1879 Mexico 50c Question

Yes, I will try to post one after school tomorrow--and thanks for finding my post.

Here it is--it's a scan because I'm looking for my digcam battery charger--I'll post both sides for your perusal:






Thanks!

Nice pictures - the coin appears to be a doubled hub variety.

If you notice there are clear doubling visible on the N A and V in Centavos. Because the coin is so well worn, it may be more difficult to substantiate the variety. Double hubs are rather common, but it is a nice feature in my opinion.

As far as the A goes - you may have a point in this case. The letter A does seem to share an identical outline shape with the V. That is not too surprising but if you look at the 4 A's on the coin - I believe I see differences in the positions of the cross bars. It is entirely possible that the hub could have been made using one master punch for both the A and V. This punch would have required a bar to be added. That may be the case, but to prove it you would need a second example with the identical characteristics. Good hunting.

halfabustisbetter You said "just so I understand"

Well, I hope I can make the situation clear - it is not as simple as it may look.

First it is critical to know how the dies used to make this coin were made. I believe that the dies for the 50 centavo at Alamos in 1879 were hubbed. This is based on my general (but limited) knowledge of the decimal series and the fact that multiple hubbing of dies exists fairly commonly in that series. In multiple hubbing, all the doubled features move in one direction. That is because the hub is pressed into the working die twice. With individually punched dies - each feature is punched into the working die separately. This produces variations in the lettering and doubling of letters happens one letter at a time in random directions. On your coin, I clearly see several letters shifted in the same direction about the same distance. Therefore, I believe the dies were hubbed not individually punched.

By hubbing (for anyone not familiar with the term), what I mean is that the working dies used to strike coins were made from a master positive die. All working dies look exactly like the master die. The technology was perfected by the late Republican (decimal) period. Even late period 8R trade coins were made from hubbed dies.

Once you believe a die is hubbed you have to look at how an error in a hub occurs. In the early days of hubbing, the die sinkers did in fact leave some features off the hub. Those finishing touches, usually set deeply into the design, were added to each working die after it was hubbed. For example on Guanajuato coins of the mid to late 1840s some of the features added were the eagle's tongue, eye and nostril. Breast feathers were also often added or strengthened. This was because the apparatus used to hub the working dies could not exert enough pressure to bring up the deepest features when the positive master was pressed into the blank steel face of the working die.

I can not envision the die sinkers leaving something like the crossbar as a finishing touch required on each working die. It must have been an unintentional error. So the question shifts to when or IF the error was ever noted. Since the easiest way to correct a hub error is on the master hub itself, all the dies made before the correction of the hub will have the error and those made afterward do not. That seems simple but when was the error noticed?

The output of 50C coins at Alamos in the 1870s SIMPLY DID NOT WARRANT MULTIPLE HUBS. Perhaps a hub broke and a new one went into service in 1879 - I don't know. In fact, I expect that one hub could have seen service for several years. Therefore, I would expect that there are multiple dies with this identical feature. This goes for at least the FIRST working die made, but, perhaps all the working dies of that date and mint were the same. Again, I don't know. That is where research is needed. The possible range of dies with the error therefore runs from one die to all the dies. Each die placed in service made thousands of coins. So, I would expect there are numerous 1879 As 50 centavos with the same missing crossbar.

The number of coins encountered with and without the feature will dictate how rare or common the feature is. If both versions exist you have a legitimate variety - a new one to me.

Now if no other examples AT ALL are found (after a reasonable search period) then I would lean towards the theory that the coin was made from a filled die. Because a mechanical (steam) press is a piece of heavy equipment - it has to be lubricated with grease and extra grease tends to accumulate dirt and metal debris. This GUNK always seems to find its way into the coining chamber where it can stick into small die features like the crossbar on an A. This grease with dirt is hard enough to prevent a tiny feature from appearing on the final strike. That "error" would be less common than a die variety but it would also be far less valuable. Also it would NOT constitute a legitimate variety.

I hope that explains the situation. Let me know if it does not or if anyone else reading this post has questions.

The only foolish question is the one NOT asked.

Most Mexican hubs that were used year to year omitted all or part of the date and assayer initials. This means that to finish the die - a die sinker had to add one or more digits. It was a simple process and makes these coins more interesting because re-cuts happened alot. Sometimes a 3 digit date say 187_ was on the hub and only one digit was added. But that gives you a lot of possible positions for that last number. At other times 18 only was there. But some hubs like the 1832 hubs made for Durango had all 4 numbers on them so that working dies have numerous corrections. That makes these series both interesting and a challenge to get to know.

Once production levels rose adequately to require a new hub every year then the full date was normally entered. The only way to know for sure is to study many different examples of coins made in the same and sequential years. It is a study that is not in the current knowledge base.

Numismatics is one of those fields where discoveries get made - get misplaced and have to get re-discovered. Unfortunately it happens all the time in coin collecting. Why we can't get the word out and keep it out there is a serious problem that has always plagued our hobby. That is why more work needs to be done and more results need to be published and re-published over and over.

Through forums like this knowledge can be passed on from one collector to another. Without that we all suffer.

Many of the facts that I "know" come from listening to collectors who were 40 or 50 years older than myself. They knew things that are not commonly known today. I am 60 now so I am just trying to pass it on where I can. We should all do the same when ever possible.

Just found a link to an 1880 As 50 centavo. The seller indicates it is Double Hubbed and has a repunched date. I can't see enough detail to confirm that but the seller (Perry Perronio) is a decent fellow.

http://cgi.ebay.com/estate-1880-As-...170190033857

This coin would support:

1. The theory that hubs were in fact used at Alamos in the 1879-80 time frame.
2. That double hubbing may be a common occurance as I suspected.
3. That the date was incomplete on the hub - it has a repunched date.

But this hub has the crossbar on the A in Centavos. The mint mark is not as clear. But the position of the crossbars on the other side seems to match the 1879 exactly - which supports the theory of hubs being used year to year. This could mean the hub was corrected by some time in 1880 or that the missing crossbar is due to die clogging.

But at least it didn't take that long to find a coin made from the same hub.

No problem - I have very little interest in the decimal series.