Options
Blank planchet for 1793 half cent certified
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
bob
And finally, a coin we don't have to debate the grade on.
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Error.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Mint error or pattern? Inquiring minds want to know!
Error. >>
Do explain
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>When was the last time you had a little ole lady walk into your store with such an item inquiring as to its value
Because everybody knows that what would happen next is that any dealer would instantly recognize what it was and offer the little ole lady five bucks for it. That's what you meant but didn't come right out and say, isn't it?
Never having owned an 18th century US half cent, and forgetting about the lettered edge on them, I found myself initially wondering, "how in the heck did they know what it was?" before I clicked the link.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mint error or pattern? Inquiring minds want to know!
Error. >>
Do explain >>
no date after having coins from 1792 with dates
Only if the coin was struck in a close collar. And even if that were the case, the letters would not be obliterated, as they are incuse, not raised.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mint error or pattern? Inquiring minds want to know!
Error. >>
Do explain >>
no date after having coins from 1792 with dates >>
Point being that it could just as easily be a pattern to test the edge lettering as a so called mint error.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mint error or pattern? Inquiring minds want to know!
Error. >>
Do explain >>
no date after having coins from 1792 with dates >>
Point being that it could just as easily be a pattern to test the edge lettering as a so called mint error. >>
If the planchet weight and metal alloy is correct (which it is said to be correct), then it would make complete sense that this is simply what it appears to be: a planchet which had it's edge milled, but which was never struck and somehow made it out of the mint (perhaps it was indeed found with other mint scrap when the 1st mint was torn down--it's poor condition would seem to point to that as being a possibility.)
This exact error type is know on other coins as well, such as the presidential dollars (unstruck planchet with a lettered edge.)
If the edge device was different in any way than the edge device that was actually used on 1793 Half Cents, you could reasonably speculate that the piece was experimental, in which case it could be called a "pattern". That is, assuming the broadest definition of the word "pattern". But in this case, the edge is not unusual, so the odds of it being experimental are close to nil.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Not in person, but I've seen the picture in the Breen Half Cent Encyclopedia.
BTW, Breen also cites Ebenezer Locke Mason, Jr.'s report (in 1869) of a 1793, but Breen said the planchet is "not now traced". In all probability, the new discovery is the same piece reported by Mason.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Point being that it could just as easily be a pattern to test the edge lettering as a so called mint error.
If the edge device was different in any way than the edge device that was actually used on 1793 Half Cents, you could reasonably speculate that the piece was experimental, in which case it could be called a "pattern". That is, assuming the broadest definition of the word "pattern". But in this case, the edge is not unusual, so the odds of it being experimental are close to nil. >>
You don't change if you've got it right. Perhaps my terminology was incorrect. I was thinking along the lines of a splasher - done to test that all is working correctly.
While that's possible, there's still no reason why they wouldn't have taken the successfully edged piece and turned it into a struck half cent.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Has anyone ever seen any half cent planchets prior to this one (for the entire series--not simply 1793)?
Not in person, but I've seen the picture in the Breen Half Cent Encyclopedia.
BTW, Breen also cites Ebenezer Locke Mason, Jr.'s report (in 1869) of a 1793, but Breen said the planchet is "not now traced". In all probability, the new discovery is the same piece reported by Mason. >>
It would make sense that this is the same coin, as you say. If I was the owner of the coin, or was a potential buyer of it, that information would certainly be worth connecting to this coin.
<< <i>Has anyone ever seen any half cent planchets prior to this one (for the entire series--not simply 1793)? >>
Superior sold one about 10 years ago. Goldberg's sold two in the same auction about 2-4 years ago. I don't track these, so that's just off the top of my head. Maybe someone else can dig through the old sales and find them.
<< <i>Point being that it could just as easily be a pattern to test the edge lettering as a so called mint error.
If the edge device was different in any way than the edge device that was actually used on 1793 Half Cents, you could reasonably speculate that the piece was experimental, in which case it could be called a "pattern". That is, assuming the broadest definition of the word "pattern". But in this case, the edge is not unusual, so the odds of it being experimental are close to nil. >>
hmm, so why put out a pattern of edge only when the design is a circulation one?
and if someone wanted a trial strike, one might think they'd just finish the whole coin using circulation dies.
<< <i>
<< <i>Has anyone ever seen any half cent planchets prior to this one (for the entire series--not simply 1793)? >>
Superior sold one about 10 years ago. Goldberg's sold two in the same auction about 2-4 years ago. I don't track these, so that's just off the top of my head. Maybe someone else can dig through the old sales and find them. >>
Are you sure they where half cent and not large cent? There a large cent planchets aplenty.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>Seems like it's neither a pattern or error - simply unfinished, lost in process. >>
This.
Dave
Agreed that large cent planchets are much more common than half cent planchets.
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real.
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does?
<< <i>
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real.
another? Has this been a problem in the past? >>
Yes, there was at least one example of a GMM copy being manipulated and thought to be a new die variety. I believe it was even published in Coin World.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real.
another? Has this been a problem in the past? >>
Yes, there was at least one example of a GMM copy being manipulated and thought to be a new die variety. I believe it was even published in Coin World. >>
Did the example make it so far as to get into a TPG holder, and if so was it NGC or PCGS?
<< <i>
<< <i>Seems like it's neither a pattern or error - simply unfinished, lost in process. >>
This. >>
Exactly. How is this an error?
<< <i>Has anyone ever seen any half cent planchets prior to this one (for the entire series--not simply 1793)?
Not in person, but I've seen the picture in the Breen Half Cent Encyclopedia.
BTW, Breen also cites Ebenezer Locke Mason, Jr.'s report (in 1869) of a 1793, but Breen said the planchet is "not now traced". In all probability, the new discovery is the same piece reported by Mason. >>
Good point!