Crazy 1881H Legend...

Bill in Burl
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:41 am
Location: Golden Horseshoe, ONT

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by Bill in Burl » Sat Oct 09, 2010 9:32 am

As I remember, these posts took place early on when you were trying to say that a SIGLE 1882 working die was a 4/2, 4/1, 2/1 or some other combination. When you were shown other examples of a later die state (die cracks showing up in addition to the dots in the E's and other chips), you continued about your "resinking" story. We both disagreed and, at that time, I sloughed it off as a Obv 2 that had gotten the dimple at the throat/chin smoothed out because the coins I was finding were less than VF-20's. Once I (and others) found higher grade examples, we could see that it was not die wear.

Also since we were finding the other markers on different obverse coins, research/study dictated that the markers were from further up the coinage hierarchy and not at the working die level. Since we knew how the 1/1a's came about, it made sense that this was attributable the same way. Further study of numerous coins showed that to be true.

You are completely taking out of context (not the first time) what Rob said in your quote above. He was referring to a SPECIFIC Obv 2/1 die that has large-offset doubling. He did not mean ALL the 2/1's ... just that die and you will find it on p314 of the new Charlton's and priced, accordingly, as Very Scarce. The variety that you had been harping about, a regular 2/1, is on p313 and also priced accordingly at about 1/20 the price of the scarce one that Rob mentioned in your quote above.

We should call an end to all this banter. You are not going to convince me about your thoery and the top 3 Victoria large cent variety experts are not going to convince you. Just let the readers decide who is right. You should stick to counting Ebay auction titles and recording the data.
Bill in Burl

Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by bosox » Sat Oct 09, 2010 9:13 pm

Mr. Blais, I would like to recap. You posted some of your opinions about re-sunk dies. I posted that I disagreed with your opinions and gave my reasons. We debated some points back and forth through several posts. A few of my points were tinged with some sarcasm and if that offended you, I apologize.

I then posted that we should just agree to disagree. You chose to continue the argument and press your points. I then posted that I thought we were at impasse and had no interest in continuing the debate.

At this point you chose to raise things to a personal level and accuse me of both stalking you and saying things I did not say. I’ll reiterate that the stalking allegation is ridiculous.

I then asked you to show me where I said 2 over 1 cents do not exist. You could not find such a post, because I never made one. I did not make such a statement because at the time of the CCRS discussions about your coin, I had two cents that I thought were 2 over 1 cents. I was pretty certain they did exist.

You instead present one of my posts where I don’t agree a specific coin, an entirely different coin than yours, is a 2 over 1. The post you dredged up was about one particular coin, not about the general existence of 2 over 1 cents and I suspect you knew that. It was also made nearly two months after the discussions on your coin. In my post I called my coin a DDO (double die obverse) and an obverse 2. The post on 9/26/08 again referred to a photograph of my same coin and I again expressed an opinion that it was an obverse 2. You chose to present two out of context posts about one specific coin because you could not find one where I said 2 over 1 cents do not exist.

Ironically it turns out in the end that I was wrong on that particular coin. Randy Ash later e-mailed me suggesting it was a 2 over 1 and we exchanged ideas about why (or why not) it might be a 2 over 1 cent. Later, as I got further into my research on die markers for Dies & Diadems, I came around to agreeing with him. My coin is featured in Dies and Diadems with full credit to Mr. Ash for his suggestion on the coin. By the way, it appears from your previous posts you think a DDO and a 2 over 1 cent are mutually exclusive concepts. They are not. This coin is both.

Understanding how die markers propagate through the minting hierarchy of matrices, punches, and dies provides a powerful tool for understating what a coin is, or is not. That is what the contents of Dies and Diadems are all about. For example, as recently as September 3 you expressed an opinion that your coin was a 2/1/1a because of the tool mark on the upper right serif on the N in REGINA. It may interest you to know that this mark appears on some of the obverse 1 punches, some of the obverse 1a punches, as well as some of the obverse 2 punches. The fact that you saw such a mark on a 1a cent is conclusive of nothing regarding the coin you posted upon. Your comments over time lead me to believe that you have no idea what you have. I recall that you have at various points called it a 4/2, 2/1, 2/1a, and 2/1/1a.

I suspect that your first inclination is to cut and paste each of my points into your response, add your counterpoint to each, and continue the debate. I will say again (for the third time I think) I would rather that we agree to disagree on your re-sunk die theory, let the debate lay, and let the readers decide for themselves what they wish to think about your theory.

Rob Turner

Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:57 pm
Location: California

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by mkb » Sat Oct 09, 2010 9:50 pm


Now you (and others?) want to take credit for my efforts? I had more than one coin and it was good enough. The coin Rob posted on 3/9/2008 was more than clear enough for you and Rob to see that this coin was a 2/1 or 2/1a. Yet, from your posts, its crystal clear that both you and Rob called it an Obverse 2 and only a 2. There is no other conclusion to make on this. You cannot change this fact. However, at some point, both of you have changed your viewpoint, and now seem to want place credit for this discovery with yourselves or your group. The Dot in E was also my find, which confirmed that this coin was in fact a 2/1, and which could be found on many Obverse 2 coins. You responded with an elaborate and incorrect theory that they all came from a single die. Yet now it seems you are suggesting that your single die theory, was in fact my theory? On this incorrect theory of yours, Rob concurred with you at the time (nearly 3 years ago) and concluded that the reason there were so many coins like this is because of a coincidental miracle die – despite the exceptionally high odds of such a die even existing in the first place, and of the extremely high odds of such an imaginary die happening to exist at the specific point time needed for it to be the die in question. That was his only contribution to the discussion at the time.

From the time I first posed the question on this coin (on 12/7/2007) to the time I concluded it was a 2/1 (on 1/13/2008), just five weeks elapsed. Your top 3 Victorian 1 Cent collectors, despite all the years of collecting these coins between all of you and despite all the coins you have between yourselves, were unable to do so. And I spend less than 5% of my time on these coins.

Below are some of my comments on this coin, and some of your replies.

Re: Resunk Dies

Regarding this 2/4 - after more thought on the matter and how an incuse image is affected upon being resunk, what would work is if this obverse is a 2/1. The stronger feature of the 2 would override the weaker feature of the 1 at the bottom of the bust and at the top of the crown where the crown merges into one of the beads in the ring of beads surrounding the portrait. But, the stronger bottom of the chin of an Obverse 1 would be left intact. That's why the characteristic dimple of an Obverse 2 is missing. Since resinking dies was a common practice and since Obverse 1's have been resunk with 1a's, then its reasonable to conclude that this obverse is the result of a 2 resunk onto a 1. That explains the anomalies between a 2 and this obverse as well as a 1 and this obverse. Whew.... Hopefully more folks will check their coins and more will be found to confirm this.

mkblais, 1/13/2008

Re: Obv 2/1 - Proof

Here's some more images - the 2/1 with a 2 and 1 one overlaid.

mkblais, 1/13/2008 ... 9574&t=jpg

Re: Obv 2/1 - Proof

As with the last time this was discussed, I really don't see this as an Obverse 2 over anything. Can you send again the coin that you have in hand showing the truncation, crown tip, and throat/chin? A worn coin in the 1882 series loses the definition needed... maybe start a new thread?

Bill in Burl, 1/13/2008

1882 1c 2/1 Proof

Here are some additional images confirming the presence of both elements of an Obv.1 and an Obv.2 on an the same 1882 1c coin. I will repost the other proof listed yesterday.

mkblais, 1/13/2008 ... 9610&t=jpg

Re: 1882 1c 2/1 Proof

I have 3 worn coins that are similar to yours and 2 that are VF-20 or better. We will leave this discussion open for a while. Dan Flynn (Dan in Crystal Lake) will be here at the end of the month and he has done almost as much study into the 1881's and 2 that I have. We will toss around a few ideas and see what we come up with because there is something else that has always bothered me about the 1882's as far as the crown tip/bead goes and I may have a coin or two now that answer it. You question about the dimple and more/less metal confuses me. The die that would put the incuse dimple in the coin would have more metal on the die when it was new. If it broke or wore off the relief part of the die would get less and less and join the outline of the throat area. As the face of the die wears, the depth of the design gets shallower and shallower and loses definition. My opinion still stands that there is no Obv 2/1, because it would be evident especially at the crown tip and I've never seen that. I'll hold off til Dan gets here to post these coins .. suffice to say you don't have the only one.

Bill in Burl, 1/14/2008
Last edited by mkb on Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:37 am, edited 6 times in total.

Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:57 pm
Location: California

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by mkb » Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:12 pm


You are thoroughly confused on a number of things here. I don’t have time to get into everthing you have accused me of, and its tiring. Perhaps this needs to be addressed as a Civil case? But I will limit this to two things here. First, you confused a posting that was directed specifically at Bill, as directed at you. You should see it is addressed to Bill. I have no idea as to how you came to the conclusion it was directed at you. The other, you invented a question that had little to do with what I said, and asked that I answer it. I could not as it had little to with what I said or with what happened. I did however clarify what I said in the hope you would better understand what I meant. Apparently, you missed that too. If you believed that you had a 2/1 when the discussion was originally made nearly three years ago on this coin, you should have come forward then. Making a claim well after the fact does not mean much.
Last edited by mkb on Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by bosox » Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:33 pm

You're right Mr. Blais. It is tiring. Have a nice day.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:08 am

Re: Crazy 1881H Legend...

Post by Lightw4re » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:02 am

I really appreciated this conversation and you explained your opinions kindly, excluding your personnal conflicts.

I agree with the fact that readers will make their own hypothesis. (Yes, there's readers here with more than 2000 views of this thread)

There was no racist, sexual, over-offensive or abusive posts, but de debate isn't on the error anymore, but on the credibility of people. And that's why I'll close this thread for a while.