Posted 01/12/2009 4:02 pm
Quote:
To me, a repunched digit is pretty much the same process as a repunched mint mark.
To me, a repunched digit is pretty much the same process as a repunched mint mark.
From what I've read/learned about RPDs for the US IHC series, it's suggested those arose when the date punch was incorrectly positioned, inspected and (most) of the mistake ground away and the date repunched a second (or third) time. For minor RPDs, as for IHCs from 1900-08, it looks to me that extraneous digits were polished off only after the final date impression. This might explain why those RPDs are visible mostly inside the loops of digits such as 9,0,and 6.
For US overdates, I've read it usually involves taking an unused or underutilized die from a previous year, polishing off (most) of the previous digits, then impressing new digits. This might explain why overdates are often much harder to see, since a previous date obviously had to be removed, versus the mint catching a slight positioning error on an RPD. Overdates might also have shorter runs if they were a re-used die from a previous year, which might explain the extreme rarity of the IHC 1888/7 (S-1)--as all known copies show evidence of die failure.
Honestly, I'm not sure how the above applies to this particular overdate, except that it was made during a period of similar technology/practices to US IHCs. I'm pretty certain the date was repunched independently after some previous details were ground off. Here the 5 is just a remnant--possibly struck deeper W, or less detail was polished off next to "190".
Obviously, they were not too concerned about leaving small details on the overdate, and did not think anyone would ever notice. Good thing for collectors!
