Options
The perfect coin for that Library of Coins 1/2C Album!
halfcentman
Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭
Those classic albums actually have two holes for 1796's. This is a genuine coin that I imaged at the EAC Convention last year in Annapolis.
0
Comments
<< <i>Anything that starts with 17 has a soft spot in my heart. >>
This ain't just any old 17XX.
<< <i>
<< <i>Anything that starts with 17 has a soft spot in my heart. >>
This ain't just any old 17XX. >>
No kidding! It's a 1796 No Pole! The rarest half cent date business strike is the 1796, and the No Pole is the rarer of the two varieties, with fewer than 20 known examples.
Great coin!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I was offered the opportunity to metal detect an old plantation just south of here once, but was feeling under the weather, so I canceled.
My digging buddy (Steve, aka "Millennium" here on the forums) went out there and dug a 1794 Lib Cap half cent in about this grade , with relatively little porosity for a ground find. (Edit- OK, not maybe not quite as high grade as the coin above, and of course not a rare date, but wow nonetheless.)
I was even sicker when I heard that and saw pictures of the coin.
It wasn't the first half cent he's dug, but I have yet to find one (no 2c or 3c yet, either, and fuhgeddabout the odds of diggin' a 20c piece).
<< <i>Oh, hot diggety. The environmental damage to the left is unfortunate, but that's an awesome looking piece and I find the planchet flaw interesting. >>
The bisecting line across the obverse is not a planchet flaw, it is a die crack that is evident on all known 1796 No Pole half cents. Probably this die crack caused the die to fail fairly early, accounting for the rarity of the coins struck from those dies. Most 1796 half cents show porosity, especially the No Poles.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Not this coin, but the one in the Rouse sale in 2008 brought an amazing $345K with the juice.
<< <i>The bisecting line across the obverse is not a planchet flaw, it is a die crack that is evident on all known 1796 No Pole half cents. Probably this die crack caused the die to fail fairly early, accounting for the rarity of the coins struck from those dies. Most 1796 half cents show porosity, especially the No Poles. >>
I stand corrected. I shoulda known that, actually. But something in my brain read it as a planchet that had peeled off due to a lamination, for some reason.
Goes to show you how much experience I have with pre-1800 half cents. Zilch!
<< <i>There are three known uncirculateds, one known AU, and then it drops down to a few Fines, and the rest of them are "not as nice." >>
Any idea where this one would rank in the census?
<< <i>
<< <i>There are three known uncirculateds, one known AU, and then it drops down to a few Fines, and the rest of them are "not as nice." >>
Any idea where this one would rank in the census? >>
My guess would be that it is in the top 10, quite easily. There are three Mint State examples known although Coin Facts says that there are four. Below that the grades drop off sharply, to pieces with Fine or VF sharpness, but issues, like this piece. I'd net grade this one to a Fine-12 (VF-20 sharpness lightly porous), although the EAC people probably call it a VG.
The big trouble with this date is that a lot of the survivors are porous and sometimes it’s hard to distinguish between a porous coin and a cast piece. The late Roger Cohen got caught up on that. His 1796 half cents turned out to be cast counterfeits.
I know of the Eliasberg, Whitney, "Missouri Cabinet," and the Spence coin from Stack's in the mid-1970's. The Spence coin is in an MS62BN PCGS slab, but that may be the AU50 in the EAC census, because there are 3 MS's listed in the CC in Copper Quotes.
This coin is probably in the lower half of the top 10, but do not hold me to that. Now you got me thinking. If I come up with anything, I'll keep the thread going and post it.
Greg
<< <i>Those classic albums actually have two holes for 1796's. >>
Yes, the Library of Coins half cent album did have holes for the 1796 pole and no pole half cents. They are also had a deceptive mintage figure under them of 115,500 for both varieties. In contrast the 1795 half cents listed mintages of 25,600 for the "lettered edge - pole" and "plain edge - no pole" and 1,795 each for the plain edge and letter edge pieces.
In contrast the 1802 half dime was not included in the Library of Coins ablum because it was "too rare." Oh well the 1965 Red Book did say that the 1802 half dime was worth more than either of the 1796 half cents.
<< <i>Very nice. I am consistently told none are available in the condition I am seeking. >>
What grade would you like?
You could probably find a "with pole" piece in the grade you want. That coin is an R-5, and there are probably 75 or 80 of those known.
I face sort of the same problem with the 1802 half dime. There are about 40 of those known with a few in the EF (now slabbed grade AU) range and not very many pieces in mid grades like Fine and VF that don't have some damage.
<< <i>Preferably holed, Bill. Or crudely plugged, so I can knock it out. I bid on a really ugly porous one a year or so ago but it was too ugly for me to bid high enough to obtain. It went for less than 10k so I probably should have kept bidding. Another ship sailed. >>
I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about a 1796 half cent with a hole. As a matter of fact I can't think of many, if any half cents, with a hole. These humble coins were perhaps not considered worthy of being used for jewelry.
Years ago Jim McGuigan teased me with one that had many marks in it that was to become available from one of his customers who had upgraded his coin. I never heard any more about it.
You might be surprised at how much the asking price would be for one with a hole. I know I've been surprised at the asking prices for type coins that are a lot more common than a 1796 half cent.