I just decided to pay multiples of "sheet" for this coin. *UPDATED* Thin Shield 5c struck
IGWT
Posts: 4,975 ✭
Maybe I'm losing it; maybe I'm not. Here's a picture of the coin, an 1867 5c w/rays, that grades fairly at AU50. The photo is OK, but the coin is a bit more attractive in hand with more retained luster than it appears to have, and there's a faint clash on the reverse that doesn't show.
So what do you think? Feel free to ask any questions about the coin before expressing your opinion. I'll answer any specific, relevant question to the best of my ability.
Edited 12/12/08 to fix link (the new picture gives it away).
So what do you think? Feel free to ask any questions about the coin before expressing your opinion. I'll answer any specific, relevant question to the best of my ability.
Edited 12/12/08 to fix link (the new picture gives it away).
0
Comments
the die break at 4 o'clock looks like it had an effect on the edge
almost looks like a stright clip there but I guess the planchet had no chance to fill to edge
If I understand your question correctly, the striations at the edge of the cud are flow lines that mirror the profile of the break in the die.
Ahooka. You're being too kind. Really. I know that you've turned over a new leaf, and you were probably placed on double-secret probation upon your return from banishment, but I think I'd actually prefer being called crazy for paying multiple sheet price for a cud.
whats up with the left arrow - the top looks tripled
and the right arrow looks doubled
I "overpaid" for a specific reason, and I'm trying to play a guessing game. Ask specific questions about the coin that you think will reveal the reason, and I'll answer as best as I can.
whats up with the left arrow - the top looks tripled
and the right arrow looks doubled
Thanks for playing, Sinin! There is no true doubling (or tripling) of the design elements or date (although there is some Longacre doubling, particularly on the reverse).
I have learned that sometimes its not worth getting all wound up over what some say. Coins are my hobby and I really love my hobby.
Back to your coin though, I like it. Whatever the price you bought it for a reason. It said something to you at the time and thats all that matters.
Two questions for you, 1. Do you like it?
2. Is it stickerable?
1. Yes.
2. No, it's raw. I cracked it out of the slab because I wanted to actually look at it.
and YES ... you're f'n crazy!! what are you doing, trying to drive the prices of these up again!!!
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Even if the variety is R-7, the known population would still exceed the number of collectors
I really do think that the cud looks cool, but I am interested to see what you see in the coin.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
I'll take that general comment as a specific question. T'ain't an esoteric variety, nor a common one, for that matter.
or is there something we can't see on the third side of the coin? (more probably)
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
That leaf was hand engraved on every working die made from obverse hub A (used from 1866 through part of 1869), so the leaf looks different on all coins that were made from different dies. There are "missing leaf" varieties because there were some dies that slipped through; but, this coin isn't one of them. Respectfully and without malice, IGWT.
No problem even if it makes you one of the " New Breed Collectors™".
I don't know what is special about this coin for you but I like it.
or is there something we can't see on the third side of the coin? (more probably)
Yes, being able to see the third side might be important . . . .
am I assumming to much to see the diameter is correct?
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
am I assumming to much to see the diameter is correct?
The coin weighs 3.56 grams. The diameter is right on at 20.5 mm (0.808 in.)
<< <i>So here's a shot. The coin on the left is the coin pictured in the OP; the coin on the right is a typical Shield 5c. But let's continue the game and figure out what happened with this coin. I started with three theories, I've eliminated one, and have a preference for one of the remaining two. But other folks might have different ideas.
So was this difference in thickness obvious in the slab? You must be really quite accustomed to looking for this sort of thing unless there is some sort of clue that is indigenous to it on either the obverse or reverse.
It looks in the original photo to have a slight flatness at 2 o'clock. This could indicate a partial clip. I don't know at all. I'm speculating.
It looks in the original photo to have a slight flatness at 2 o'clock. This could indicate a partial clip. I don't know at all. I'm speculating.
Joe -- You need to back up a read a couple of the earlier posts to find out what's going on with the coin. But, to answer your question, the flatness at the edge is attributable to the cud sucking up a lot of metal. You'll also see substantial weakness in the denticles opposite the cud on the reverse.
it clearly is a wrong planchett error now that we see only half thickness
oops - forgot to add some sort of pattern since first year of issue
that has circulated - although scratch my head on why they would let it out with broken die
The specific gravity of the piece is within the range of Cu/Ni alloy as tested on other examples of regular Shield 5c.
... as it is also quite a bit thinner than a regular strike, this also lends more questions than answers
IGWT ... I think we'd all be interested in your theories
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Is that a special baby carriage built for large triplets?
IGWT ... I think we'd all be interested in your theories
We'll get there (and the theories aren't anything brilliant), but I don't want to make any suggestions that might get in the way of other thoughts.
This is where I was thinking as well. I first thought of three-cent stock, but if my calculations are correct that would produce a coin lighter than this one.
If my calc's are correct, the cent roller would also make it light.
Since the specific gravity is within tolerence that is ...
Maybe I need to stop thinking for a few ... lol
If so, there must be other examples out there like that.
You would think so, unless this is a obscure pattern planchet that got mixed up into the process.
This is a cool numismatic mystery
Indeed it is
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Not possible.
-- I am curious. Is it possible this coin was struck much later,and is the reverse proof die? Respectfully, John Curlis --
I suppose that's possible, but I can't see anything on the coin that would lead me to believe that it's a restrike. I'm as sure as sure can be under the circumstances that the reverse die was not used for proofs (there is no evidence of the centering dot that's present on both '66 and '67 w/rays proofs). What idea are you working on, Charlie?
My question is : was the bidding competitive or was this a private transaction ? Obviously the seller and you both know soemthing.
Joe
My question is : was the bidding competitive or was this a private transaction ? Obviously the seller and you both know soemthing.
I'm an easy mark
Dealer: Here's what I have and this is my price.
Me: That's a neat thing if it's genuine.
Dealer: You can crack it out and test it, if you want.
Me: Please send it.
Dealer: Here's what I have and this is my price.
Me: That's a neat thing if it's genuine.
Dealer: You can crack it out and test it, if you want.
Me: Please send it.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Any other ideas?
Edited to correct typos (0.044 in., not 0.44 in.; and 0.053 in., not 0.53 in.).
a composition analysis would help prove/disprove your theory
another option would be die-struck copy
have you seen any other coins with that die break?