chopmark trade dollar collectors

tradedollarnut

tomorrow I'm going to have the discussion with the powers that be at PCGS regarding that trifoil chopmark - you all know the one. I have three coins with the mark that were body bagged and two coins with the mark that graded. PCGS just needs to accept that always as a chopmark in order to be consistent. Wish me luck!

stealer

<< <i>tomorrow I'm going to have the discussion with the powers that be at PCGS regarding that trifoil chopmark - you all know the one. I have three coins with the mark that were body bagged and two coins with the mark that graded. PCGS just needs to accept that always as a chopmark in order to be consistent. Wish me luck! >>


It's about time! If they bagged anything it should be the large rectangular chop that's obviously for testing the metal.

jayPem

I don't know the one...got a pic ?

tradedollarnut

<< <i>

<< <i>tomorrow I'm going to have the discussion with the powers that be at PCGS regarding that trifoil chopmark - you all know the one. I have three coins with the mark that were body bagged and two coins with the mark that graded. PCGS just needs to accept that always as a chopmark in order to be consistent. Wish me luck! >>


It's about time! If they bagged anything it should be the large rectangular chop that's obviously for testing the metal. >>



LOL - that's another one in my bag to show them - one bagged and one graded.

crypto79

Good luck, I have seen coins that have it and worse the (drill) in graded holders. I am using an iPad so I can't post it but my 75s au58 chop has it or the drill on the obv and rev and is graded. Check out my sig line for an example

My 75cc chop in vf35 has the rectangle chop on the obv if you are looking for examples

crypto79

<< <i>

<< <i>tomorrow I'm going to have the discussion with the powers that be at PCGS regarding that trifoil chopmark - you all know the one. I have three coins with the mark that were body bagged and two coins with the mark that graded. PCGS just needs to accept that always as a chopmark in order to be consistent. Wish me luck! >>


It's about time! If they bagged anything it should be the large rectangular chop that's obviously for testing the metal. >>



Hater

stealer

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>tomorrow I'm going to have the discussion with the powers that be at PCGS regarding that trifoil chopmark - you all know the one. I have three coins with the mark that were body bagged and two coins with the mark that graded. PCGS just needs to accept that always as a chopmark in order to be consistent. Wish me luck! >>


It's about time! If they bagged anything it should be the large rectangular chop that's obviously for testing the metal. >>



Hater >>


Hey, I'm all for any chop being gradeable as long as it wasn't obviosuly intended to damage the coin, but I'm just saying that in the event that PCGS would want to draw the line somewhere...........

Oh, whatever

crypto79

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>tomorrow I'm going to have the discussion with the powers that be at PCGS regarding that trifoil chopmark - you all know the one. I have three coins with the mark that were body bagged and two coins with the mark that graded. PCGS just needs to accept that always as a chopmark in order to be consistent. Wish me luck! >>


It's about time! If they bagged anything it should be the large rectangular chop that's obviously for testing the metal. >>



Hater >>


Hey, I'm all for any chop being gradeable as long as it wasn't obviosuly intended to damage the coin, but I'm just saying that in the event that PCGS would want to draw the line somewhere...........

Oh, whatever >>



Hey they are all metal chisel like objects being hammered into a coin, I don't really draw a distinction on design alone. They are all damage it they aren't

OriginalDan

Check out this one. A seated half with what I believe TDN is describing as the tri foil mark on the obverse right side.

OriginalDan

And by the way, I believe this mark is made with a "manual" drill, a hand operated bit with three edges/flanges. A quick twist of the tool reveals whether the coin is real or a filled fake. Any other theories?

Good luck TDN, some clarity would be nice.

coindeuce

TennesseeDave

I wish you the best of luck. I have seen the chopmark you are talking about. I think I have a 74-P with that one on it that bagged as well.Not sure thats why it bagged,but surface damage was the listed reason.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>Check out this one. A seated half with what I believe TDN is describing as the tri foil mark on the obverse right side. >>



Yup - thats the one. That HAS to be chopped straight in - no way to produce that with a twist.

OriginalDan

I disagree. The metal looks to be pushed out of the bowl and up onto the edges, at least to my eyes. How could you possibly raise the metal at the edge like that using a punch?

OriginalDan

And while we're on this topic, here's a pic I found (not my coin) that shows a similar mark on the obverse right field as well as a major (hatchet?) chop on the reverse. Graded AU55 by PCGS. I actually have no problem with this, I think they shouldn't disqualify a coin from "grading" based on authentic period marks, even if those marks are drill marks or major gouges. The challenge is to employ someone familiar enough with chops to know which are and aren't authentic.

crypto79

<< <i>

I disagree. The metal looks to be pushed out of the bowl and up onto the edges, at least to my eyes. How could you possibly raise the metal at the edge like that using a punch? >>



You could but it would require similar properties of metal flow that happens when a coin is struck. No way a hand hammered blow could accomplish that on a room temp coin.

TPRC

While you are at it, perhaps you can persuade PCGS to grade these too.

Pillar Dollar

ricko

Looking into the depression, on the lower segment, near the large displacement, there appear to be 'stutter' marks - as if a tool (picture the point of a drill) were punched and twisted slightly...which would account for both the depression and the displaced material. Just a thought... Cheers, RickO

ColonelJessup

I posted on this issue in an earlier thread on this subject. My main question stll remains. If the intention of a chop mark is to identify the "verifier" of metal content and value and the mark is so obscure as to be unidentifiable as to its origin, how can it then be considered a chopmark? A "chop" is a sign of identity. If identification cannot be made, why then would any merchant bother to apply it? Does this "trifoil" (the dictionary apparently mistakenly misspells it "trefoil") mark correspond to any Chinese character?

lcoopie

a little off topic

can you tell if the "chop" is old vs not so old?

thanks

stealer

<< <i>a little off topic

can you tell if the "chop" is old vs not so old?

thanks >>


To the best of my knowledge that topic is still hotly debated and doesn't have a definitive answer yet.

crypto79

Just to play devils advocate, While I agree it is a chop mark and consistency should be the goal. What should be considered is that while chop mark consistency is important it should be balanced with damage consistency. The difference between that chop and a partial hole drilled by a bored teenager 100years ago that gave up is minimal. While I am pretty sure one of your coins is a nice AU 74cc that just has that mark in the field front and center with no other marks alluding it to an oriental origin. It isn't a bridge too far to error on the side of precaution and declare it damage that precludes a straight grade.

Follow me here: Using your 74cc as an example, the only thing affected by GENing that coin is the retail value and to be honest that coin shouldn't command the value of an unmolested coin and even one with a clear Chinese charter. In effect PCGS market graded the coin to represent the fact it isn't a nicely chopped coin to protect buyers from a dealer who might not point out that it isn't choicely chopped all while preventing buyers who don't understand chops from seeing a coin in PCGS plastic with a hole drilled in it.

To stoke the fire here is a coin with your mark on the Obv and Rev in AU58 plastic

OriginalDan

<< <i>I posted on this issue in an earlier thread on this subject. My main question stll remains. If the intention of a chop mark is to identify the "verifier" of metal content and value and the mark is so obscure as to be unidentifiable as to its origin, how can it then be considered a chopmark? A "chop" is a sign of identity. If identification cannot be made, why then would any merchant bother to apply it? Does this "trifoil" (the dictionary apparently mistakenly misspells it "trefoil") mark correspond to any Chinese character? >>



I have proposed that this mark is not an identifying mark but rather a test mark to help prove the validity of the subject coin.

OriginalDan

<< <i>While you are at it, perhaps you can persuade PCGS to grade these too.

Pillar Dollar >>



+1 for grading chopped 8 reales but I doubt it'll ever happen.

ColonelJessup

<< <i>.... I have proposed that this mark is not an identifying mark but rather a test mark to help prove the validity of the subject coin. >>



Even though I agree with you completely, it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.

crypto79

Brain surgery

shish

Looks like an old fashion full frontal lobotomy.

OriginalDan

<< <i>Looks like an old fashion full frontal lobotomy. >>



Dang it shish, you beat me to the punch.

MsMorrisine

<< <i>To stoke the fire here is a coin with your mark on the Obv and Rev in AU58 plastic
>>






Looks like a drill test behind liberty.

damage - yet graded

crypto79

<< <i>

<< <i>To stoke the fire here is a coin with your mark on the Obv and Rev in AU58 plastic >>






Looks like a drill test behind liberty.

damage - yet graded >>



There is one by the 420 on the Rev too

OriginalDan

I think it would be lame to only grade chopmarked trade dollars that don't have test marks. Many times the test marks were prerequisites to the chinese character chop marks being applied. I'm not saying this is PCGS' policy, but if it was then they would only grade this awkward category of chop marked trade dollars that do have chinese characters but don't have test marks. That wouldn't make sense to me.

DDR

Good luck, TDN! You are absolutely right, that should be consistently counted as a chopmark. Tell us how it goes.

DDR

This one made it into PCGS plastic. Graded as VF-35

tradedollarnut

HRH decided to play hooky today. My two graded coins and three "genuine" coins with the same marks are off to his later review. Will ensure he sees this thread.

crypto79

You have always been a great advocate for the series and the hobby as a whole.

Thanks

stealer

<< <i>You have always been a great advocate for the series and the hobby as a whole.

Thanks >>


I haven't always agreed with you (TDN), but I can't argue with this!

NumisOxide

<< <i>a little off topic

can you tell if the "chop" is old vs not so old?

thanks >>


That is a good question. Never thought about it though.

AMRC

<< <i>Brain surgery
>>



I would call that a lobotomy.

ColonelJessup

<< <i>

<< <i>Check out this one. A seated half with what I believe TDN is describing as the tri foil mark on the obverse right side. >>



Yup - thats the one. That HAS to be chopped straight in - no way to produce that with a twist. >>



That's a no-brainer chop mark, but I can't figure out what that has to do with anything trefoil.

I consider the trefoil to be (at most) test marks. Trefroil only as a chop mark? NFW.

I'd allow them if the coin then passed the test and thus accordingly received a Chinese character chop mark as the result of the process.

Otherwise

crypto79

Any update?

tradedollarnut

<< <i>Any update? >>



Let me go find my little yellow paper and look online

No - shows 'received' on 3/5

mrpaseo

<< <i>Looking into the depression, on the lower segment, near the large displacement, there appear to be 'stutter' marks - as if a tool (picture the point of a drill) were punched and twisted slightly...which would account for both the depression and the displaced material. Just a thought... Cheers, RickO >>




Exactly what I thought.

Ray

Type2

I cant see why they will not grade it but then again they would not grade this one and it's from there becuse of chops.

stealer

T2, the difference is that those were intended to circulate in lieu of Trade Dollars. That's a Chinese province mint coin.

Type2

<< <i>T2, the difference is that those were intended to circulate in lieu of Trade Dollars. That's a Chinese province mint coin. >>

I know but i see graded coins with Carvings, Stamps, So on come back Unc detales with chops. Thats BS put a darn number on it tell me the number that is what i'am paying them for. Once they give you the Number you will not resubmit that is why they will hold off on giveing it. So i have a Cleanded AU-50 or a Chop AU-50 or even a Choped Cleanded AU-50 it is what it is just put the number on it.

ColonelJessup

<< <i>T2, the difference is that those were intended to circulate in lieu of Trade Dollars. That's a Chinese province mint coin. >>



Correctly identified, but you have this backwards. Trade dollars were intended to be accepted in lieu of identifiable Chinese coinage.

stealer

<< <i>

<< <i>T2, the difference is that those were intended to circulate in lieu of Trade Dollars. That's a Chinese province mint coin. >>



Correctly identified, but you have this backwards. Trade dollars were intended to be accepted in lieu of identifiable Chinese coinage. >>


Well, you have to look at when these were struck; T2's coin was struck in 1898.
To me, that looks like the Chinese provinces' attempt to re-assert the value of the Chinese medium of exchange.

ColonelJessup

Re the date of the Chinese piece.... oops Outside of my areas of competency

However:

I have never before heard of any reference to a need for re-establishing the viability/acceptability of Chinese coinage because of what I'll loosely characterize as the competition from US Trade Dollars. I'm open to any facts you might offer that support such a premise.

Where's the chop mark? That tiny dark "X" near the center? The almost uninindented mark on the other side? Is either the Chinese character for Kool-Aid??????

stealer

<< <i>Re the date of the Chinese piece.... oops Outside of my areas of competency

However:

I have never before heard of any reference to a need for re-establishing the viability/acceptability of Chinese coinage because of what I'll loosely characterize as the competition from US Trade Dollars. I'm open to any facts you might offer that support such a premise.

Where's the chop mark? That tiny dark "X" near the center? The almost uninindented mark on the other side? Is either the Chinese character for Kool-Aid?????? >>


Jessup,

I just found this collection that details exactly as to why Provincial coins were struck. Link

I would also suspect that this 1890's French cartoon gives some hints as to why the Chinese would try to force out all foreign influences, including currency. Cartoon

With that said, Trade Dollars continued to circulate in China as late as the 1940's.

crypto79

Get em stealer

ColonelJessup

Great information. Interesting parallels with our own first coinage in terms of signifying a national identity. Thanks