| Author |
 Replies: 24 / Views: 4,827 |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
The Snow-2 "1888/7" was discovered in 1990, and was billed as an overdate.
Since then, there has been conflicting expert opinion on the variety, but the latest research suggests it's not an overdate, but an 1888/1888 repunched date. Is that what you think your coin is? The markers on that coin are more subtle, so you will need much more detailed pics of the date and lower bust area to tell online.
Edited by DVCollector
01/01/2011 10:52 pm
|
|
Valued Member
 Canada
367 Posts |
Is that one worth anything?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Yes, the Snow-2 is also well-known, some consider it an overdate, and it's sold for a premium. It's actually possible to find one too.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2757 Posts |
1888 Snow-1: From Rick Snow's attribution guide: "Die stage A: No Cud at 9:00. Die stage B: A large rim Cud into the denticles at 9:00 ..." |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2757 Posts |
And just to be clear, no, I don't think this is the actual overdate, just some PMD in the date region. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:From Rick Snow's attribution guide: "Die stage A: No Cud at 9:00. Die stage B: A large rim Cud into the denticles at 9:00 ..." Yeah...but die stage A must have been brief (I didn't BS you about what Rick Snow told me). To the point, I want to see an example...anywhere. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2757 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2757 Posts |
Here's one with a really really really tiny Cud, http://coins.ha.com/common/view_ima...nly.php?img=http://images.ha.com/lf%3Fsource=url[file:images/inetpub/newnames/300/4/8/6/6/4866304.jpg"]%2Ccontinueonerror[true]&source=url[file:images/inetpub/webuse/no_image_available.gif]%2Cif[(%27global.source.error%27)]&sink=preservemd[true] It's easy to see how this would be completely obscured in a lower grade. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:
It's easy to see how this would be completely obscured in a lower grade. I took a look at the G6 example, and since the denticles are worn off at 9:00, I'm not sure I can confirm or deny a rim Cud from the pics. Robbudo, thanks for those links  If I find a higher-grade die state A, I'll post it to the forums. I just remembered something. I forget who wrote it, but it's speculated this die started deteriorating in 1887. The die was then redated for 1888 and was retired due to the rim Cud. This may explain why so few overdates exist. |
| |
Replies: 24 / Views: 4,827 |
First Page
Posted 01/01/2011 10:52 pm
