected.

It appears that the mint used a single digit punch for the 1 and first 8 and a two-piece punch for the 80. The angles of the 1 and first 8 change, while the 80 seems to remain in a constant alignment.

---

---

That a bit of paraphrasing, but in a nutshell Rick Snow in his ebook shows PR1 through PR4 with broken punches.

This seems kind of backwards, since the 18 stays constant for 100 years where the last two digits are changed pretty frequently. Maybe it was a confidence thing, striking the first two digits. The act was far from what is done now, but the good news is coins were made and the mint has progressed through time. Personally I appreciate all the varieties in the Indian head series.

[foxpigsquid]

MintErrors, thank you - and fascinating information. I'll definitely have to put his book (or ebook) on my wishlist.

I was also curious about what I initially perceived to be sloppiness in the lettering of the legend. Looking at various samples, it plagues legend lettering on proofs across all dates. The reverse doesn't seem to be impacted, which still perplexes me, but the link below discussing Longacre doubling mostly solved the riddle. Ironic that in the desire for a better strike, a tweak to the engraving process caused the issue and, with minimal stikes, it never wore down.

https://numissociety.com/content.php...g-A-discussion

[occnumis2021]

MintErrors, thank you - and fascinating information. I'll definitely have to put his book (or ebook) on my wishlist.

I was also curious about what I initially perceived to be sloppiness in the lettering of the legend. Looking at various samples, it plagues legend lettering on proofs across all dates. The reverse doesn't seem to be impacted, which still perplexes me, but the link below discussing Longacre doubling mostly solved the riddle. Ironic that in the desire for a better strike, a tweak to the engraving process caused the issue and, with minimal stikes, it never wore down.

https://numissociety.com/content.php...g-A-discussion

if you are referring to "longacre" doubling, it is ton BS and PF coins alike and on more than just indians. there is also "retouching" of letters/dates/designs all throughout numismatics, worldwide and throughout history.

[MintErrors]

Yeah, it's almost like engraving within the letters or retooling if you will. As occnumis2021 has stated, Longacre did do this on some other series he was involved with. I know they had a heck of a time with working dies cracking way too early in coin production, so they would experiment with the design a little. In my opinion, whether that was via a leap of faith or workable solution is questionable to me.

Once the coin designs were accepted/approved to make coins, I don't know how far they can deviate from that design. They could examine the die cracks and try to find out a common spot to tweek to see if it happened again in the same spot. Again, I don't know if the followed an engineering theme of documentation or, was it just trial and error.

[occnumis2021]

Yeah, it's almost like engraving within the letters or retooling if you will. As occnumis2021 has stated, Longacre did do this on some other series he was involved with. I know they had a heck of a time with working dies cracking way too early in coin production, so they would experiment with the design a little. In my opinion, whether that was via a leap of faith or workable solution is questionable to me.

Once the coin designs were accepted/approved to make coins, I don't know how far they can deviate from that design. They could examine the die cracks and try to find out a common spot to tweek to see if it happened again in the same spot. Again, I don't know if the followed an engineering theme of documentation or, was it just trial and error.

fwiw, from the official communications between the government/mints/public that i have read that were transcribed (they are tough to read otherwise and a pittance of the totality of documents avail), it is both as you mention, official guidelines as well as trial and error. can be neat to follow some of the conversations between the various officials.

they cut down coins, shaved them for literal grains of metal savings, ordered flans from private contractors, from overseas, restamped, used acid, recut, rehubbed, reused dies and coins, and so much more from the beginning of our nation as well as during colonial days.there may be a line between colonial/federal in this country but the same people were on both sides of that line during that time and long after. (as a side-note)

for my part though, among many things, i don't know when the official USA stopped colonial and other various coins/currencies as being used for legal tender since we didn't coin officially for public spending/trade from 76-93 (maybe 92). they had to use something.