Beistle did not know this variety was an overdate. -- Walter Breen, 1955"Variety is NOT an overdate!" -- Stephen Herrman, 2014.With frosty surfaces, satiny luster, and a blush of deep gold toning setting devices off from brilliant fields, this piece exceeds every reasonable expectation for how beautiful a gem Bust half dollar should be. The reverse, ringed in blue and toned an overall gold, is as magnificent as the obverse, just as frosty but even bolder in cartwheel. The superlative eye appeal persists under a critical magnified eye, which finds some light abrasions on Libertys portrait, a single vertical hairline in the right obverse field, and an infinitesimal nick on the rim above star 4. The strike is excellent for the date, though not absolutely complete, with small flat areas inside the bottom two stars on each side and on A in STATES. A few planchet striations at the tip of the bust were not struck firmly enough to have been entirely obliterated, but the detail in that part of the device remains strong. No clash marks are evident, though the stars at the left side of the obverse are drawn to the rim and a light die crack is visible through the right two olive leaf clusters and the denomination.Perhaps no variety in this series has evoked as much back-and-forth commentary as the 1822 Overton-101. Neither J. Colvin Randall nor M.L. Beistle described the artifact seen at the base of the second 2 in the date as an overdate, nor did any other writer before 1955, so far as we can tell. In his 1988 Encyclopedia, Walter Breen claimed credit for being the first to describe it as an overdate, referencing his description in the March-April 1955 issue of Numisma, published by the New Netherlands Coin Company. He noted in the Encyclopedia, apropos to a large but unclear enlargement of the date area, that "overdate is never much plainer than on ill[ustration]." His attribution of this variety as an overdate remained unquestioned, at least in print, for years. It remains described as an overdate in the Guide Book to the present day, and PCGS and NGC both continue to use the traditional attribution. In our 1997 Eliasberg catalog, the questions about this variety were discussed. "Historically, this variety has been attributed as an 1822/1 overdate," the note read, but "more recent opinion by many specialists is that this irregularity is from a damaged date punch and not an actual overdate." David Akers, writing in the Pittman catalog of 1998, diplomatically called the overdate "highly questionable." Well-regarded Capped Bust half dollar specialist Stephen Herrman, the compiler and publisher of Auction and Mail Bid Prices Realized for Bust Half Dollars 1794-1839, usually abbreviated as AMBPR, has included a less diplomatic note beneath his listings for 1822 Overton-101 in recent editions: "Variety is NOT an overdate!". While there is clearly something lurking within the base of the second 2 of the date, most students of the series now agree that it is not a partially effaced underdigit.This prize from the Pittman and Pogue collections has been previously offered at auction just once since 1947. It is the only PCGS-certified specimen of this variety graded MS-65 or higher to ever be offered at auction. Standing alone atop the PCGS Population Report as the only MS-66 from these dies, it is followed by just a single MS-65. Beyond its technical excellence, its surfaces and toning showcase the ancient originality that has become associated with the John Jay Pittman provenance. Pittman paid $3.60 for this coin in 1947.
