@crazyhounddog said:
I just plain don’t like them at all. I also consider them as post mint damaged and should not straight grade.
JMHO
Edited to add- Why in the hell did the Chinese smack these coins with a punch or a hammer? Does that negate them from being used again? I don’t get it. Why didn’t they just throw them in the till like other moneys? Seems like a stupid way to receive coins.
I am uneducated on these but I’ve never like trade dollars so there’s that.
The Chinese were not interested in the coin. They wanted silver for their goods, and the punched chopmark was part of the process to confirm that the coin was silver.
It should be noted for advanced collectors that because of chop mark’s low interest for the 20th cen, many escaped the doctoring/dipping/cleaning/improving era from dealers. Many are a master class in what original old silver surfaces should look like in ways rarely seen on series like bust half’s and the like. Surface preservation is the technical attribute I am least likely to compromise on and one of the things that drew me to Chops. I have held an UNC 1855s half with original surfaces, no way that survives with UNC or original surfaces without the chops.
I recall when Trade Dollars were the red-headed stepchildren of the hobby. (No offense to redheads or stepchildren).
At the time they were the only US coin that had been demonitized (since remonitized, I believe). They didn't get the respect they deserved, and even less so if chopped.
I was fortunate to start collecting them around 1999-2000. At the time, you could still buy genuine, raw chopmarked Trade Dollars straight out of China on eBay. I tried not to pay more than $100 each, some I got for $40-50.
@Crypto said:
It should be noted for advanced collectors that because of chop marks low interest for the 20th cen, many escaped the doctoring/dipping/cleaning/improving era from dealers. Many are a master class in what original old silver surfaces should look like in ways rarely seen on series like bust half’s and the like. Surface preservation is the technical attribute I am least likely to compromise on and one of the things that drew me to Chops. I have held and UNC 1855s half with original surfaces, no way that survives with UNC or original surfaces without the chops.
The same applies to holed coins. They often have nice, original surfaces aside from the hole (insert Abe Lincoln joke here). I consider this to be much more significant post-mint damage, though, and won't touch them unless they are deeply discounted (e.g., >90% for the coin shown).
I remember early in my collecting career when collectors, dealers and the third-party grading services considered chop marks to be damage. I think they became more acceptable when the grading services finally began to slab them. I still don't care for them since they were applied after the coin left the mint and there's no definitive way to tell when they were added to the coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Am I the only one that thought that Zorro marked that coin?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I managed to procure my first Chop Marked coin since the last time I posted to this thread. A Mexican 8-Reales 1796. I was hoping for a 1794... the likelihood that I'll ever have a 1794 Flowing Hair Dollar in my collection is slim to "hitting the lottery", so I figured this would fit well with the rest of my Box of 20... I'm also looking at Chopped Trade Dollars to keep this one company...
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
@OAKSTAR said:
So the next question.... Is the arrow the environmental damage and the chopmark the detail grade?
Hey, don't shoot I'm just the messenger. 😉
I've been staring at that coin for a few months. I love the chop and the color.
The chop is not the detail as chop marked coins can and do straight grade. I believe the "Damage" is the black marks on the rim and discoloration from 1-3 o'clock on the obv.
Hard to tell from pictures but that Details grade seems like a very harsh assessment given other comparative coins. Perhaps it's worse in hand or the pics are just very flattering.
@OAKSTAR said:
So the next question.... Is the arrow the environmental damage and the chopmark the detail grade?
Hey, don't shoot I'm just the messenger. 😉
I've been staring at that coin for a few months. I love the chop and the color.
The chop is not the detail as chop marked coins can and do straight grade. I believe the "Damage" is the black marks on the rim and discoloration from 1-3 o'clock on the obv.
Hard to tell from pictures but that Details grade seems like a very harsh assessment given other comparative coins. Perhaps it's worse in hand or the pics are just very flattering.
There’s a “dealer” who sells on eBay who buys problem coins, dips them or “helps” them, then retones them a little. This looks like his work, I’d avoid.
Even though I like them, they're PMD and should NOT straight grade.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
@OAKSTAR said:
So the next question.... Is the arrow the environmental damage and the chopmark the detail grade?
Hey, don't shoot I'm just the messenger. 😉
I've been staring at that coin for a few months. I love the chop and the color.
The chop is not the detail as chop marked coins can and do straight grade. I believe the "Damage" is the black marks on the rim and discoloration from 1-3 o'clock on the obv.
Hard to tell from pictures but that Details grade seems like a very harsh assessment given other comparative coins. Perhaps it's worse in hand or the pics are just very flattering.
There’s a “dealer” who sells on eBay who buys problem coins, dips them or “helps” them, then retones them a little. This looks like his work, I’d avoid.
I usually avoid them. I have this piece because of the historical interest.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@ZoidMeister said:
Nothing wrong with damaged coins, Asian origin or otherwise.
Z
That is not a chop mark. It is a counterstamp, and if you are interested in the numismatic club aspects of the piece, it is quite desirable.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@Dug13 said:
Barberian.........what's the backstory on the term "Blundered date"
There is evidence of an earlier punched "1" far to the left of the actual 1. The top photo is from Bill Bugert's 2009 key on San Francisco die varieties of SLHs. The bottom is the seller's photo of my coin. There are four die marriages for the 57-S, this is one of the more common ones. It's listed as an R4 with 76-200 examples thought to exist (Bugert 2009: pp. 15 & 38).
Comments
The Chinese were not interested in the coin. They wanted silver for their goods, and the punched chopmark was part of the process to confirm that the coin was silver.
It should be noted for advanced collectors that because of chop mark’s low interest for the 20th cen, many escaped the doctoring/dipping/cleaning/improving era from dealers. Many are a master class in what original old silver surfaces should look like in ways rarely seen on series like bust half’s and the like. Surface preservation is the technical attribute I am least likely to compromise on and one of the things that drew me to Chops. I have held an UNC 1855s half with original surfaces, no way that survives with UNC or original surfaces without the chops.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Ahh, the old days...
I recall when Trade Dollars were the red-headed stepchildren of the hobby. (No offense to redheads or stepchildren).
At the time they were the only US coin that had been demonitized (since remonitized, I believe). They didn't get the respect they deserved, and even less so if chopped.
I wish I had gone all in on them back then.
I was fortunate to start collecting them around 1999-2000. At the time, you could still buy genuine, raw chopmarked Trade Dollars straight out of China on eBay. I tried not to pay more than $100 each, some I got for $40-50.
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
The same applies to holed coins. They often have nice, original surfaces aside from the hole (insert Abe Lincoln joke here). I consider this to be much more significant post-mint damage, though, and won't touch them unless they are deeply discounted (e.g., >90% for the coin shown).
I still need a Trade Dollar for my Dansco 7070. When I find the right one, it will have chop marks. I like the history.
Looking for PCGS AU58 Washington's, 32-63.
My favorite post mint damage!
I think one or two on a trade dollar is ok, but I’ve never purchased one.
Mr_Spud
I think that they’re cool but that they should be purchased at a slight discount.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
So I guess there's a way to tell if a chopmark was created 150 years ago or yesterday.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
Has anyone ever translated the chops?
Sometimes it's only available in the scratch and dent dept.
I remember early in my collecting career when collectors, dealers and the third-party grading services considered chop marks to be damage. I think they became more acceptable when the grading services finally began to slab them. I still don't care for them since they were applied after the coin left the mint and there's no definitive way to tell when they were added to the coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I'm still deciding whether to get this one
Am I the only one that thought that Zorro marked that coin?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Probably not, but I'm trying to get everyone to think it's Zoins
Nothing wrong with damaged coins, Asian origin or otherwise.
Z
Busy chasing Carr's . . . . . woof!
Successful BST transactions with: Bullsitter, Downtown1974, P0CKETCHANGE, Twobitcollector, AKbeez, DCW, Illini420, ProofCollection, DCarr, Cazkaboom, RichieURich, LukeMarshall, carew4me, BustDMs, coinsarefun, PreTurb, felinfoal, jwitten, GoldenEgg, pruebas, lazybones, COCollector, CuKevin, MWallace, USMC_6115, NamVet69, zippcity, . . . . who'd I forget?
So the next question.... Is the arrow the environmental damage and the chopmark the detail grade?
Hey, don't shoot I'm just the messenger. 😉
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
I managed to procure my first Chop Marked coin since the last time I posted to this thread. A Mexican 8-Reales 1796. I was hoping for a 1794... the likelihood that I'll ever have a 1794 Flowing Hair Dollar in my collection is slim to "hitting the lottery", so I figured this would fit well with the rest of my Box of 20... I'm also looking at Chopped Trade Dollars to keep this one company...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
I've been staring at that coin for a few months. I love the chop and the color.
The chop is not the detail as chop marked coins can and do straight grade. I believe the "Damage" is the black marks on the rim and discoloration from 1-3 o'clock on the obv.
Hard to tell from pictures but that Details grade seems like a very harsh assessment given other comparative coins. Perhaps it's worse in hand or the pics are just very flattering.
There’s a “dealer” who sells on eBay who buys problem coins, dips them or “helps” them, then retones them a little. This looks like his work, I’d avoid.
Even though I like them, they're PMD and should NOT straight grade.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
The surface doesn’t look original.
Barberian.........what's the backstory on the term "Blundered date"
Wall of HONOR transaction list:WonderCoin, CoinFlip, Masscrew, Travintiques, lordmarcovan, Jinx86, Gerard, ElKevvo
I usually avoid them. I have this piece because of the historical interest.
That is not a chop mark. It is a counterstamp, and if you are interested in the numismatic club aspects of the piece, it is quite desirable.
.
Agreed. Especially given those two counterstamps on this piece were created 25 years apart (1996/2021).
The 75th Anniversary reverse die was destroyed in September of 1996 according to my reading.
Z
Busy chasing Carr's . . . . . woof!
Successful BST transactions with: Bullsitter, Downtown1974, P0CKETCHANGE, Twobitcollector, AKbeez, DCW, Illini420, ProofCollection, DCarr, Cazkaboom, RichieURich, LukeMarshall, carew4me, BustDMs, coinsarefun, PreTurb, felinfoal, jwitten, GoldenEgg, pruebas, lazybones, COCollector, CuKevin, MWallace, USMC_6115, NamVet69, zippcity, . . . . who'd I forget?
Definitely think of them as damaged. They make it harder to find a quality example of a Trade Dollar, for which I'm still looking.
Chopmarks are interesting, but I consider them PMD.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
There is evidence of an earlier punched "1" far to the left of the actual 1. The top photo is from Bill Bugert's 2009 key on San Francisco die varieties of SLHs. The bottom is the seller's photo of my coin. There are four die marriages for the 57-S, this is one of the more common ones. It's listed as an R4 with 76-200 examples thought to exist (Bugert 2009: pp. 15 & 38).