| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 2,064 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
255 Posts |
Edited by Yorkish
01/03/2022 5:11 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
255 Posts |
And here are some photos taken with daylight, as requested!   |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Well the 4 different reverses were shot down to really two. Two are Master hub issues. These are year varieties, so it is probably the last one mentioned on the 75% examples. I see no evidence of hub doubling. RDV-008.http://varietyvista.com/09b%20WQ%20...arieties.htmCompare the images to make sure though. The shadow look is an issue of flat field lines on the V.V example. Flat field doubling is the first strikes Machine Doubling. When the second strike happens, it flattens the first Machine Doubling and either adds a second one, or the machine acts normal and no MD on the second strike. Nether has a premium for this one. It would just be an ID of what master hub design the reverse had. Edited by coop
01/04/2022 10:24 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
255 Posts |
@coop according to varietyvista, in order for it to be a RDV008, the tips of the leaves would have to rise above the tip of the last arrow. The leaves on this coin do not. VarietyVista states that the only real difference between the RDV008 and RDV005 is this simple point, but according to Heartland Coin Club ( http://www.heartlandcoinclub.com/Do...20Beyond.pdf ) there are several other differences, all boxes that this coin ticks (including the almost complete lack of the eagles head feather mentioned in that PDF's breakdown of the characteristics of the different RDV's.) The leg on the N in UNUM is the short leg (would be long on the RDV008), the M in UNUM does not bracket with the IB in PLURIBUS (as it would on the RDV008), the arrow tips are fairly rounded as they are on the RDV005, the first 2 leaves under the tail feathers touch, but the third one does not (it would in the RDV008), etc. Not trying to argue with you, I just don't understand what you're seeing that makes this an RDV008. Do you have any specific points I can take note of? edit: Changed my choice of words, didn't mean to come off like a turd. Edited by Yorkish
01/04/2022 10:33 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Without the coin in front of me, makes it harder to see what is going on for sure. But there is not premium for this, just an ID for a year variety. For the Type 'B' 1956-1964 cents there is a premium difference. When there is no premium, they are going no where with me. (But my basic interest is in Cent Varieties) So where there is not a premium for something, I loose interest.
Edited by coop
01/04/2022 10:34 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
255 Posts |
That's perfectly understandable, although I fail to understand how a rare coin doesn't have a premium? I appreciate your input coop, informative as always!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
I feel they are thinking of what Wexler mentioned as master hub doubling. Which rules out the reason for the small number. They probably did a test run, found the issue, but didn't remove the first strike pieces.  Replaced with bad master hubs (and discarded all the other faulty and the Master die, Working Working hubs, and Working dies. Thus the smaller number. (This fault could have been on any link of the chain that created the two undesirable Working dies) What is the difference? If it is a messed up Master hub, All the dies Hubs and Dies below that link in the chain would be at fault. If it was a Doubled master die, then 50% of the Working hubs and working dies would be affected. If it was a Working hub issue less numbers of dies would be affected, just the ones in that chain. I placed the image of the chain of command ahead of the issues so it would be easier to under stand. Edited by coop
01/04/2022 10:55 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
255 Posts |
thanks for the illustration, that does a pretty good job of summing it up. That coupled with the information I got from past you http://goccf.com/t/334412) I'm pretty convinced this is the RDV-005. Regardless of value, I am going to put my suspicions on a slip of paper that will be kept with the coin in the collection. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
877 Posts |
I would assume some sort of premium similar to those of the LWC wide and Close AM's as the issues at hand is a transitional variety, not one concerning doubled dies. The intended dies for 1968 S were RDV-007 and RDV-008. For whatever reason or circumstance, a small percentage were struck with RDV-005 and RDV-006. The same situation as in wide and Close AM for LWC. It is a reverse design variety (transional variety if you prefer) that was not intended for that coin therefore rare in the case of RDV-005 and scarce in the case of RDV-006. Why would it not demand a premium? What is the difference. The premium for wide and Close AM LMC is not because the distance between the A and the M is different. It is because the wrong dies were used. That is the way I understand it. |
|
Valued Member
United States
255 Posts |
@DoWhat I am also dumbstruck by this point. I fail to understand how a rare coin fails to carry a premium. Not that value is what I'm after, but it is always a factor.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
877 Posts |
Based on the information and images you provided, it does appear to be RDV-005. Clearer images would help. The PDF you provided is your best comparison to study. It looks good to me and since it comprises about only 1% of the known reverse varieties for your coin it would most definitely command a premium. The higher grades of this variety are well worth attribution fees. You can do a search for sold prices.
Present your coin to the grading forum here and get an idea from other members.
I say nice find and hope it goes well for you. Update with whatever you find out!
|
|
Valued Member
United States
255 Posts |
@dowhat I have searched and searched and searched some more and found no information about the sale price of this coin, or sales of this coin in general. It's almost as it is has never been sold at all. Are there any places I should be looking that aren't in the normal repertoire? I have searched PCGS, Coneca, NGC, ANACS, and ebay. Edited by Yorkish
01/04/2022 2:46 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
877 Posts |
I did see one for sale on ebay graded by ANACS @ PR67 for $800. However, the ANACS slab did not include the variety. |
|
Valued Member
United States
255 Posts |
I saw that too but where it doesn't list it as RDV005 on the slab I am not sure I can count that. Trying ti find examples of RDV005 in rhe wild, sold/selling or otherwise has proven incredibly difficult.
|
|
New Member
United States
10 Posts |
@YORKISH - hope all is well with you . am wondering if you ever found sales of the 005 variety ?
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 21 / Views: 2,064 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 01/04/2022 09:58 am
