The design does muddy the effect to some extent. At the same time, doubling on a big silver dollar is more dramatic, IMO, than major doubling on a dime or quarter.
@OriginalDan said: "The design does muddy the effect to some extent. At the same time, doubling on a big silver dollar is more dramatic, IMO, than major doubling on a dime or quarter.
No one can argue with that statement because the characteristics on large coins are easier to see. I think that is because large coins are bigger. That's why most doubling is dramatic.
BTW, I think you may be a little biased because this is a T$.
i agree the eye appeal and clarity matter as much if not more than the actual % of spread. The 1955 pops because it is on the date in an open area and pops. The size of the coin matters too. I would put the 76s in the top 15ish. The effect is dramatic and semi unique with the central design having some of the doubling but it gets lost somewhat with the other details.
Almost all of the design has doubling if you look closely. Leaves, Wheat, Hey stack, head, crown, Liberty, Ribbon. ect
I have started a thread to rate the 25 greatest U,S, doubled dies, obverse or reverse.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@afford said:
Interesting that cleaning is an issue here all of a sudden.
SO many chops are in holders not labelled cleaned on the holder.
This example is labelled cleaned, obviously, but due to rarity and the fact that so many chopped are cleaned and aren't graded as such by the tpg's allows me to easilyignore the cleaning. Obviously I was writing tongue and cheek because of Crypto's and mine past differences. Crypto has a number of cleaned coins in holders not attributed as cleaned and that is ok with him, simply because the tag didn't not call it cleaned. Where as this low graded cleaned speicmen is obviously cleaned but who the heck cares.
Like I said I will not argue with a know it all.
AFAIK, cleaning has always been an issue. The label does not matter. The only thing that really matters is if a coin is not original in any way you, me and others can detect it. Then you, me, and others can decide how much it matters to each of us. "Cleaning" can be a very confusing thing because it comes in degrees. Even a coin with continuous hairlines over its entire surface can be "straight graded" according to the ANA Grading guide.
PS As you know some coins have more than one problem. I've noticed that in many cases, the least detrimental problem is on the "detailed" coin's label.
@afford said:
Interesting that cleaning is an issue here all of a sudden.
SO many chops are in holders not labelled cleaned on the holder.
This example is labelled cleaned, obviously, but due to rarity and the fact that so many chopped are cleaned and aren't graded as such by the tpg's allows me to easilyignore the cleaning. Obviously I was writing tongue and cheek because of Crypto's and mine past differences. Crypto has a number of cleaned coins in holders not attributed as cleaned and that is ok with him, simply because the tag didn't not call it cleaned. Where as this low graded cleaned speicmen is obviously cleaned but who the heck cares.
Like I said I will not argue with a know it all.
AFAIK, cleaning has always been an issue. The label does not matter. The only thing that really matters is if a coin is not original in any way you, me and others can detect it. Then you, me, and others can decide how much it matters to each of us. "Cleaning" can be a very confusing thing because it comes in degrees. Even a coin with continuous hairlines over its entire surface can be "straight graded" according to the ANA Grading guide.
PS As you know some coins have more than one problem. I've noticed that in many cases, the least detrimental problem is on the "detailed" coin's label.
Glad you brought up originality. Another problem with chops, ask Crypto that is also something that doesn't seem to matter to him when he is the owner. I have had numerous discussion of coins that were messed with but that he ignores when they are in a problem free holder and he has possession of it.
Original and uncleaned chops are the ones to own, but rarely surface. Obviously if they were handled and chopped they are going to have issues, it just depends on how bad it was handled and chopped.
I like chops. IMO, a coin should be straight graded (old technical grading) if it is just chopped; but file the rim, beat up the rim or edge, improperly clean or scratch it and I'm for the details grade.
@afford said:
Interesting that cleaning is an issue here all of a sudden.
SO many chops are in holders not labelled cleaned on the holder.
This example is labelled cleaned, obviously, but due to rarity and the fact that so many chopped are cleaned and aren't graded as such by the tpg's allows me to easilyignore the cleaning. Obviously I was writing tongue and cheek because of Crypto's and mine past differences. Crypto has a number of cleaned coins in holders not attributed as cleaned and that is ok with him, simply because the tag didn't not call it cleaned. Where as this low graded cleaned speicmen is obviously cleaned but who the heck cares.
Like I said I will not argue with a know it all.
Are you still mad from when I posted all of those pictures of tooled and cleaned coins from your photo album? Or when I pointed out your half Disme is drilled/holed and only a moron with an active imagination would think otherwise and everyone agreed with me?
@Crypto said: "Are you still mad from when I posted all of those pictures of tooled and cleaned coins from your photo album? Or when I pointed out your half Disme is drilled/holed and only a moron with an active imagination would think otherwise and everyone agreed with me?"
Don’t be bitter, not a good look RO
Was this vitriol necessary? Why not educate others in a nice way about problems with their coins? I'd like to see afford's tooled and cleaned coins that you mention. It may be helpful for newer members.
@afford asked: "...Do you have any [tooled/altered coins] to present because I just have just the one cleaned coin shown here, and it is already depicted."
Tons of them! The reason I know ICG is #3 is we get all the rejects that the top two miss! Just finished grading a 1909-O $5 that looks like an MS-63 and one 1899 $5 that looks like an MS-67! Both have A/S. Also had a truly original full luster gem $20 Liberty with a hidden long staple scratch. What's that worth?
The guys who send them in know the problems. I think many don't realize I've been watching these shenanigans for almost fifty years. I use a stereo microscope to BACKUP what an experienced grader can USUALLY surmise with their naked eye. Unfortunately, most "expert" alterations don't translate well to an image.
I'll start a discussion with a few images.
PS Some surface alterations MAY have become market acceptable by just lowering the grade. I refuse to believe they are missed by a team of professional graders.
@insider2 you’re right and I’ll take the high road and show examples of a coin that has been wiped to remove something and show you the difference. Here is a low end 77s broken arrows that has been wiped to remove surface contamination and is now in a graded holder
this is an over graded NGC 62. Note the multiple marks and surface smutz and the dipped skin. This is the type of coin that wouldn’t make a pcgs holder of same grade
You’re right about mistakes falling into holders here is one with obvious tooling around the MM but in a 58 holder
Here is a close up of a drill mark from a mechanical drill, that is clearly not a chop mark. A simple punch tool would not do that, that is torque ripping the coin and dancing across the metal.
@Crypto said:
Here is a close up of a drill mark from a mechanical drill, that is clearly not a chop mark. A simple punch tool would not do that, that is torque ripping the coin and dancing across the metal.
Is this a reference to a particular coin that has only a drill mark, that claims to be a chop? There are enough examples of genuinely chopmarked coins bearing drill marks to consider at least some of them as having been applied in China in lieu of a more traditional chop, though any example bearing a drill mark and no other chops should probably be considered suspect. However, I have seen a well preserved Trade Dollar bearing only a drill mark that I believe to have been applied in China. But the more obscure the coin, the less believable it would likely be.
Here's an (amazing) trade dollar with only a drill mark. Nobody can say for sure that it was placed there while in China, with the intent to authenticate it as part of a transaction. But it's a trade dollar from the right time period, with a trefoil drill mark that looks like others on coins with legit chopmarks, so one could easily make draw that conclusion.
The further you get away from the main period chopmarks were applied, and the further you get away from dollar sized silver coins, the less likely it is that a drill mark would have been placed on the coin in China. I've seen a number of early American coins that had drill marks that looked like the start of a hole, since many coins were holed in that period.
I've NEVER seen a drill mark as on that Trade dollar in any place that would be where someone would put a hole into a coin. That does not mean one does not exist. Over the decades I have seen about a half dozen coins with "starter holes" (did not open to the other side) at 12OC but they were not made by the tool that makes these test marks.
@Crypto said:
Here is a close up of a drill mark from a mechanical drill, that is clearly not a chop mark. A simple punch tool would not do that, that is torque ripping the coin and dancing across the metal.
It is a test drill, and Frank Rose lists test drills as chop marks on Page 7 in his book, it is listed as #1.
That would depend on the context, wouldn’t it? The coin in question is certainly not a trade dollar and therefore I’d default to an attempted hole way before I’d consider it an oriental test mark
@OriginalDan said:
Here's an (amazing) trade dollar with only a drill mark. Nobody can say for sure that it was placed there while in China, with the intent to authenticate it as part of a transaction. But it's a trade dollar from the right time period, with a trefoil drill mark that looks like others on coins with legit chopmarks, so one could easily make draw that conclusion.
Hey, that's the coin I was talking about! Still kicking myself for passing on it.
@Crypto said:
Here is a close up of a drill mark from a mechanical drill, that is clearly not a chop mark. A simple punch tool would not do that, that is torque ripping the coin and dancing across the metal.
It is a test drill, and Frank Rose lists test drills as chop marks on Page 7 in his book, it is listed as #1.
That would depend on the context, wouldn’t it? The coin in question is certainly not a trade dollar and therefore I’d default to an attempted hole way before I’d consider it an oriental test mark
As I posted above....this exact type of mark is found on coins from South America, Mexico, China, and US Trade dollars. IMO, it is not the same as a Chop. It is comparable to a coin with a "V" shape test cut into its edge.
PS, I'll try top find some of my images but don't hold your breath! Unfortunately, with the digital age I got lazy and now have over 12K images on many "chips" waiting to be categorized. While I'm whining, our system just got upgraded and I'm no longer able to download images to CU directly from my old camera.
I see these as different form drill marks, but used for the same purpose of exposing counterfeit coins by opening them up a little. Many counterfeits of the day were silver plated coins filled with lead, etc. so a cut or drill mark was used to confirm there was silver all the way through.
Nope. While that "whack" was probably done to break the surface, the test cuts I mentioned are on the edge and slightly into the rim as we see on ancient coins.
@afford said: "I like to quote Frank Rose author of the 1987 book entitled "Chopmarks" and in it on page 7 he writes " below is a list of types of chop marks which will serve the needs of the student of chop marks better than the Chang scale. It lists 12 types of chop marks, including one which is not a chop mark at all but which is included here to make the reader aware that tit exists..."
"He goes on to say that "Test marks are made with SOME SORT OF PUNCH." A test drill is a form of a test mark. A chop mark is a counterstamp. A test mark is done by merchants to check to see if a coin is silver thru and thru or of good silver. And a chop mark or a counterstamp is put on a coin to say it is a good silver coin."
Apparently, Mr. Rose was unaware of test marks on ancients, some of which were made by a punch. Others are mad by cutting/filling into the coins edge.
@tradedollarnut said: "Because, after all, they had electric drills in China in the 1800s. Lol."
As you posted, a drill device does not need to be powered by anything except a human hand. I guess we get caught up in the "modern" stuff we are familiar with. Modelers are familiar with hand drills.
Taking a step back here, why does it matter what kind of tool was used to damage the half disme? It ain't adding any value to the coin. 10 out of 10 survey participants are going to choose the half disme without the hole half-drilled into it. If I was you, I'd worry less about building a time machine to try and legitimize the damage as some sort of special Chinese drill mark and just enjoy the little coin for what it is, a neat historical artifact.
@OriginalDan said:
Taking a step back here, why does it matter what kind of tool was used to damage the half disme? It ain't adding any value to the coin. 10 out of 10 survey participants are going to choose the half disme without the hole half-drilled into it. If I was you, I'd worry less about building a time machine to try and legitimize the damage as some sort of special Chinese drill mark and just enjoy the little coin for what it is, a neat historical artifact.
@OriginalDan said:
Taking a step back here, why does it matter what kind of tool was used to damage the half disme? It ain't adding any value to the coin. 10 out of 10 survey participants are going to choose the half disme without the hole half-drilled into it. If I was you, I'd worry less about building a time machine to try and legitimize the damage as some sort of special Chinese drill mark and just enjoy the little coin for what it is, a neat historical artifact.
Are you fussing with someone? Image of H10C?
Basically afford is trying to argue that his half-drilled half-disme was Chopmarked in China. It’s not the first thread he’s hijacked trying to argue this point.
He or someone else can post a picture of the whole coin, since only the drill mark is pictured above.
Another useful thread ruined by endless whining and bitching. Knock it off, guys. This is a numismatic forum. If you want to fling dung at one another go to the zoo!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@OriginalDan said:
I made sure to cough on it, among other things, before I sent it out so maybe it picked up some “toning” to hide the cleaning?
Just kidding Al, have a nice day.
...if every single coin collector in the world read this at one single time...there would be a shortage for acetone in every local hardware store that kept the lights on...certainly it should be referenced on multiple advertisements for coin cleaners/disinfectants moving forward
Edit to add: Awesome Coin! and I was just gonna post this in another post but I’ll let somebody else have “100”
@Insider2 said:
Let's see the Half dime. The POSITION of the "drill" mark argues that it is a test mark and not an attempt to hole a coin for adornment.
If anyone really wants to discuss that rediculous half disme further, please start a new thread. It’s way off topic here.
My takeaways from this thread. This DDO is a really notable DDO amougst all DDO's. It's cool as heck. It's friggin rare. Very high R6. Most examples have been mucked with (to varying degrees...some are not that bad). To date, only 3 unmucked coins are known (this includes one beautiful chop marked coin). Three coins put it at a high R7. All that means is that I'm celebrating this coin. Well done.
keoj
@Insider2 said:
Let's see the Half dime. The POSITION of the "drill" mark argues that it is a test mark and not an attempt to hole a coin for adornment.
Your wish is my command
Clearly damage from a wooddrill and not done by a hand with a Metalworker’s tool that had done thousands before. It was Cletus trying to make a neckless for Mary sue
@Insider2 said:
Let's see the Half dime. The POSITION of the "drill" mark argues that it is a test mark and not an attempt to hole a coin for adornment.
If anyone really wants to discuss that rediculous half disme further, please start a new thread. It’s way off topic here.
@Insider2 said:
Let's see the Half dime. The POSITION of the "drill" mark argues that it is a test mark and not an attempt to hole a coin for adornment.
If anyone really wants to discuss that rediculous half disme further, please start a new thread. It’s way off topic here.
@Insider2 said:
Let's see the Half dime. The POSITION of the "drill" mark argues that it is a test mark and not an attempt to hole a coin for adornment.
If anyone really wants to discuss that rediculous half disme further, please start a new thread. It’s way off topic here.
So that it might be suggested often enough......
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
The design does muddy the effect to some extent. At the same time, doubling on a big silver dollar is more dramatic, IMO, than major doubling on a dime or quarter.
@OriginalDan said: "The design does muddy the effect to some extent. At the same time, doubling on a big silver dollar is more dramatic, IMO, than major doubling on a dime or quarter.
No one can argue with that statement because the characteristics on large coins are easier to see. I think that is because large coins are bigger. That's why most doubling is dramatic.
BTW, I think you may be a little biased because this is a T$.
How about we put the T$ into the top 15?
i agree the eye appeal and clarity matter as much if not more than the actual % of spread. The 1955 pops because it is on the date in an open area and pops. The size of the coin matters too. I would put the 76s in the top 15ish. The effect is dramatic and semi unique with the central design having some of the doubling but it gets lost somewhat with the other details.
Almost all of the design has doubling if you look closely. Leaves, Wheat, Hey stack, head, crown, Liberty, Ribbon. ect
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I have started a thread to rate the 25 greatest U,S, doubled dies, obverse or reverse.
AFAIK, cleaning has always been an issue. The label does not matter. The only thing that really matters is if a coin is not original in any way you, me and others can detect it. Then you, me, and others can decide how much it matters to each of us. "Cleaning" can be a very confusing thing because it comes in degrees. Even a coin with continuous hairlines over its entire surface can be "straight graded" according to the ANA Grading guide.
PS As you know some coins have more than one problem. I've noticed that in many cases, the least detrimental problem is on the "detailed" coin's label.
I like chops. IMO, a coin should be straight graded (old technical grading) if it is just chopped; but file the rim, beat up the rim or edge, improperly clean or scratch it and I'm for the details grade.
Are you still mad from when I posted all of those pictures of tooled and cleaned coins from your photo album? Or when I pointed out your half Disme is drilled/holed and only a moron with an active imagination would think otherwise and everyone agreed with me?
Don’t be bitter, not a good look RO
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
@Crypto said: "Are you still mad from when I posted all of those pictures of tooled and cleaned coins from your photo album? Or when I pointed out your half Disme is drilled/holed and only a moron with an active imagination would think otherwise and everyone agreed with me?"
Don’t be bitter, not a good look RO
Was this vitriol necessary? Why not educate others in a nice way about problems with their coins? I'd like to see afford's tooled and cleaned coins that you mention. It may be helpful for newer members.
@afford asked: "...Do you have any [tooled/altered coins] to present because I just have just the one cleaned coin shown here, and it is already depicted."
Tons of them! The reason I know ICG is #3 is we get all the rejects that the top two miss! Just finished grading a 1909-O $5 that looks like an MS-63 and one 1899 $5 that looks like an MS-67! Both have A/S. Also had a truly original full luster gem $20 Liberty with a hidden long staple scratch. What's that worth?
The guys who send them in know the problems. I think many don't realize I've been watching these shenanigans for almost fifty years. I use a stereo microscope to BACKUP what an experienced grader can USUALLY surmise with their naked eye. Unfortunately, most "expert" alterations don't translate well to an image.
I'll start a discussion with a few images.
PS Some surface alterations MAY have become market acceptable by just lowering the grade. I refuse to believe they are missed by a team of professional graders.
Congrats that is wonderful. It takes a lot of patience to find a coin like that. Wonderful. Now that a Trade dollar set to be recon with.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Thanks! It's a coin I never dreamed of owning at the AU level.
Very cool!
@insider2 you’re right and I’ll take the high road and show examples of a coin that has been wiped to remove something and show you the difference. Here is a low end 77s broken arrows that has been wiped to remove surface contamination and is now in a graded holder
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Here is a close up of a drill mark from a mechanical drill, that is clearly not a chop mark. A simple punch tool would not do that, that is torque ripping the coin and dancing across the metal.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Is this a reference to a particular coin that has only a drill mark, that claims to be a chop? There are enough examples of genuinely chopmarked coins bearing drill marks to consider at least some of them as having been applied in China in lieu of a more traditional chop, though any example bearing a drill mark and no other chops should probably be considered suspect. However, I have seen a well preserved Trade Dollar bearing only a drill mark that I believe to have been applied in China. But the more obscure the coin, the less believable it would likely be.
These drill marks are fairly common on Trade $ and 8 Reales. I've always considered them to be a test mark.
Here's an (amazing) trade dollar with only a drill mark. Nobody can say for sure that it was placed there while in China, with the intent to authenticate it as part of a transaction. But it's a trade dollar from the right time period, with a trefoil drill mark that looks like others on coins with legit chopmarks, so one could easily make draw that conclusion.
The further you get away from the main period chopmarks were applied, and the further you get away from dollar sized silver coins, the less likely it is that a drill mark would have been placed on the coin in China. I've seen a number of early American coins that had drill marks that looked like the start of a hole, since many coins were holed in that period.
I've NEVER seen a drill mark as on that Trade dollar in any place that would be where someone would put a hole into a coin. That does not mean one does not exist. Over the decades I have seen about a half dozen coins with "starter holes" (did not open to the other side) at 12OC but they were not made by the tool that makes these test marks.
That would depend on the context, wouldn’t it? The coin in question is certainly not a trade dollar and therefore I’d default to an attempted hole way before I’d consider it an oriental test mark
You seriously don’t know what you’re talking about. What 1875-P?
Hey, that's the coin I was talking about! Still kicking myself for passing on it.
As I posted above....this exact type of mark is found on coins from South America, Mexico, China, and US Trade dollars. IMO, it is not the same as a Chop. It is comparable to a coin with a "V" shape test cut into its edge.
PS, I'll try top find some of my images but don't hold your breath! Unfortunately, with the digital age I got lazy and now have over 12K images on many "chips" waiting to be categorized.
While I'm whining, our system just got upgraded and I'm no longer able to download images to CU directly from my old camera. 
Are you talking about a test cut, like this?
I see these as different form drill marks, but used for the same purpose of exposing counterfeit coins by opening them up a little. Many counterfeits of the day were silver plated coins filled with lead, etc. so a cut or drill mark was used to confirm there was silver all the way through.
Nope. While that "whack" was probably done to break the surface, the test cuts I mentioned are on the edge and slightly into the rim as we see on ancient coins.
Because, after all, they had electric drills in China in the 1800s. Lol.
This is a test mark. It looks nothing like the product of an electric drill
@afford said: "I like to quote Frank Rose author of the 1987 book entitled "Chopmarks" and in it on page 7 he writes " below is a list of types of chop marks which will serve the needs of the student of chop marks better than the Chang scale. It lists 12 types of chop marks, including one which is not a chop mark at all but which is included here to make the reader aware that tit exists..."
"He goes on to say that "Test marks are made with SOME SORT OF PUNCH." A test drill is a form of a test mark. A chop mark is a counterstamp. A test mark is done by merchants to check to see if a coin is silver thru and thru or of good silver. And a chop mark or a counterstamp is put on a coin to say it is a good silver coin."
Apparently, Mr. Rose was unaware of test marks on ancients, some of which were made by a punch. Others are mad by cutting/filling into the coins edge.
@tradedollarnut said: "Because, after all, they had electric drills in China in the 1800s. Lol."
As you posted, a drill device does not need to be powered by anything except a human hand.
I guess we get caught up in the "modern" stuff we are familiar with. Modelers are familiar with hand drills.
Taking a step back here, why does it matter what kind of tool was used to damage the half disme? It ain't adding any value to the coin. 10 out of 10 survey participants are going to choose the half disme without the hole half-drilled into it. If I was you, I'd worry less about building a time machine to try and legitimize the damage as some sort of special Chinese drill mark and just enjoy the little coin for what it is, a neat historical artifact.
Are you fussing with someone? Image of H10C?
Basically afford is trying to argue that his half-drilled half-disme was Chopmarked in China. It’s not the first thread he’s hijacked trying to argue this point.
He or someone else can post a picture of the whole coin, since only the drill mark is pictured above.
I have nothing personal against you. You’re tilting at windmills
Another useful thread ruined by endless whining and bitching. Knock it off, guys. This is a numismatic forum. If you want to fling dung at one another go to the zoo!
...if every single coin collector in the world read this at one single time...there would be a shortage for acetone in every local hardware store that kept the lights on...certainly it should be referenced on multiple advertisements for coin cleaners/disinfectants moving forward
Edit to add: Awesome Coin! and I was just gonna post this in another post but I’ll let somebody else have “100”
Awesome Coin! and I was just gonna post this in another post but I’ll let somebody else have “100”
Thanks man, it's a special coin and a privilege to own.
Let's see the Half dime. The POSITION of the "drill" mark argues that it is a test mark and not an attempt to hole a coin for adornment.
If anyone really wants to discuss that rediculous half disme further, please start a new thread. It’s way off topic here.
My takeaways from this thread. This DDO is a really notable DDO amougst all DDO's. It's cool as heck. It's friggin rare. Very high R6. Most examples have been mucked with (to varying degrees...some are not that bad). To date, only 3 unmucked coins are known (this includes one beautiful chop marked coin). Three coins put it at a high R7. All that means is that I'm celebrating this coin. Well done.
keoj
Your wish is my command
Clearly damage from a wooddrill and not done by a hand with a Metalworker’s tool that had done thousands before. It was Cletus trying to make a neckless for Mary sue
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
So that it might be suggested often enough......