1936-S Over 1929 Possible Over Date.

My honest opinion is that someone is viewing some die gouges with a very active imagination.

I really have a hard time believing that a 1928 die sat around the Mint for 8 years, only to be rehubbed in 1936. That would be an unprecedented gap in US Minting history CPG varieties have also been delisted in the past when proven to be spurious, the 1980-D/S Lincoln "OMM" is one of the better known examples.

There isn't a precedent for that date spread on any modern US coin, is there? That would be a dramatic, well-documented overdate by now.

The US coin experts can speak far better than me on domestic varieties, but as a world overdate collector I have a few overdates with a wide date spread. Usually these happen when a mint suspends striking that denomination for a few years. But, I have yet to find one that isn't documented somewhere.

Quote:
I really have a hard time believing that a 1928 die sat around the Mint for 8 years, only to be rehubbed in 1936.
There isn't a precedent for that date spread on any modern US coin, is there? That would be a dramatic, well-documented overdate by now.

The US coin experts can speak far better than me on domestic varieties, but as a world overdate collector I have a few overdates with a wide date spread. Usually these happen when a mint suspends striking that denomination for a few years. But, I have yet to find one that isn't documented somewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anything is possible. We are talking about a government agency. LOL. Also the authors of the CherryPickers' Guide make reference to it being over the years or the great depression.

That's a fun idea, but actually the minting process helps us here, by limiting what is possible. Thanks to experts on US coins, collectors gain knowledge to better understand and eliminate what cannot happen. Otherwise, we might fall for every damaged coin in circulation.

Like I said, I'm a world overdate collector. But, I do know about US Indian cents. For that series, certain varieties are possible--while others are not. For example, there is only one documented, proven overdate: the 1888/7 Snow-1; any others are speculative. While there are many RPDs on IHCs, it is not possible for 1909, because the date was hubbed on the die.

Back to Lincoln cents--there isn't a single, docukmented overdate. It wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude the minting practices made this an impossibility.

Well, sure--those are well-documented with numerous examples of re-hubbing a die from the previous year.

Honestly, I don't see how this applies to striking coins because manufacturing processes, not to mention bureacracy, tend to limit what is possible.

If a new overdate turned up I'd think that would be cool. But, like others, I haven't seen enough evidence (or documentation) to be convinced. That's about it--best wishes.

As I said in the original post--possible. All I ask is people keep an open mind. I have supplied CONECA with images along with some others on the PCGS message board to disprove the coin. If they could prove it isn't possible I'm sure I would have heard about it by now.

The 1942/1 overdates aren't even a one year span because they were making both dates of dies at the same time in late 1941. But since the 1870s all of the previous years dated dies and hubs are destroyed either at the end of the year or before April of the following year (It varied from year to year.) The chances of a dated die sitting around for six years is VERY unlikely. (I have to admit though it does look intriguing.) The longest span I can think of off the top of my head in the US series is three years fro the 1839/6 large cent, or the 1827/5/3 quarter.