1936/Possible 1929-S Overdate Theory.

[fcloud]

So here is my theory.

I happen to have an early and late die state of this controversial coin. Both coins in question are the 1936-S/ Possible 1929 Overdate attributed for my PCGS complete variety set.

I have found an area of doubling around the letter R which is on both coins. My first thoughts were strike doubling, but I find it most interesting that the doubling on the area around the "R" and the top of the wings all converge in a different directions.

I am suggesting the original 1929 Die (or other die) was ground down around the perimeter and the flat area are where "LIBERTY" was removed but not as completely as the die worker intended, as both coins show the alleged doubling.

We know the date is all gouged up and can be seen in the dates below. (the late die state is pretty hard to see, while the early die state is easily visible.

Also, shown below is the letter L from both coins. It is interesting how the doubling on LIBERTY seems to match on both coins. You can also see some of the grinding marks on the early die state coin. You see that grinding around both the image of the L and R.

Time to pick my theory apart.

Thanks for looking.

[wavysteps]

I presume that we are talking about a "Walking Liberty" half dollar.

It is an interesting theory that you do propose. However it would not be the working die that was ground down, but a working hub. While there are examples of working dies being hubbed with two consecutive year working hubs, you are now looking at a space of 7 years, with each year making it seem more than unlikely this has happened.

Looking at your pictures, I do see machine doubling, which at times can be isolated to just one design element. Other than that, I wish you all the best in proving your theory. Stranger things have happened at the mint and this would rank among them.

BJ Neff

[fcloud]

BJ,

Thanks for your comments. I guess I should have made it clear this is the 1936/possible 29-S Mercury dime listed in the CPG FS-110. I happen to own two examples which have different stages of wear. The bottom date photo is the one I call an early die state, and the photo of the date above it is the one I call a late die state. The second coin does not have the depth in the die gouges or overdate. The L from the coin which I call an early die state has some gouges in the area of it while in the area of the other L there is very little gouging left which I think could be due to die wear.

I had sent images of these coins to James Wiles last year and he was trying to determine if it could be a 1936/29-S or just a bunch of die gouges around the date. (I haven't heard back, but I haven't asked either.)

After studying these more and more I think there is some support in favor of the possibility of the overdate. I do have the advantage of owning two of these varieties.

[diamond]

It's all too easy to interpret a bunch of random die gouges as a recognizable design element or series of design elements. It happens all the time. Considering how many damaged dies there are, it's inevitable that some random scatters will trigger our pattern recognition instinct. Considering how incomplete these purported number traces are, considering that they're surrounded by other die imperfections that are clearly random, and considering that your favored interpretation is so unlikely, the default position must be that all the blemishes are random bits of die damage.

[fcloud]

It's all too easy to interpret a bunch of random die gouges as a recognizable design element or series of design elements. It happens all the time. Considering how many damaged dies there are, it's inevitable that some random scatters will trigger our pattern recognition instinct. Considering how incomplete these purported number traces are, considering that they're surrounded by other die imperfections that are clearly random, and considering that your favored interpretation is so unlikely, the default position must be that all the blemishes are random bits of die damage.

Mike, With all due respect, it is also very easy to dismiss the likely hood of this coin as random die gouges as the easy way out.

That is part of the challenge to figure it out. You could make the exact same claim for the 1942/41-D the damage inside the 2 does not resemble a 1. It is simply a odd die gouge that goes in the wrong direction.

They are not easy to locate, but I have managed to come up with two of them in two years.

The 1929-S DDO I had shown in a post about a year ago was dismissed only for Dr. Wiles to come in and and say yes it was a known DDO.