Worth grading? 1 in the Neck 1 1

[Kurisu]

Opened a fairly epic vintage coin roll, this was one of the great finds inside!

I've never had or found of these before. It's clear as day, there's a "1", in her neck!

I had to look it up and found it listed on that other coin guide site and mentioned in a few other places...couldn't find it on NGC though.

I think I'd like to add it to the "get graded" pile...but if it's not listed on NGC should I send it to that other place?

 

[Greenstang]

Even though that Is a nice find, I don't think that because of the condition that it is not worth getting graded. Unless a coin is worth at least $150.00, it is not worth the cost of grading. There are some Snow1 IH on eBay in better condition for about $75.00. I believe they have to grade at least EF40 or better to warrant getting graded. Still worthy of putting in a 2x2 as a keeper though.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Greenstang
Correct typo

[VKurtB]

In any case, it’s not a “1“ in the neck, it simply is not.

[Moxie15]

6 hours ago, VKurtB said:

In any case, it’s not a “1“ in the neck, it simply is not.

is there some markers that show it is not?

[VKurtB]

Numerals aren’t just floating around to land somewhere. Especially not on the edge of a device in the design. Besides, the length from what would be the two serifs is significantly too short. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by VKurtB

[Greenstang]

I respect your numismatic knowledge VKurtB,  but in this case I believe this is a genuine 1 in Neck Snow-1 Variety.  It is only the tip of the 1 that shows, the bottom "serif" is a bead on the necklace so you can't compare length as there is nothing to compare it to. Also a Snow-1 Variety is recognised by PCGS who have stated the following on their website,

Quote

The 1897 "1 in Neck" variety is one of a surprisingly large number of what are known as Mis-Placed Dates (or MPDs), coins where portions of the date are visible in unusual areas. These where caused when the engraver dropped the date logotype accidentally onto a die face, impressing portions of the date into the die.

I have also posted the following comparison picture showing the OP coin and a Genuine1 in Neck. Except for the amount of wear, they look the same to me..

Edited June 14, 2020 by Greenstang
Correct typo

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, Greenstang said:

I respect your numismatic knowledge VKurtB,  but in this case I believe this is a genuine 1 in Neck Snow-1 Variety.  It is only the tip of the 1 that shows, the bottom "serif" is a bead on the necklace so you can't compare length as there is nothing to compare it to. Also a Snow-1 Variety is recognised by PCGS who have stated the following on their website,

I have also posted the following comparison picture showing the OP coin and a Genuine1 in Neck. Except for the amount of wear, they look the same to me..

I dissent. It’s BS. Measure the minimum distance in the “real” 1 and it’s far larger than at the neck. 

[kbbpll]

It's also attributed here (https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/cents/indian-cents-1859-1909/815485/) as FS-401, excellent images here and ATS. I don't see any doubt that @Kurisu has the same variety. I can't figure out which part of the "1" it's supposed to be though. The real 1 is squared off at the upper left serif and the MPD points upward at almost 45 degrees.

[Thompson2]

What are the odds they call it a “1 in the neck” because that’s just what it looks like and not what it actually is?  Wouldn’t be the first time something was called something misleading *cough* close AM *cough*

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Thompson2 said:

What are the odds they call it a “1 in the neck” because that’s just what it looks like and not what it actually is?  Wouldn’t be the first time something was called something misleading *cough* close AM *cough*

I have a Hall’s for you for that nasty cough (says the guy who grew up smelling distance from the Luden’s cough drop plant.)

Edited June 14, 2020 by VKurtB

[kbbpll]

OK, now I think it might be the lower left serif of a 1, not the top left. I was fooled into thinking the neck line is the left side of a 1, and the necklace bead adds to the illusion.

[KarenHolcomb]

Well, just to get my 2Cents worth in on this thread....let me just present a FB post by the mighty Ken Potter, whom I do hold in high esteem. I did not look this one up but being a WV gal I couldn't forget seeing it in his Group, and he does offer an explanation as to how it happened. Idk that it pertains to this particular IHC but it does show that numbers and so I'm sure also letters can just be floating around in the air somewhere. 

PS, lymi @VKurtB

[Just Bob]

1 hour ago, kbbpll said:

OK, now I think it might be the lower left serif of a 1, not the top left. I was fooled into thinking the neck line is the left side of a 1, and the necklace bead adds to the illusion.

If it is, in fact, a "1" that was the result of the date punch being dropped on the die, then it almost has to be the lower serif. It is the wrong shape to be the top arm of the "1."

[Greenstang]

Karen

That article refers to a Dropped Letter which shows up incuse on a coin, a MPD shows as raised on a coin, which is what the IH shows.

[VKurtB]

Yup, dropped letters are incuse. I am having a very difficult time trying to figure out how a part of a 1 gets on the edge of a coin’s device like that so that most of it is within the device, but part of it gets on the field, which is the HIGHEST PART of the die. 

[VKurtB]

It can’t be a hub artifact, so something intentional done to one obverse die seems the only way, given the depth (height on a coin) of the artifact. FWIW, I also dissent because it looks like the incorrect shape for both the top stroke of the 1 AND the incorrect shape for the lower left serif, too. Close, but no cigar. I can appreciate why someone might use the shorthand description, though.

Edited June 15, 2020 by VKurtB

[Thompson2]

It certainly can't be a dropped letter since the odds of 2 (or likely more since this seems to be a recognized variant) is pretty much nil.  Chipped die maybe?  

[kbbpll]

5 hours ago, VKurtB said:

I am having a very difficult time trying to figure out how a part of a 1 gets on the edge of a coin’s device

I've read speculation that the MPDs that are in the denticles were from testing whether the die was soft enough (during annealing). Do a little punch where nobody will see it, kind of thing. Maybe they did this in the center of the die presuming that the hubbing of the portrait would wipe out the evidence. I'm not quite buying the accidentally dropped punch theory. Seated dimes seem to have a lot of MPDs kind of like this.

[EarlyUS.com]

On 6/13/2020 at 1:56 AM, Kurisu said:

Opened a fairly epic vintage coin roll, this was one of the great finds inside!

I've never had or found of these before. It's clear as day, there's a "1", in her neck!

I had to look it up and found it listed on that other coin guide site and mentioned in a few other places...couldn't find it on NGC though.

I think I'd like to add it to the "get graded" pile...but if it's not listed on NGC should I send it to that other place?

I think it's well worth "economy" grading!  It's the real deal and a very cool find!

[Conder101]

On 6/14/2020 at 10:23 AM, Greenstang said:

These where caused when the engraver dropped the date logotype accidentally onto a die face, impressing portions of the date into the die

Nice theory, but just dropping a punch onto a piece of even annealed tool steel is NOT going to create an impression that deep.  It was actually PUNCHED into the die blank pre-hubbing.  The only reason I could think for doing that would be to test to see if the blank had been sufficiently annealed.  But I don't know why you would do that so close to the center of the die face where traces might remain after hubbing.  Out at the edge of the die blank makes more sense since those portions would be cut away on the lathe after hubbing (and could be the source of numerals in the denticals).

The problem I have with the "Testing the hardness by punching digits near the edge" theory is that so far all the "Digits in denticals" have turned up right around the date area,  If these were punched into a blank die face, why were they always put into the hubbing press with the same relative orientation? (Of course they MAY be found in other locations and just no one has noticed them yet because people tend to look at coins right side up, and tend to focus on the date area.  I suspect that someday digits in the denticals will be found in other locations around the circumference.)

[kbbpll]

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

The problem I have with the "Testing the hardness by punching digits near the edge" theory is that so far all the "Digits in denticals" have turned up right around the date area

Weren't they punching the date separately from hubbing the rest of the design though? If they were "testing the hardness" I can see where it would be near the date. Since they were about to punch the date, the die would be oriented that way and they would test near their "work area". Just speculating.

The list of top 25 seated dime misplaced date varieties (http://www.seateddimevarieties.com/major_25_mpd_table.htm) shows most of them somewhere inside the seated Liberty, not the denticles. They weren't accidentally dropping punches that many times. It seems like a common practice during this era, for whatever reason.

[Moxie15]

I am sorry if I hijacked this thread with my question to @VkurtB but I am glad to see where it is going.

My thoughts...

If the hub steel was tested by punching a numeral into it to see if it was soft enough it would not be used to make a hub. This is a form of destructive testing and the hub blank (for lack of a better term at the moment) would be removed from production. Remember that first and foremost the mint is a production machine shop. As such there are rules and procedures for all things. Testing is not randomly done by punching the item. Testing is done by a specific tool that will give specific readings. 

To me the most likely explanation is a disgruntled employee attempting to cause harm out of spite. I will not attempt to address the employees thinking. If the item in liberty's neck is a one it is likely not the one from the date punch, but a foreign tool used by the employee just before hubbing. 

[DWLange]

I won't speculate as to the reason for a numeral being punched so far out of place, but it is a very real phenomenon that didn't end until the dates were applied to the master die starting 1909. NGC does attribute the variety in question:

https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/cents/indian-cents-1859-1909/815485/

[Conder101]

22 hours ago, kbbpll said:

Weren't they punching the date separately from hubbing the rest of the design though? If they were "testing the hardness" I can see where it would be near the date. Since they were about to punch the date, the die would be oriented that way and they would test near their "work area". Just speculating.

Would depend on whether the punch to date in before or after they turn down the diameter of the die face on the lathe.

 

22 hours ago, kbbpll said:

The list of top 25 seated dime misplaced date varieties (http://www.seateddimevarieties.com/major_25_mpd_table.htm) shows most of them somewhere inside the seated Liberty, not the denticles.

And that would make sense if they were using it to test hardness post annealing and pre-hubbing, because they would expect the hubbing to "erase" the test punching (But sometimes it didn't.)

 

18 hours ago, Moxie15 said:

Testing is not randomly done by punching the item. Testing is done by a specific tool that will give specific readings. 

In the 19th century??  And even in the latter half of the 19th century I doubt they wanted to discard a tool steel die blank.

[kbbpll]

19 hours ago, Moxie15 said:

If the item in liberty's neck is a one it is likely not the one from the date punch, but a foreign tool used by the employee just before hubbing. 

If my understanding is correct, in this era the working dies were hubbed to a dateless master hub and then each was punched with the date after hubbing. So, each working die was either annealed again prior to punching the date, or it was already "soft" right after hubbing the rest of the design. Mr. Lange doesn't want to speculate on it, but there are so many of them during this era, across other denominations, that I'm not buying the disgruntled employee scenario. I'm also not believing such precise work involved so many "accidentally" misplaced dates so far away from where they should be. So I have to speculate that it was a common practice, whatever the purpose was.

The "foreign tool" idea - David Poliquin speculates (http://www.indiancentvarieties.com/1897_variety017.html) that the "1" on the subject variety appears smaller because it's the 1 punch from a Barber dime. It's an interesting idea, although he thinks it's the upper left serif, and I think it's the lower left. Technically it could be an N or M or I  (not that I know whether they had separate punches for letters).

[Moxie15]

5 hours ago, Conder101 said:

Would depend on whether the punch to date in before or after they turn down the diameter of the die face on the lathe.

 

And that would make sense if they were using it to test hardness post annealing and pre-hubbing, because they would expect the hubbing to "erase" the test punching (But sometimes it didn't.)

 

In the 19th century??  And even in the latter half of the 19th century I doubt they wanted to discard a tool steel die blank.

Yes, in the 19th century. There would have been absolutely no legitimate reason to test hardness by randomly punching the die or hub.

Reasons:

1. The metal alloy was exact and known, it was known that if you subject it to a certain degree heat for a certain time it would give a specific hardness.

2. Testing  would most likely not be done on a piece of steel meant for production. Remember actually punching a number into the face of the working die is destructive, and very unscientific.  

3. The mint was a professional machine shop, not a backyard blacksmith shop. There were standards practices and procedures that were to be followed. 

I am sure that a large percentage of such varieties were purposely made by employees out of spite or humor or just plain boredom.  Even today with modern security, supervision, and security in just about any office or shop you will find someone working on a 'government job' or on facebook or coin forums. For many years I worked at a plant that repaired office phones and equipment, We had a control board from an AT&T System 85 that had a humorous and slightly anti company version of the beginning of Star Wars engraved into it at the rime of manufacture.

[VKurtB]

8 hours ago, kbbpll said:

If my understanding is correct, in this era the working dies were hubbed to a dateless master hub and then each was punched with the date after hubbing. So, each working die was either annealed again prior to punching the date, or it was already "soft" right after hubbing the rest of the design. Mr. Lange doesn't want to speculate on it, but there are so many of them during this era, across other denominations, that I'm not buying the disgruntled employee scenario. I'm also not believing such precise work involved so many "accidentally" misplaced dates so far away from where they should be. So I have to speculate that it was a common practice, whatever the purpose was.

The "foreign tool" idea - David Poliquin speculates (http://www.indiancentvarieties.com/1897_variety017.html) that the "1" on the subject variety appears smaller because it's the 1 punch from a Barber dime. It's an interesting idea, although he thinks it's the upper left serif, and I think it's the lower left. Technically it could be an N or M or I  (not that I know whether they had separate punches for letters).

Now a 1 from the dime, THAT I’d believe. That leaves “Why?”  I can’t imagine.

Edited June 17, 2020 by VKurtB

[Conder101]

18 hours ago, Moxie15 said:

1. The metal alloy was exact and known, it was known that if you subject it to a certain degree heat for a certain time it would give a specific hardness.

Knowledge of the alloy was better in the latter half of the 19th century but still wasn't precisely "known".  In the early 19th century composition was much more variable.  Then you have the problem that at the time they couldn't say what the exact degree of heat being applied was and could only be estimated by observing the color of the heated metal.

 

19 hours ago, Moxie15 said:

2. Testing  would most likely not be done on a piece of steel meant for production. Remember actually punching a number into the face of the working die is destructive, and very unscientific.

What would you use for testing?  Yes punching a number into a die blank is destructive but at the time it was probably the fastest and easiest for one of the craftsman engravers to judge the hardness of the blank, and if they believe the punch would be by the hubbing they wouldn't have considered it to be destructive.

 

19 hours ago, Moxie15 said:

3. The mint was a professional machine shop, not a backyard blacksmith shop. There were standards practices and procedures that were to be followed. 

So can you tell us what the standard practices and procedures were in the mint in the latter part of the 19th century?

[Moxie15]

17 hours ago, Conder101 said:

Knowledge of the alloy was better in the latter half of the 19th century but still wasn't precisely "known".  In the early 19th century composition was much more variable.  Then you have the problem that at the time they couldn't say what the exact degree of heat being applied was and could only be estimated by observing the color of the heated metal.

Maybe every impurity was not known but  it was known enough so there was no need of willy nilly half baked testing. As you allude If you know enough about the metal you are working with you can very accurately judge the temperature by the color. I will not accept that procedures were so back woods at the mint that random unscientific testing by punching numbers into die s that were ready for production was acceptable testing.

What would you use for testing?  Yes punching a number into a die blank is destructive but at the time it was probably the fastest and easiest for one of the craftsman engravers to judge the hardness of the blank, and if they believe the punch would be by the hubbing they wouldn't have considered it to be destructive.

This is the easiest to answer. One would use a piece of the exact steel being used from the same batch, treated in the same oven at the same time as the working pieces.

So can you tell us what the standard practices and procedures were in the mint in the latter part of the 19th century?

Can I tell you what the standards were? No, I cannot. But to think that there were not standards for a production shop producing millions of pieces a year is naive.

 

[kbbpll]

On 6/17/2020 at 5:12 AM, Moxie15 said:

I am sure that a large percentage of such varieties were purposely made by employees out of spite or humor or just plain boredom.

So I guess that's your alternative theory then. I guess it's possible. I consider it unlikely though. These were prized jobs. Many of these people stayed in these positions for decades. Barber ran a tight ship. Deliberately defacing dies out of spite, humor or boredom would get you canned, and Barber would have noticed. There must be a hundred or more of these MPD varieties during this era. Another theory?