Help w/ CWT -- "Dix" attribution

[bobh]

According to the descriptions in the Rulau book on p. 548, this should be die #410. However, since there are no images depicted for dies 409 and 410, I can't be sure:

 

410:

outer circle (Yes);

S of "SHOOT" below A of "ATTEMPT";

T of "SPOT" between I & T of "IT";

H of "HIM" between S of "ATTEMPTS" and T of "TO".

 

 

Does this sound right? Thanks...

[thedeadpoint]

Oh wow. What's on the other side?

[bobh]

Oh wow. What's on the other side?

 

Looks like die #207 to me, but I'm not 100% sure about it:

 

[constanius]

Looks like die #207 to me, but I'm not 100% sure about it:

Looks like #207 to me too. Quite difficult to identify the diferent variant images with the Table IX* of 'Key' points as the images are none too clear.

[bobh]

What about the other side -- is it #410?

 

Maybe someone knows a link to a site with better pictures for reference?

[constanius]

I agree with 410, here are links showing enlargeable photos

 

http://cwt.michigano.org/Civil_War_Patriotic_Token_Die_List_15.htm

http://cwt.michigano.org/Civil_War_Patriotic_Token_Die_List_30.htm

[bobh]

I agree with 410, here are links showing enlargeable photos

 

http://cwt.michigano.org/Civil_War_Patriotic_Token_Die_List_15.htm

http://cwt.michigano.org/Civil_War_Patriotic_Token_Die_List_30.htm

Excellent ... thank you very much, this kind of info is exactly what I was hoping for!

[bobh]

Here's another puzzle. This appears to be die #87, but there is no "H" between the date and the bust:

 

 

Link to http://cwt.michigano.org/Civil_War_Patriotic_Token_Die_List_7.htm

 

Comparing it with the "deficient quality" images at -1- and -2-, which like mine are very weakly struck, I tend to think that it just didn't strike up properly at the "H". But perhaps it is a variety? The "H" is entirely visible on the other images inspite of the date being weakly struck. Or was it merely the result of a filled die?

 

Here is the image at -2-:

 

[constanius]

It does appear to be #87, it cannot be any of the other dies shown, that is for sure. Seeing that parts of the 8 & 3 are filled on your example, it could be the H was completely filled & any sign of it has rubbed away. The only things I can think of is that the H was added to the die after your token was struck, or that it is an unlisted variety, mind yours does appear to be struck on a smaller planchet(see the different spaces between date & edge) or is that just because your token is picture at a different angle?

[bobh]

It does appear to be #87, it cannot be any of the other dies shown, that is for sure. Seeing that parts of the 8 & 3 are filled on your example, it could be the H was completely filled & any sign of it has rubbed away. The only things I can think of is that the H was added to the die after your token was struck, or that it is an unlisted variety, mind yours does appear to be struck on a smaller planchet(see the different spaces between date & edge) or is that just because your token is picture at a different angle?

It does look like a smaller planchet -- unfortunately, this is in the bank at the moment with the rest of my collection, so I will have to make a note to measure it soon.

 

That would be cool if it is a new undiscovered variety! All we would need is to have a few more specimens...