Refuted 1875-S/CC trade dollar

kevinj

Just completed my research and article refuting the 1875-S/CC trade dollar, it is not an OMM

If you want a copy of the PDF, send me an email at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com

Thanks
Kevin

lermish

emailed

jesbroken

emailed

johnny010

You can’t post the text here?

kevinj

its 6 pages of pdf with images, not sure if I could attach whole thing

keyman64

@kevinj Thanks for the contribution, It sure would be cool if you blessed us with your presence on the forum a little more often.

kevinj

I sent this article to most of the experts in the field, Tom Delorey pointed me an EDS specimen, which clearly shows
a much cleaner outline of the C to the right of the S, and also remnants of the secondary C to the left of the S. This is
the result of a S/CC.

This cannot be the result of the Large (1.2mm) or Medium (1.1mm) CC mintmark that were used on 1875-CC Trade Dollars.
It is closer to the minute CC (.84mm) that was used on some 1874-CC Trade Dollars. The extra metal to the right
is .689mm high. The extra metal seen on EDS specimens is exactly where it was supposed to be when I created an overlay
with the minute CC pair.

Kevin
I attached my original article to this post.

Tom sent me this article

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/998445/1875-s-cc-trade-dollar-reverses

kevinj

@keyman64 said:
@kevinj Thanks for the contribution, It sure would be cool if you blessed us with your presence on the forum a little more often.

Thanks, wish I had more time. Work from home now, and work much more, especially at night when I used to research and write about coins, but still love being home.

yosclimber

I think you refuted the larger CC mint marks as the under marks.
But the 1874 Minute CC seems to be a good candidate, being much closer to the right height.
Some compression in the width and height might be expected,
given that some efforts may have been taken to flatten the surface to remove traces of the CC,
and the S was punched close to the side?

In my view, "Refuted" is fairly strong language, suggesting 99-100% certainty.
Here things are much more subjective.
So I might word it in terms of a "most likely explanation", rather than a certain or impossible explanation.

kevinj

__> @yosclimber said:

I think you refuted the larger CC mint marks as the under marks.
But the 1874 Minute CC seems to be a good candidate, being much closer to the right height.
Some compression in the width and height might be expected,
given that some efforts may have been taken to flatten the surface to remove traces of the CC,
and the S was punched close to the side?

In my view, "Refuted" is fairly strong language, suggesting 99-100% certainty.
Here things are much more subjective.
So I might word it in terms of a "most likely explanation", rather than a certain or impossible explanation.

I agree, more likely the S/Minute CC mintmark. The EDS photo Tom Delorey showed me the in the post listed above
shows a much cleaner C, and also remnants of the second C to the left of the S, which aligns with the minute CC pair
overlay in the article

The second S/CC listed in CP and elsewhere which is 1/4 the size of the S is no where near the correct size to be
the remnants of even a minute C.

Thanks
Kevin

ricko

Thanks for the study and pictures.....I do not have one of these in my CC series.... I have the O/CC.... Should find one of these to add. Cheers, RickO