Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

Recently submitted a Costa Rica Real C/S on C.A.R. 1849-JB Real

ShadyDaveShadyDave Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited January 2, 2022 7:25PM in World & Ancient Coins Forum

While I’m not surprised this didn’t straight grade, I’m confused about what PCGS indicated as the grade and would like to hear others opinions. They indicated Fine Details “Code 98- Damage- Tooled”. There are clearly marks on both the obverse and reverse field, however, if you look at the coin, the lines go UNDER the devices when interrupted.

So I’m not sure how/why this could have been tooled when that is the case. I bought this on eBay a few years ago for like $60 so no big investment in this coin. I figured the lines had something to do with the planchet used, because if it was the die, the lines would have been raised from my understanding, instead of incuse like they are. If the coin was scratched post-mint, I would think I wouldn’t see the lines interrupted by the device, right? Could the C/S being stamped could have somehow hidden the devices being damaged or any other thoughts on what have may happened with this coin?

This is the only example graded at PCGS, so I can’t compare TruViews but there are a few examples at NGC and there are a couple of examples of this type sold on HA.

Comments

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks like tooling to me. If you look at the 2 lines under ND in FECUNDO they do appear to ride up onto the circle a bit.

  • 1960NYGiants1960NYGiants Posts: 3,442 ✭✭✭✭

    The tooling could have been done when the coin was a higher grade then worn away from the raised areas in circulation.

    Gene

    Life member #369 of the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association
    Member of Canadian Association of Token Collectors

    Collector of:
    Canadian coins and pre-confederation tokens
    Darkside proof/mint sets dated 1960
    My Ebay
  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Or, my opinion is very likely the tooling done before counterstamp and it did not strike out all the way.

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • RexfordRexford Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Those are tooling lines. Adding on to what others have said above, tooling lines don’t have to travel from the fields over the devices, and often don’t. The person who made those scratches didn’t have to abide by any artistic rules

  • StellaStella Posts: 689 ✭✭✭✭

    Damage aside, cool counterstamp and coin!

    Coin collector since childhood and New York Numismatist at Heritage Auctions.
  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Tooling PRIOR to counter stamp. Period. They go up and into the edge of the stamp and then are partially struck out by the stamping itself.

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @7Jaguars said:
    Tooling PRIOR to counter stamp. Period. They go up and into the edge of the stamp and then are partially struck out by the stamping itself.

    Which line are you referring to? All I'm seeing inside of the counterstamp is the distorted original coin design, i.e. leaves.

  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, I think we agree - the "lines" are pre-stamp scratches, etc. The counterstamp struck them out.
    In addition the flans has pre-strike issues as well; one example is the scratch as in the bottom two circled areas in the OP. Also, could the "original" coin actually be struck over another coin that then served as a blank for the host coin?

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • ShadyDaveShadyDave Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thanks to all @TwoKopeiki @7Jaguars @Rexford @1960NYGiants and @Stella for the input! Now to find a better example of this Costa Rica/C.A.R. type! Hopefully I can find one that hasn't doubled or tripled in price over the last year or two...

  • ShadyDaveShadyDave Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @7Jaguars said:
    Yes, I think we agree - the "lines" are pre-stamp scratches, etc. The counterstamp struck them out.
    In addition the flans has pre-strike issues as well; one example is the scratch as in the bottom two circled areas in the OP. Also, could the "original" coin actually be struck over another coin that then served as a blank for the host coin?

    That is part of the reason I wanted to have it graded, I wasn't entirely sure what the scratches resulted from: a "messed with" planchet or some sort of weird adjustment marks, simply a damaged C.A.R. real or something that happened after the coin received its Costa Rica C/S.

    I know there are C.A.R. collectors that frequent here and anyone who is familiar with the series know how crude these silver pieces can be, even before they were counterstamped.

    Those two areas where I circled towards the bottom of my picture are what made me most confused. The lines continue almost perfectly through the device(s), which I would think would be an anomaly if it was tooled like this. Also, part of my confusion was why the coin was tooled in this fashion, what were they trying to achieve? As @Rexford said, there are no rules, but this wasn't a few rogue staple scratches or alterations to try to hide any issues. I do agree it is most likely that when the coin was re-struck to add the C/S, some of the scratches were struck out. The bottom right scratch I circled by "J.B." very clearly (in my opinion at least) goes under the circle encompassing the inner design by "J.B.", but I've been wrong before.

  • bigjpstbigjpst Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @7Jaguars said:
    Yes, I think we agree - the "lines" are pre-stamp scratches, etc. The counterstamp struck them out.
    In addition the flans has pre-strike issues as well; one example is the scratch as in the bottom two circled areas in the OP. Also, could the "original" coin actually be struck over another coin that then served as a blank for the host coin?

    This is what it looks like to me. Especially near the rim. Host coin defaced before being overstruck with CAR coin then counter stamped. Would still be damaged I suppose but would explain why in the small detailed areas the devices seem untouched.
    Were the C A R coins overstruck on other types?

  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not my series, but I have noticed this in general - have you checked out graded issues from 1930s Panama? Yikes.

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • ShadyDaveShadyDave Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bigjpst said:
    Were the C A R coins overstruck on other types?

    As far as I know, it wasn’t common practice to use other coins to mint C.A.R. coins. I won’t say it wasn’t ever done though.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,721 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Interesting coin and a terrific conversation piece. I have had basically zero luck with C A R coins.

    @7Jaguars Not hijack the thread, but what are the 1930s Panama issues you are describing?

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • MasonGMasonG Posts: 6,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Maybe I'm being too particular, but I've always thought of "tooled" as artificially enhancing worn design elements or disguising damage. Seems to me, the coin in the OP would be better described as "scratched".

  • MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 23,891 ✭✭✭✭✭

    1849 is an interesting date.

    I think it's possible that the scratches were on the coin before it was struck. And that it may have been struck over another coin. And that the coin is a contemporary counterfeit. And that the countermark is legitimate.

    I'll have to look into this some more, but not now.

    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,721 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 6, 2022 1:18PM

    Seems this coin is a never ending source of questions...

    Mr. E is onto something- It seems the C A R was struck over another coin so is it that coin that is the counterfeit or is the C A R R that was then struck as a counterfeit?

    While the counter mark seems okay, my question is simply this... Was the tooled designation by PCGS attributable to marks within the counter mark and not the host coin?

    I am having a senior moment but I have this recollection that grading the counter mark becomes a controlling subject as to grade. I very well could be wrong on that and if so, hopefully I will be corrected.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • tcollectstcollects Posts: 784 ✭✭✭✭

    still has a cool look and a story, someone long ago thought it might be fake and scratched it to see if it was silver

  • ShadyDaveShadyDave Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 13, 2022 7:58AM

    A similar 1R sold on ebay recently and it looks like there are similar scratches on this new example. From what I see, some of the scratches seem to go underneath the devices on the obverse. Let me know your thoughts.



    I brightened and cropped the pics below so you can see the details a bit better:

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/194706354929?mkcid=16&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&nma=true&si=NqJUaHpF0VegkFHXaPFy11tI1%2FA%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc

  • ShadyDaveShadyDave Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Bump, another example sold on eBay for over $500 in a PCGS XF-40 holder and seems a bit crude to me. You can see that the example below has similar scratch marks in the field as the original one I posted.

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/134105763833?nma=true&si=NqJUaHpF0VegkFHXaPFy11tI1%2FA%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

  • realeswatcherrealeswatcher Posts: 354 ✭✭✭

    Had commentary posted, went to edit it and it got eaten.

    Long story short, initially posted coin was simply doodling, I believe. Can't be scratches on the element punches as the scratches are only on the NON-punched fields. If it were on the finished die, would almost certainly present as RAISED marks from a scratch or break on the die.

    Also, almost certainly can't be any kind of official countermarking... way too crude/simple. Even the most bootleg Latin American mark - the El Salvador squiggle - is much more defined. Also think, @MrEureka, that this piece is "regal"... though since execution on these was SO bad, hard to be certain. In any event, if those scratches were test/cancellation marks, they would certainly cut across/over design elements without regard.


    @coinkat said:

    While the counter mark seems okay, my question is simply this... Was the tooled designation by PCGS attributable to marks within the counter mark and not the host coin?

    This is totally overthinking it, I think. Grader saw obvious marks/scratches and called it tooled. Aside from that, there don't seem to be any marks on the actual counterstamp. You're seeing tree design that wasn't obliterated.

Sign In or Register to comment.