@CaptHenway said:
I must agree that when the Treasury received a coin that was too light in its eyes for redemption at full face value it should have just eaten the loss and issued a replacement coin.
By law, once the weight of a gold coin drops below its legal weight tolerance, it loses its legal tender status and is then valued as gold bullion which would be less than its face value. The subtreasury probably gave the owner of the lightweight coin the option of redeeming the coin for its bullion value or taking the coin back. Some were probably turned it in at a loss while others elected to keep the coin assuming that they could just spend it for its full face value.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
In 2021 I corresponded with PCGS to see if they would designate my 1851 $2.50 as counter-stamped rather than as genuine / damaged and included my rationale and copies of several articles.
I was told that "whether a coin receives a variety or Mint error designation is up to our graders to be determined. PCGS does not designate all varieties and wouldn't be able to designate a variety or error that we do not already recognize. All of our varieties that we designate can be found under our Pop Report https://www.pcgs.com/pop. In a case like this, I would recommend visiting a PCGS Authorized dealer so they may look into your specific coin and shed some light on this request. They can help sending you to the right direction for this special request."
I did submit my coin along with some others as my Collectors Club membership was expiring. At least the coin now has TrueViews and is better protected / preserved.
I think the efforts of a respected / quality numismatic researcher who is associated with a respected firm would be required to get these properly designated. Who could take up the mantle?
The problem with attributing these is the same one that has always existed with counterstamped coins. A single letter punch (or a longer counterstamp made up of single letters) can't be dated or attributed because the punches used are still available.
I have a couple vintage letter punch sets, as do many people. If you attach a premium to a vintage coin wirh a single letter stamped on it, the result will be predictable.
@JBK said:
The problem with attributing these is the same one that has always existed with counterstamped coins. A single letter punch (or a longer counterstamp made up of single letters) can't be dated or attributed because the punches used are still available.
I have a couple vintage letter punch sets, as do many people. If you attach a premium to a vintage coin wirh a single letter stamped on it, the result will be predictable.
Actually, there are two "L" letters with one on each side of the coin where the "L" on the reverse is at the same location and the same exact orientation as the obverse "L" except that it's a mirror image. I'm guessing that the NY Subtreasury used a device similar to a large pair of pliers where the "L" letters on each side of the pliers matched exactly to mark the light coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
@JBK said:
The problem with attributing these is the same one that has always existed with counterstamped coins. A single letter punch (or a longer counterstamp made up of single letters) can't be dated or attributed because the punches used are still available.
I have a couple vintage letter punch sets, as do many people. If you attach a premium to a vintage coin wirh a single letter stamped on it, the result will be predictable.
Actually, there are two "L" letters with one on each side of the coin where the "L" on the reverse is at the same location and the same exact orientation as the obverse "L" except that it's a mirror image. I'm guessing that the NY Subtreasury used a device similar to a large pair of pliers where the "L" letters on each side of the pliers matched exactly to mark the light coins.
On this example, perhaps, but on the other example on the other thread, it's just a single letter punch that was used.
As for the pliers theory, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I can see that the pressure is not the same on both letters. The obverse punch is fairly evenly and cleanly struck, while the strike on the reverse punch is uneven.
Also, the punches are not oriented the same, and I don't understand why a reversed letter was used on one side (reverse punches for die- or mold-making did and do exist). It could have been something they jerryrigged for the task, but unless the tool is located we'll likely never know for sure.
Comments
By law, once the weight of a gold coin drops below its legal weight tolerance, it loses its legal tender status and is then valued as gold bullion which would be less than its face value. The subtreasury probably gave the owner of the lightweight coin the option of redeeming the coin for its bullion value or taking the coin back. Some were probably turned it in at a loss while others elected to keep the coin assuming that they could just spend it for its full face value.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
In 2021 I corresponded with PCGS to see if they would designate my 1851 $2.50 as counter-stamped rather than as genuine / damaged and included my rationale and copies of several articles.
I was told that "whether a coin receives a variety or Mint error designation is up to our graders to be determined. PCGS does not designate all varieties and wouldn't be able to designate a variety or error that we do not already recognize. All of our varieties that we designate can be found under our Pop Report https://www.pcgs.com/pop. In a case like this, I would recommend visiting a PCGS Authorized dealer so they may look into your specific coin and shed some light on this request. They can help sending you to the right direction for this special request."
I did submit my coin along with some others as my Collectors Club membership was expiring. At least the coin now has TrueViews and is better protected / preserved.
I think the efforts of a respected / quality numismatic researcher who is associated with a respected firm would be required to get these properly designated. Who could take up the mantle?
Here are the photos...
He who knows he has enough is rich.
The problem with attributing these is the same one that has always existed with counterstamped coins. A single letter punch (or a longer counterstamp made up of single letters) can't be dated or attributed because the punches used are still available.
I have a couple vintage letter punch sets, as do many people. If you attach a premium to a vintage coin wirh a single letter stamped on it, the result will be predictable.
Actually, there are two "L" letters with one on each side of the coin where the "L" on the reverse is at the same location and the same exact orientation as the obverse "L" except that it's a mirror image. I'm guessing that the NY Subtreasury used a device similar to a large pair of pliers where the "L" letters on each side of the pliers matched exactly to mark the light coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
On this example, perhaps, but on the other example on the other thread, it's just a single letter punch that was used.
As for the pliers theory, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I can see that the pressure is not the same on both letters. The obverse punch is fairly evenly and cleanly struck, while the strike on the reverse punch is uneven.
Also, the punches are not oriented the same, and I don't understand why a reversed letter was used on one side (reverse punches for die- or mold-making did and do exist). It could have been something they jerryrigged for the task, but unless the tool is located we'll likely never know for sure.
Who makes good letter stamps?