Why does one of the Half Dismes in the Heritage FUN auction appear to be much larger than the others

IGWT

In this thread, joconnor and MrEureka pointed out that one of the Half Dismes in the Heritage FUN auction is "significantly larger" than the other four. The coin graded PCGS XF45 certainly looks substantially larger in diameter than the other examples in the photos, judging relative sizes based on the constant slab dimensions. I'm including those photographs here as well as in the other thread.

I calculated the diameter of the coins in PCGS holders by using the ratio of the pictured slab dimensions to actual slab dimensions. I realize that there's room for error, but it's the best I can do without seeing the coins to put a Venier caliper on them. I calculated the diameter of the VF20 and the VF30 to be 17.3 mm, and the diameter of the MS63 to be 17.2 mm. The reported diameter of the 1792 Half Disme is 17.5 mm, so I can't be far off, and a difference of that magnitude might even be attributable to the coins being struck in an open collar.

I calculated the diameter of the coin in the XF45 holder to be 19.4 mm, or 2.1 mm larger in diameter than the other coins, which works out to be just about 1/10 of an inch. That difference is significant for coins of this size. I don't see how the open collar can account for a difference of this magnitude; and, in any event, the lettering extends all the way to the rim, and the portrait of Liberty also looks larger.

What's going on here? Optical illusion created by photographic technique? Slab gasket concealing more of the other coins? Or is the XF45 really larger . . . and what's the import of that?

CoinRaritiesOnline

Hmmm...

cmerlo1

I know nothing about these, but it looks to me like a different die as well...

STONE

Optical Illusion?

Some of the plastic slab on that EF-45 is actually bent slightly magnifying the image. (It's the only theory I can think of at the moment).

Cladiator

<< <i>...but it looks to me like a different die as well... >>

What makes you think it looks like a different die?

MrEureka

Hmmm...

I agree.

cmerlo1

<< <i>

<< <i>...but it looks to me like a different die as well... >>

What makes you think it looks like a different die? >>



Liberty has more of a nose bridge and her forehead is more upright than on the others...

Longacre

<< <i> Hmmm...

I agree. >>





Very interesting

habaraca

that is an optical conclusion

MrEureka

that is an optical conclusion

No, it's not. I had them in hand a couple of weeks ago.

IGWT

I calculated the diameter of the coin in the XF45 holder to be 19.4 mm, or 2.1 mm larger in diameter than the other coins . . . ."

Holy carp! That makes it the same diameter as an early dime! Edited to add: Coincidence?

Cladiator

I've lit the beacon.

FatMan

There are two weird things going on here. First is the noted size difference of the XF example, second is the fact that there are five 1792 half dismes up for auction.

MrHalfDime

I believe that you have gone as far as you can with an analysis of the images, and the answers to your questions can only come from an in-hand analysis of the coins themselves. Apparently Andy Lustig has done that, and has offered an intriguing, albeit cryptic, observation, that the EF-45 specimen is, in fact, actually larger in diameter than the others, and might even be pulled from the auction.

Your analysis of the photographic images, and the calculations of their respective diameters, is excellent, but is premised on the observer's determination of the outside perimeter of the coin. However, since the coin is in a %$!#@ slab, one cannot accurately determine exactly where the edge is, buried within the plastic ring. I am reluctant to say "I told you so", but this is just one more example of where it would be preferable to have the coin raw, and not encased in plastic. Arguably the answer can only be determined when the coin is freed from its plastic tomb.

You were also quite correct in noting that the 1792 half dismes were struck in what is termed an "open collar", which is actually somewhat of a misnomer. It was struck within a collar, or large plate of steel, in which there was a hole punched which defined the coining chamber. The inside diameter of this hole in the collar was somewhat larger than the 'specified' outside diameter of the struck coins, allowing for the coin silver to be 'squeezed' outward under the pressure of the hand screw press without disturbing the edge reeding. The edge reeding on a 1792 half disme was impressed on a bias, before the coin was struck, not perpendicular to the plane of the coin faces, but on an angle.

To my knowledge there was but one die pair made for the 1792 half dismes, and I have never seen an example struck from another die pair, nor have I heard of one. That, however, means little, as this intriguing piece of Americana has really not been as completely and thoroughly studied as it deserves. For instance, I was surprised to see that, on the MS-68 Rittenhouse example of the 1792 half disme on display at the ANA - Milwaukee, there is a small die crack on the reverse, through the right wing. It is very small, but I have never seen it before, nor heard mention of it in any of the available literature. There could have been a different die pair used, although that is highly unlikely due to the circumstances under which it was struck. The apparent differences in diameter could result from expansion of the planchet due to different pressure applied by the coining press (although a difference as large as you have calculated seems unlikely). To my mind, the most plausible explanation, lacking an in-hand inspection of the coins, lies somewhere between "optical illusion", digital image distortion, and the plastic ring covering some of the rim of the coin. I look forward to a personal inspection of these pieces during lot inspection at the FUN Show.

IGWT

-- Your analysis of the photographic images, and the calculations of their respective diameters, is excellent, but is premised on the observer's determination of the outside perimeter of the coin. However, since the coin is in a %$!#@ slab, one cannot accurately determine exactly where the edge is, buried within the plastic ring." --

That's true, and it certainly could account for some error; but, the calculations for the "regular-size" coins came very near to the known diameter of the Half Disme, so I doubt that the edges of those coins extend far beyond the perimeters of the gasket openings. And, if the edge of the XF45 is buried deeply in the gasket, then the calculations understate the difference in size. While I agree with you that slabs severely hinder the study of coins in hand, they actually assist in determining the relative size of coins based on images. I would not have been able to determine and to compare the diameters of the coins without something of known size in the pictures.

-- To my mind, the most plausible explanation, lacking an in-hand inspection of the coins, lies somewhere between "optical illusion", digital image distortion, and the plastic ring covering some of the rim of the coin." --

I don't know what kind of "optical illusion" or digital image distortion could explain what we see in the pictures, and I see no evidence of something of that kind (for example, the picture of the slab is not distorted in any way). Even if you choose to discount the photographic evidence, I find it difficult to disregard the reports of Joe O'Connor and Andy Lustig based on their in-hand inspection of the coins. And, of course, their reported observations are perfectly consistent with what we see in the pictures.

RBinTex

What is the significance of the one noted as "J-7" versus the others? A pattern one (with the same PCGS No.???)? Are all known as Judd 7?

NumisOxide

Strange.

IGWT

<< <i>What is the significance of the one noted as "J-7" versus the others? A pattern one (with the same PCGS No.???)? Are all known as Judd 7? >>



Technically, although the 1792 Half Disme in silver is listed in both Judd and Pollock, it is regarded as a regular issue and not a pattern. At least 1500 were struck, with a few hundred likely surviving (maybe 10 or so in uncirculated condition). PCGS apparently used to attribute the issue by Judd number but no longer does so.

lasvegasteddy

interesting to say the least...i may add too in that the xf45 looks as if the hair extends out moreso on the back of the head too..."it's bushier and fuller extending outward" .just envisioning the hair profile on the back i see a diff

CaptHenway

Couldn't say this happened to the piece without seeing it, but FWIW while at ANACS we saw a few coins that had been attificially expanded by being placed between two strips of leather and beaten with a hammer. If "done properly" (an oxymoron, I know) that can be relatively little distortion.
TD

MrHalfDime

The practice that Tom Delorey describes, of placing a coin between two strips of leather and beaten with a hammer, was sometimes done to straighten a bent coin. The little half dismes were so thin, they sometimes bent in normal use, and were later straightened by this or other methods.

"I don't know what kind of "optical illusion" or digital image distortion could explain what we see in the pictures ..."

In my work I often share blueprints or schematics with other engineers, usually as PDF files. Many of these drawings contain scales, or were produced to a certain scale. However, we have learned not to rely on the scale when using an electronically reproduced copy, as they often can and do vary - significantly. The distortion may not be immediately evident to the eye, as the entire drawing can be distorted, but when compared to the original or even another copy, they do not align.

I am not doubting or questioning anyone here, but simply awaiting a personal, in-hand inspection before jumping to conclusions. I recall another thread about an odd looking 1792 half disme on this forum a few years ago, which turned out to be a fake. I am keeping a completely open mind until I see the coins for myself.

mrearlygold

My favorite coin i

Broadstruck

IGWT

Twenty-one tracking, five bidding, currently at $103,500 (with the juice).

Barndog

<< <i>The practice that Tom Delorey describes, of placing a coin between two strips of leather and beaten with a hammer, was sometimes done to straighten a bent coin. The little half dismes were so thin, they sometimes bent in normal use, and were later straightened by this or other methods.

"I don't know what kind of "optical illusion" or digital image distortion could explain what we see in the pictures ..."

In my work I often share blueprints or schematics with other engineers, usually as PDF files. Many of these drawings contain scales, or were produced to a certain scale. However, we have learned not to rely on the scale when using an electronically reproduced copy, as they often can and do vary - significantly. The distortion may not be immediately evident to the eye, as the entire drawing can be distorted, but when compared to the original or even another copy, they do not align.

I am not doubting or questioning anyone here, but simply awaiting a personal, in-hand inspection before jumping to conclusions. I recall another thread about an odd looking 1792 half disme on this forum a few years ago, which turned out to be a fake. I am keeping a completely open mind until I see the coins for myself. >>



that was a 1792 in an NTC holder.

So you plan on going to lot viewing and inspecting all five of these coins in hand? What a surprise

IGWT

I had the good fortune to view the half dismes. The XF45 is dramatically larger in diameter than her sisters.

Sunnywood

I examined the half disme and discussed it with John Dannreuther, as well as several other knowledgeable guys. The coin appears to show the same die diagnostics as the standard diameter coins, but everything is enlarged. One possibility is that it is a later counterfeit copy, circa 1850's to 1860's, and in the transfer process, the image was enlarged. But the consensus seems to be that the coin is genuine, and was hammered to straighten out a bent condition, but then perhaps subsequently became bent again. The second time around, the coin would have been work hardened from the first hammering, so it was perhaps heated to soften the metal and remove (anneal) the prior cold work, then was re-hammered. This dual hammering might account for the extreme enlargement, and the heating might account for certain "alligator track" surface conditions that we now see on the planchet. Certainly there is a question here that needs to be studied further. A precise weight would help to settle the question.

Best,
Sunnywood

tradedollarnut

If it was work hardened, how did it become bent the second time?

EagleEye

I also examined the coins side-by-side and am of the opinion that the XF coin was hammered like TD explained. It is the same dies, but everything is enlarged. There are very few instances when you can have four examples of the half disme side-by-side (the fifth example was in the key box, so I didn't have it to view with the others) and it is glaringly obvious when examined as such. On its own I'd never have noticed.

Sunnywood

TDN, these coins are struck on relatively thin planchets. Even with work hardening, a silver-copper alloy is not a terribly strong material. It would not be that difficult to bend a thin silver planchet, even with work hardening. But it would be more difficult to hammer it flat at that point - hence the notion that someone might have heated the coin in order to hammer it a second time. Of course this is all pure speculation, but at least I am presenting a scenario that could explain what we are seeing.

P.S. John Dannreuther was leaning toward the idea of it being a later copy. But that too is only a guess without actual physical testing of the coin.

Best,
Sunnywood

tradedollarnut

P.S. John Dannreuther was leaning toward the idea of it being a later copy

So was the coin withdrawn?

EagleEye

Lot #2740 appears to have been withdrawn.

NHSBaseball

<< <i>Lot #2740 appears to have been withdrawn. >>



If so, does that mean that PCGS is "on the hook" to buy back the coin and take it off the market?

TheCaveTroll

<< <i>P.S. John Dannreuther was leaning toward the idea of it being a later copy

So was the coin withdrawn? >>



When David Hall inspected it his comment was "My first though is that it is counterfeit".

It was withdrawn, I believe.

TheCaveTroll

<< <i>

<< <i>Lot #2740 appears to have been withdrawn. >>



If so, does that mean that PCGS is "on the hook" to buy back the coin and take it off the market? >>



very likely

TheCaveTroll

<< <i>

<< <i>P.S. John Dannreuther was leaning toward the idea of it being a later copy

So was the coin withdrawn? >>



When David Hall inspected it his comment was "My first though is that it is counterfeit".

It was withdrawn, I believe. >>



I was told that when Tony Terranova inspected it he was convinced it was genuine but heated and hammered, potentially to make it dime sized to pass it as a dime in commerce.

itsnotjustme

Wow!

Can someone explain how a coin could be hammered, perhaps twice, to the extent that its diameter increases... and then not get body bagged due to damage from the hammering??

sinin1

they did a good job?
between 2 pieces of leather?
how close is it to dime size now?


I am going to try it and see if I can pawn off one of those funny nickels and make it a funny quarter

VintageJeff

This is completely laughable. I don't even know what to make of this. Certainly does not instill any confidence in any party involved.

elwood

Fake!

fc

interesting thread. best so far in 2008!
thanks everyone for an interesting read.

Sunnywood

I think we would all agree that even if the coin is genuine, yet was so extensively hammered so as to substantially increase its diameter (which I personally find hard to believe), it should have been bodybagged as "damaged."

Alternatively, if the coin is a copy, then obviously it should also have been bodybagged.

I'm glad the lot was withdrawn !! But it sure was interesting & fun to discuss it with everyone.

Best,
Sunnywood

Barry

Assuming PCGS buys the coin, what happens to it?
If it's real, but altered, do they crack it out and resell it for what it is?
If fake, destroy it or donate to the ANA's counterfeit collection?
Something else?

keets

i believe the "hammering and heating" theory is as counterfiet as the coin.

slumlord98

Heritage pulled three lots at the request of our hosts, according to a Heritage bigwig. Have the others been discussed?

sinin1

Is this the flattened coin in todays Teletrade?

Teletrade link

FatMan

<< <i>Is this the flattened coin in todays Teletrade?

Teletrade link >>

It looks to be the same.

MrEureka

It was also in the FUN auction a few weeks ago, described as follows:

1792 H10C Half Disme, Judd-7, Pollock-7, R.4--Flattened--PCGS Genuine. Almost exactly the size of a 1796 dime, when we first saw this coin over a year ago we thought it might be a special coin. It has XF45 Details, and when one considers it has been flattened it is surprising how much definition there is on this piece, with the details as balanced and even as would be seen on a normally circulated coin. In last year's FUN auction, several experts spotted this coin in an unqualified PCGS holder and commented that it had been flattened. It seemed illogical but examination showed that the coin was indeed wider than a normal half disme, so PCGS bought it off the market in a deal negotiated with our consignor, then re-consigned it to this auction.
Most likely over two centuries ago, this piece had apparently been placed between two pieces of leather then meticulously and lightly struck with a mallet. It was wide enough to pass as a disme or an early dime. The diameter of a half disme is approximately 17 mm, while a disme measures approximately 22 mm. This coin has a diameter of 20 mm. So, after flattening it was closer to the diameter of a disme than a half disme.
All that considered, this is an unusually pleasing half disme. The flattening does not appear to have materially affected any of the design elements. The hair of Liberty and the eagle's breast feathers are significantly stronger than one usually sees, leading us to the conclusion that the flattening must have occurred shortly after it was produced. There is a curved scratch through LF and to the eagle's right (facing) wing, and there is also an area of planchet cracking on the lower left portion of the reverse. Otherwise, the surfaces are unremarkable for a half disme and the coin only shows the small marks one would expect. Both obverse and reverse are light gray with deeper gray accents in the recesses and brightness over the high points. All in all, this is a remarkable half disme with an interesting story to tell.

northcoin

This thread is almost as exciting as the UHR threads.

northcoin

<< <i>interesting thread. best so far in 2008!
thanks everyone for an interesting read. >>





(Except of course for the fascinating UHR threads.)

MrEureka

One last crazy thought for the night. What if the coin was not flattened and is in fact a counterfeit? Specifically, I'm wondering what might happen if two very soft false dies were used to strike false 1792 half dismes. Could the dies actually spread this dramatically through use? And if so, could the product look like this coin?