DRAFT

Mystery of the Ultra Rare 1873 Doubled Shield Dime

By

Michael S. Fey

Figure 1. 1873 Doubled Shield Obverse Dime

This well publicized variety was discovered by Kamal Awash and listed as Awash 7.  Walter Breen listed this variety in his Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins ( 1988) as Breen-3368 “Ex. Rare.  Doubling is plainest on shield; die lapped and repolished to efface other evidence”.  

In his Complete Guide to Liberty Seated Dimes, Brian Greer (1992) lists this variety as #101, and indicates “Presently extremely rare with less than 10 specimens reported”.   He has the nicest detailed picture of the doubled shield that I’ve ever seen.   In Issue #50 of the Gobrecht Journal in March, 1991 Greer mentioned that both XF specimens that he has seen showed light rim cudding above Ms. Liberty’s head.

The third edition of the Cherrypickers’ Guide to Rare Die Varieties (1993) lists this variety as FS#10-003.5.  However, to my surprise, no specimens were listed in the October 2004 ANACS Population Report in any grade, none listed by NGC in their March, 2005 report, and none listed in the PCGS Population report in January, 2005.  

In 1995, Volume 4 of the Gobrecht Journal Gerry Fortin reported from the Liberty Seated Dime Variety Survey that only 7 examples of the 1873 WA GR-101 Doubled die Obverse were in LSCC collections: 1-AG, 1-F, 2-VF, 2-EF with none higher, although I’ve heard of the existence of a AU55 and Mint State specimen, but these are not yet confirmed. 

In the Gobrecht Journal (March, 1998) Volume 24, issue #71, John McCloskey reported that noted repunched date collector Marv Erickson discovered an extra “3” in the denticle centered below the “73” in the date.  He wrote “It never hurts to take another look at the coins you already own, you might be surprised at what you find.”

In Two Dates are Better than One, Kevin Flynn (1997) speculated that the doubling resulted from a working die being rotated from a pivot point at 2 o’clock and receiving only a partial hubbing in which center design elements were transferred into the die.   Using transparent overlays of an 1873 “with arrows open 3” dime, I was able to confirm Flynn’s pivot point speculation.   However, I am still somewhat puzzled that we don’t see design elements elsewhere, particularly in the field around the central portrait elements.

Perhaps the Mint Act of February 12, 1873 had something to do with the doubled shield.  The Act required the new dime, during this transition period, to be 2.5 grams in weight, a slight increase from the 2.49 grams required in earlier issues.  The 1873 dimes come with both “no arrows; open 3” and “with arrows; open 3”, the latter to indicate the increase in weight.  Could this variety have somehow resulted from an attempt by the mint to expediently produce the “with arrows” dime?

The older 1873 “no arrows; closed 3” had a mintage 1.508 million compared to a reported 60,000 for the relatively rarer “no arrows; closed 3”.   Surely in 1873, the mint engravers were faced with the problem of having to create new dies and/or to add arrows to the higher weight dimes.   They could do so expediently by creating right and left arrows and punching these into leftover 1873 “no arrows; open 3” dies.   They could also create a gang punch of the date and/or date with arrows.   Perhaps on one trial attempt, they impressed a new hub directly onto an older hub  to see how it might look.  The design elements may have lined up almost perfectly (like the 16 different so-called Morgan dollar 7/8 TF varieties which were yet to be born), such that only some design elements, (i.e., the doubled shield) peeked through.

I tested this hypothesis by developing a transparent overlay of the 1873 “no arrows; open 3”, and the 1873 “with arrow open 3”.  But, my overlay didn’t prove fruitful in explaining the strongly doubled shield.  All the elements of the central design lined up perfectly.   If the two designs were slightly different with respect to shield position, imparting a perfect register of the central seated liberty design upon itself would account for the doubled shield.  However, the central design, less the date and legend did line up in essentially the same position.

Gerry Fortin (2004) in his opus The Definitive Resource for Liberty Seated Dime Variety Collectors, the Liberty Seated Dime Varieties Web-Book defines the 1873 “with arrows open 3” as Fortin-103, obverse 3, reverse C’ doubled die obverse, medium level date, misplaced 3 in denticles.   From Fortin’s study reference, a case can be made that U.S. Mint die sinkers simply annealed the old dies and just punched a right arrow, a left arrow, and single digit dates into each obverse die.  Several Fortin varieties are attributed as “left arrow points down (F-116 and F-122)”; “18 touch (F-101)”; “1 repunched (F-104)”; “3 repunched (F-106 and 107)”; “Arrows close to date (F-123)”.   Although it may have made more sense to make a single gang punch with arrows, this doesn’t appear to be the case on several varieties.  The possibility exists that the die sinker may have used both a gang punch and individual punches and arrows, but the evidence points to the latter. 

The choice XF coin I recently acquired from liberty seated dealer Ron Fuer through E-Bay matches the photo in the March 1998 Gobrecht Journal (same die scratches around the 3 of the date), a photo which was apparently taken by Bill Bugert in 1990.  So John, I am reporting on the very same coin illustrated in the Journal in 1998 and taking yet another look at it.

I would like to note that there is a nice rim cud directly over Ms. Liberty’s head which extends to above the “O” in OF (Figure 1).   This confirms Brian Greer comments earlier of “cudding” above Ms. Liberty’s head.  Could this have accounted for such a shortened life to this die, hence relatively few struck?  I don’t see any other evidence of die cracks, breaks or other die crumbling on my coin that would explain a shortened die life.

I am still perplexed as to how can there be such a strongly doubled shield to the east on this variety without seeing doubling anywhere else on the central design of Ms. Liberty.  Perhaps the rehubbing trial of a working die was in such perfect alignment, and with sufficient strength and depth to obliterate any signs of doubling other than in and around the shield.

Why are there several diagonal parallel lines in the underlying shield (Figure 2) to the right of the dominant shield?   Was there yet another underlying shield punched diagonally to the underlying shield, thus making this a triple punched shield or is this just evidence of gross die polishing as Breen had mentioned earlier?   We may never know, but it would appear that some gross effacing took place.  In any event, the mint worker at the time did not really try to overly polish the doubling of the shield as we would see less evidence of it if he did.  Rather, it was likely more important for him to save time and money by tolerating the doubled design.

 Figure 2. Close-up of the 1873 Doubled Shield Feature

What we do know is that this variety is very rare, and this particular doubling is unique to all of Seated Coinage.  It is also quite dramatic in appearance.  It’s about as rare as an 1874 CC dime yet costs only a small fraction of the price in a comparable grade.  The 1873 with arrows doubled shield dime still remains a mystery to me although it took me on a long journey or researching what was known about it.   If any other seated collectors can help me better understand how this variety was produced and why the obverse die might have been retired early, please feel free to share your comments in the next Gobrecht Journal, in the LSCC The E-Gobrecht, or direct to me via E-mail at Feyms@aol.com

MSF  9/2/05