| Author |
Message |
tabbMember
Posts: 35 Joined: 16 Jul 2004 Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:31 am |
|
|
Well I was browsing through the other day and noticed what Chuck had said about the 1958/7 variety that doesn't exist. (on the 1999 DDO thread.) I looked through Chuck's book, and he starts talking about it on page 182... and my question is this: Is this referring to Breen-2223? Because wouldn't ya know it, I have one in an attributed ANACS MS66 slab. (On consignment to sell for someone else).
I don't want to misrepresent if it is actually something its not, and intend to include a little blurb in the auction about it.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Bob PSite Admin
Posts: 3482 Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Location: Niceville, Florida
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:00 pm |
|
|
Tabb,
The supposed 1958/7 has been misrepresented for years now. At the time of it's discovery, and in many published articles since then, there was always the chance that this die was NOT an 8 over 7 as originally thought. However, because the uncertainty did exsist, it was given attribution numbers by many of the 'experts'. Over the years, it has indeed been disproven as an overdate. What Chuck calls it in his book (and correctly so) is master die doubling with some die gouges.
That has not stopped some die hards from still trying to sell them as overdates. Since yours is slabbed, then the value of that coin should be that it is an ANACS MS66 coin...not a Breen 2223 overdate. That is unfortunate, but even the grading companies can make a mistake based on the information they had at the time of the slabbing.-
_________________ Bob Piazza
Site Admin/Moderator
Attributer/Photographer
bobp@coppercoins.com
mustbebob1@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
 |
tabbMember
Posts: 35 Joined: 16 Jul 2004 Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:59 pm |
|
|
Thank you Bob...I just wanted to make sure that was the Breen # that the overdate was in reference too. (I don't have any reference materials for Breen #s).
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|