Why not complete a CAC set of these undervalued, small mintage, dramatic varieties? Feel free to add to this list but do not include minor doubled dies like 1944 quarters.
2C 1871 Proof
10C 1942/1 (a doubled die, not a real overdate)
S$1 1844
G$1 1889
$2.50 1891
Comments
Including 1866 through 1873 DDR, same reverse die was used on each year.
I might be wrong but I am pretty sure, so double check me and let me know.
I used to own a beautiful 1866 MS and 1868 proof. I sure miss those two coins, should never had sold them!
"10C 1942/1 (a doubled die, not a real overdate)"
Please explain. Thanks in advance.
Ditto for the 1942/1-D although a different die pair was used.
Please take more time to explain what you posted as I don't understand the process you have described. Two working hubs made one working die? What came first? What were the steps involved and in what order to end up with a single 1942/1 die?
Apparently you believe a 1941 die made from a 1941 hub was ANNEALED and then impressed by a 1942 working hub? Or, did the reverse happen?
Thanks in advance! I'm sure I'm not the only one here who had no clue to this.
If have you have ever been a retailer, you know that the 1942/1 is among the most popular coins on the planet. But the 1942/1-D is a tough sell, obviously because it is not nearly as dramatic.
Actually, in his book, Lange has quoted information from the MINT about how THEY BELIEVE the 42/1 dime could happen. The rest of your post (I deleted it here) has nothing to do with how the overdate was made but thanks for the effort.
I believe CACfan was saying that "true" overdates only happen when the date punches were used for each individual dies, and the date punch was offset on the second or third blow. I believe his stance is that since the date was on the hub, it's a doubled die, not an overdate.
Until last week, I had no idea that the existing theory was that the hub for that coin was struck with a hub of a different date. I'll accept that for now but It seems strange to me this could happen.