Ever seen a photo of one of your coins taken 120 years ago? (photos from catalog added)

SmallEagle · February 18, 2010 1:16AM

At Kolbe's sale of the Stack Library in January I bought a catalog of Chapman's December 1890 sale of the Thomas Cleneay collection. Plate 5 of the catalog shows a selection of 24 dollars and half dollars and includes a 1795 half dollar I bought from Kathleen Duncan for my type set. The coin looks exactly like it did 120 years ago. It was later owned by T James Clark and Norweb.

I usually don't get over-excited about pedigrees but seeing the how the coin looked over 100 years ago makes me want to take very good care of it. I'll try to take a photo from the catalog tonight but here's what the coin looks like today (PCGS MS63):

Meltdown · February 18, 2010 1:20AM

Very cool.
I would like to see the auction photo's when you can shoot it.

PTVETTER · February 18, 2010 1:29AM

I think that story is great.

Knowing the history behind the coin you own has to give one the warm and fuzzy's

messydesk · February 18, 2010 1:37AM

Very cool! Looking forward to seeing the picture. It'd be interesting trying to take good pictures of coins with 1890s technology. At least they didn't have to worry about slabs and trying to capture accurate color.

HighRelief · February 18, 2010 1:40AM

How cool is that, finding one of your coins in a catalog and tracking the pedigree to the previous owners. I am looking forward to viewing the photo of your half dollar from Chapmans catalog

SmallEagle · February 18, 2010 1:44AM

<< Congrads ! Beautiful speciman, kind of goes to prove that grerat coins had to be owned by the great collectors of years gone by.
Was it attributed on the pcgs holder to any of the above pedigrees?
Does the Chapman catalog have any plates for bust dimes and bust half dimes? >>

Plate 7 shows 27 bust dimes and 9 bust half dimes.

seemyauction · February 18, 2010 1:46AM

That is awesome, did they offer a grade in the sale catalog ?

CaptHenway · February 18, 2010 1:49AM

Shazam!
Great coin, great story!
TD

SmallEagle · February 18, 2010 1:53AM

<< That is awesome, did they offer a grade in the sale catalog ? >>

Described in the catalog as:

1795 Uncirculated. Sharp impression. Mint lustre. Die slightly cracked from R and T to second star before head; lower curl between first and second star. Extremely rare in this condition. Plate V.

Lewy · February 18, 2010 1:56AM

How super neat to have the catalog 'and' the coin. Very special O-110A.

tradedollarnut · February 18, 2010 2:03AM

That is cooool.

BaseballAbs · February 18, 2010 2:09AM

That is cool. I would love to see the two images side by side.

AgBlox · February 18, 2010 2:12AM

Nice coin, What did PCGS grade it back then?

123cents · February 18, 2010 2:15AM

Great story and gorgeous coin!

TwoSides2aCoin · February 18, 2010 2:17AM

This is intriquing and it captivates the imagination of anyone who appreciates history, not to mention U.S. coins.

19Lyds · February 18, 2010 2:20AM

<< The coin looks exactly like it did 120 years ago. >>

So much for Natural Toning!

Which begs the question: Why hasn't it toned?

TwoSides2aCoin · February 18, 2010 2:22AM

...and thank you for sharing this , too

Bochiman · February 18, 2010 2:31AM

That's cool, but for a coin like that, what would be REALLY cool, would be seeing a photo of it when it was struck or thereafter

chucknra · February 18, 2010 2:43AM

Neat! Excited to see what the original looks like!

bluelobster · February 18, 2010 2:48AM

That coin is gorgeous! wanna trade

Actually that coin is toned and I like the toning, subtle, yet far from white. No?

lkeigwin · February 18, 2010 2:57AM

Wow. That is very cool. Can't wait to see the catalog photo!

Beautiful flowing hair half, BTW. Amazing detail and wonderful preservation.
Lance.

SmallEagle · February 18, 2010 3:05AM

<< That coin is gorgeous! wanna trade

Actually that coin is toned and I like the toning, subtle, yet far from white. No? >>

Yes, it is far from white.

speety · February 18, 2010 3:08AM

Furthest back I have is 1945, or 65 years ago.

19Lyds · February 18, 2010 3:22AM

<< 

<< 

<< The coin looks exactly like it did 120 years ago. >>

So much for Natural Toning!

Which begs the question: Why hasn't it toned? >>

Looks toned to me in the photo, and although the op says it looks the same maybe he was just saying it is the same coin as opposed to explicity describing any and all changes to the coin, like a darkening or lightening for that matter. I could see it changing slightly maybe a bit darker but then I will wager it will be hard to tell much from the photo taken in 1890 for subtle changes in toning. >>

Yeah yeah. Maybe this and maybe that.

My take is the OP stated "The coin looks exactly like it did 120 years ago." which, since he obviously wasn't there 100 years ago (Edward is that you??), tells me the coin looks the same today (in hand) as it did in the plate photo.

I would surmise from his photo (assuming it is accurate) that very little toning has occured on this coin which IMO is a very good thing. But it also says, why all the other MONSTER RAINBOW TONERS" out there in the market place?

SmallEagle · February 18, 2010 3:34AM

From the relatively small photo in the catalog it looks very similar to how it looks in hand today. For example in the catalog you can clearly see the two specks under star 7 and the mark across the top of the eagle's wing facing right.

SaorAlba · February 18, 2010 4:56AM

My earliest pedigree on a coin goes back to a 1903 auction catalog - so only 107 years for me.

LeeG · February 18, 2010 5:14AM

Cool piece of history and a very nice coin!

Quarternut · February 18, 2010 5:14AM

The 2/25/1873 Chubbuck sale by John Haseltine is the oldest catalog I have that shows a plate (photo) of a coin I own.

It is always an added bonus when one can connect an object in your collection to a previous time and place, especially when that time spans more than a century. It also adds to ones enjoyment to know who else, whether they be a famous collector or not, may have owned and held a certain coin that you now own.

Although it doesn't mean that everyone should care, it surely makes the coin more special to the collector who is fortunate enough to be able to make the connection.

As to the toning...what occurs over time is always related to how the coin was stored. Environment determines how much toning will be increased or impeded.
QN

determined · February 18, 2010 5:45AM

Very cool coin and story SmallEagle!

And yes, please post a pic from the catalog. That would be interesting to see.

joebb21 · February 18, 2010 5:51AM

thats amazing!
cant wait to see your next addition to your type set!

SmallEagle · February 18, 2010 6:24AM

Here are some photos from the Chapman catalog of the Cleneay sale. I apologize as my photography skills aren't what they could be.

The title page:

The preface describing the importance of the sale:

The plate showing my 1795 half dollar (third on left side):

Blurry close-up of the obverse:

Ridiculous early large cents:

Some bust dimes for Realone:

dsessom · February 18, 2010 6:29AM

Wow! Kinda makes you wonder where all those early cents are now. I wonder if they survived to present day? Pity if they didn't! You don't see them like that much anymore!

Thanks for sharing the pics and story.

grip · February 18, 2010 6:44AM

<< Wow! Kinda makes you wonder where all those early cents are now. I wonder if they survived to present day? Pity if they didn't! You don't see them like that much anymore!

Thanks for sharing the pics and story. >>

I was thinking the same thing.I also wonder how many coins are toned in that catalog.

ChrisRx · February 18, 2010 6:57AM

Very neat!!!

guitarwes · February 18, 2010 6:57AM

that is just all kinds of neat. Thanks for sharing. Those are awesome coins! Although primitive, it looks like they captured some of the frostiness on some of those Bust Dimes and Seated Dollars. just awesome.