25th

This is my 25th Letter as President
Chris Pilliod

When it comes to discoveries or new finds, there is what we would like things to be and there is also what it really is. This subject seems to really get everyone’s dander up. Especially when it comes to overdate analysis because everybody loves these things. So it is easy to get caught up in the hype, especially if you are the discoverer. You know, we all want something to be what we want it to be, regardless of what it really is. A $25 find can be worth $10,000 if it is what we really want it to be. And the 1888/7 Snow-1 seems to enjoy the most attention and controversy, with many advanced numismatists questioning its status as a true overdate. Not only is this variety highly sought after, it is also exceptionally rare. 1888 is one of my favorite dates and while I have found multiples of many interesting repunched dates as well as great MPD’s for this year, in over 25 years of searching I have found just a single G4 example unattributed, lying in a dusty dealer’s junkbox in Detroit. So let’s talk about this variety.

One thing I have learned as an engineer is how important (and how difficult) it is to be objective and impartial. A keen third party scientific analysis with no bias is always a must. And maybe in this case I qualify. That’s because I am not the discoverer, nor do I currently own one. My collection is XF or higher only (except for cuds), and I have never been able to conjure up the funds for a high-grade example, and the single low-grade example I ever found in a dealer’s junk box I sold for $100 years ago (by the way, for you Michigan members, it was in your state where I found it). So I have no personal stake in what this variety really is, only a thirst to fully understand it. And in addition to this lack of bias, being a metallurgist does add a trifle to any opinion rendered on the subject, I humbly imagine. So let’s take a gander.

My grandpa always used to say, “sometimes it’s easier to get the horse in the barn through the back door”. That might be an appropriate scientific thought process in this case. We all agree that any and all analysis of the 1888 Snow-1 variety leads to at least one unanimous conclusion. That is, it is definitely something in the die. Numerous examples have been discovered and they all show the identical features as shown in the photograph of this VF20 example.

Now maybe the next logical step might be what engineers call an Ishakawa or “fishbone”, a list of all possible causes. That won’t take long, as it’s a coin, not global warming. Then we can discuss the merits of each potential suspect and weigh their attributes accordingly.

OK, let’s start a laundry list-- and if I am missing anything on the list below, hey, we can always add to the discussion:

1. It’s a repunched date, an 1888/8.
2. Actually it’s a die chip.
3. Or maybe a die crack, or corrosion or pitting on the die.
4. Perhaps the date engraver got sloppy with the die punch and it’s really a mis-placed digit or an upside down something, like the 1858 Half Dime with an upside-down date.
5. Another guy at the mint went and put a die gouge in the die, right at the bottom of the last “8”.
6. It’s a polishing mark in the die.
7. It’s a clash mark.
8. It’s an overdate, 1888/7, just like we’ve always said.

Now, let’s just go down the list. A repunched date. Overlays repeatedly done on the feature show absolutely no match between the shape of the feature and the actual shape of the last “8”. So a repunched date has no chance.

A die chip. This theory has a lot of promise, as Indian cent dies notoriously form little chips on the features of the die, especially on the obverse. The 1890’s are most prone to exhibit this defect, and 1888 is close to this time frame. So this fits. In addition, this feature is of the approximate proper size and shape often seen on chips. And if it is a chip and formed late in the die’s life, this would explain the variety’s rarity.

On the other hand, if it is a chip what explains the features seen inside the “8” and above and to the left of the “8”. These are not die chips as they show none of the metallurgical fracture features and are not emanating or attached to the “8”. In addition, die chips are rarely (if ever) seen on the digits of the date. They are almost always seen on the feathers, so this would indeed be very unusual. But the most persuading feature in my mind is the shape and topography of the base of the feature. High magnification visual work I have done shows no evidence of a fracture surface nor does it show any corrosion or pitting, but is clearly a mechanical perturbation on the die—that is, the localized area of the die was moved or worked into its position. Therefore, I am convinced it is not a die chip. And for the exact same reason, there is no way it is a die crack.

So now we are on to a misplaced digit or an upside-down digit. Well, this might fit since we have confirmed by its character that it is a mechanical feature added to the die. We already know it is not an “8”, so this means if it is a misplaced digit it would have to be a “1”. I tried like heck to get a “1” to align with any of its shapes, but came up empty handed… sorry, not an MPD or an upside-down date.

OK, if it is a mechanical blemish on the die, then it could be a die gouge, right? Absolutely, so let’s talk about this. Die gouges are very common on Indian cents… we find them on the eye of Miss Liberty, in the feathers, on the reverse as well. We rarely see them near the date, so this is a strike against this theory already. In addition the tip of the gouge tends to be a sharp point, much like the tool the die engraver is using. While this in and of itself is not a show-stopper, the fact that the gouge stops and starts within the upper loop of the “8” and shows an angle within the last “8” virtually eliminates this theory. No die gouge I have ever seen on an Indian cent shows an angle like this. Therefore, I am eliminating any die gouge or polishing line off my list of suspects.

A die clash. Well, OK, yes this would cause mechanical movement of the die surface. But this theory quickly breaks down as it would be the shield from the reverse clashing the date area and the features on the 1888/7 Snow-1 show none of this. In addition any clashed features would show incuse on the obverse die, none of the features on the Snow-1 are incuse. No way it is a clashed die.

OK members, let me know if I missed any suspect, because if not we now got the horse in the barn. That’s because we are now down to what I believe this variety truly is—a genuine overdate. I also use a little bit of anecdotal evidence in its favor. That is, just the year before in 1887 the Mint had a heyday producing overdates. There is an 1887 3-cent nickel that clearly shows a 7/6 underdigit. In addition both Philadelphia and New Orleans produced 1887/6 Morgan Dollars. So just one year before 1888 it was accepted procedure to produce overdates by re-tooling leftover dies. Surely this thinking did not cease in 1888. I do believe both this variety and the Die#2 1888/7 are truly overdates.

Now the search is on for 1887 and 1889 overdates—is one out there? It wouldn’t surprise me.

Fly-In Club Editor
Frank Leone
P.O. Box 170
Glen Oaks, NY 11004 email: flrc@aol.com

If you would like to share any thoughts, my email address is: cpilliod@msn.com