Need some help with this one Trade Dollar. UPDATE With New Pic Rec Grade.
Type2
Posts: 13,985 ✭✭✭✭✭
Can you guys tell me if this is real or not i'm not good at this one at all, Thanks in advance~Type2. 
MS62
MS62
Hoard the keys.
0
Comments
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
Hoard the keys.
Cool coin!
Are the letters UNITED and the denticles below TRADE DOLLAR always weakly defined on '74-CC's ?
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
If you damaged it...I'm going to have to cry...
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>It will grade. PCGS has a new policy to accept that drill test mark when it is present with other chops >>
I agree but would add they have had that policy for a long time, maybe they just put it to paper but I have encased trades with that mark from years and years ago.
AU58 chop mark although as high as MS62 isn't out of the question as stealer guessed, depending in mint frost disturbances which are hard to pick up in a picture.
<< <i>They were very inconsistent in years past on whether to bag it or not. I once bought an unc 1874 that they had refused to cross because of that very mark and resubmitted it along with one already graded with that mark in order to get it crossed. >>
Well played, I should have said consistent. I too have had some approved and some rejected for that and the chisel mark.
This one has 2 of them, Obv @ 3 O'clock
Rev @ Above the 4 in "420"
Bagged for a drill mark
<< <i>I cannot get PCGS to accept it when it is the only mark on the coin. I have an 1876-S with just that test mark and they refuse to grade it. >>
It's market grading plain and simple. When people think chop marks they don't really want test marks unless in the back ground. We are "lucky" that PCGS even grades them as they do thanks to the work of a few. Even as a fan I don't consider it unreasonable to classify chops and test marks differently, the market does with prices after all.
It's a fine line between damage and niche collector intrest. The coins they grade are called chop mark after all, not merchant marked which is the correlation that people think about when arguing for test marks.
<< <i>Can you please show an example of a trifoil drill mark. >>
It's on the OP coin, try and keep up champ.
<< <i>If one were to drill into a coin, what would appear is a clean, cone shaped hole. What I call a trifoil drill is that cone shaped hole with three little raised metal straight lines coming off of the hole. That is not caused by any ordinary drill bit but rather by some specialized test tool used during that time period. It flat out is a contemporary chop or test mark that should be fully accepted by PCGS. Bag the ones without the three raised metal wings if you must, but not those. >>
The flaw in your premises is that it assumes Chop Mark=Test Mark. While I agree with you, the premises it is no different than the market being ok with hairlines on proofs and not on UNCs. If one tries to put a logical argument into a practice that is influenced by the whims of a collective market that barely accepts bold Chinese charters to start with and tries to draw up an frame work of what will grade and what will not, many coins will not make the cut. The whole grading frame work of evaluating chopmarks is extra subjective and completely the "total coin approach". Some coins are extra beat up, some bent, mint marks all but gone, residual scrapes and much worse. One can find exceptions of all of these in graded holders.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Can you please show an example of a trifoil drill mark. >>
It's on the OP coin, try and keep up champ. >>
My understanding is this test drill isn't a trifoil example and that is why pcgs bagged it as damaged. I can't see 3 pieces sticking out of this example's test drill whole champ. >>
Previous thread, chump.
<< <i>
<< <i>If one were to drill into a coin, what would appear is a clean, cone shaped hole. What I call a trifoil drill is that cone shaped hole with three little raised metal straight lines coming off of the hole. That is not caused by any ordinary drill bit but rather by some specialized test tool used during that time period. It flat out is a contemporary chop or test mark that should be fully accepted by PCGS. Bag the ones without the three raised metal wings if you must, but not those. >>
The flaw in your premises is that it assumes Chop Mark=Test Mark. While I agree with you, the premises it is no different than the market being ok with hairlines on proofs and not on UNCs. If one tries to put a logical argument into a practice that is influenced by the whims of a collective market that barely accepts bold Chinese charters to start with and tries to draw up an frame work of what will grade and what will not, many coins will not make the cut. The whole grading frame work of evaluating chopmarks is extra subjective and completely the "total coin approach". Some coins are extra beat up, some bent, mint marks all but gone, residual scrapes and much worse. One can find exceptions of all of these in graded holders. >>
True, but it's only a matter of educating the market to acknowledge that those so-called "trifoil" marks are contemporary countermarks and not just any joe-schmoe with a drill bit.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If one were to drill into a coin, what would appear is a clean, cone shaped hole. What I call a trifoil drill is that cone shaped hole with three little raised metal straight lines coming off of the hole. That is not caused by any ordinary drill bit but rather by some specialized test tool used during that time period. It flat out is a contemporary chop or test mark that should be fully accepted by PCGS. Bag the ones without the three raised metal wings if you must, but not those. >>
The flaw in your premises is that it assumes Chop Mark=Test Mark. While I agree with you, the premises it is no different than the market being ok with hairlines on proofs and not on UNCs. If one tries to put a logical argument into a practice that is influenced by the whims of a collective market that barely accepts bold Chinese charters to start with and tries to draw up an frame work of what will grade and what will not, many coins will not make the cut. The whole grading frame work of evaluating chopmarks is extra subjective and completely the "total coin approach". Some coins are extra beat up, some bent, mint marks all but gone, residual scrapes and much worse. One can find exceptions of all of these in graded holders. >>
True, but it's only a matter of educating the market to acknowledge that those so-called "trifoil" marks are contemporary countermarks and not just any joe-schmoe with a drill bit. >>
Once again I agree with all the trade dollar fans so it is hard arguing the counter point, that said its what I do so:
They aren't graded countermarked or test marked, they are graded "chop mark". Most would agree that chop marks consist of a word, brand or title that consists of Chinese charters. I don't think PCGS wants to get in the business of declaring Chinese merchant damage apart from other damage.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If one were to drill into a coin, what would appear is a clean, cone shaped hole. What I call a trifoil drill is that cone shaped hole with three little raised metal straight lines coming off of the hole. That is not caused by any ordinary drill bit but rather by some specialized test tool used during that time period. It flat out is a contemporary chop or test mark that should be fully accepted by PCGS. Bag the ones without the three raised metal wings if you must, but not those. >>
The flaw in your premises is that it assumes Chop Mark=Test Mark. While I agree with you, the premises it is no different than the market being ok with hairlines on proofs and not on UNCs. If one tries to put a logical argument into a practice that is influenced by the whims of a collective market that barely accepts bold Chinese charters to start with and tries to draw up an frame work of what will grade and what will not, many coins will not make the cut. The whole grading frame work of evaluating chopmarks is extra subjective and completely the "total coin approach". Some coins are extra beat up, some bent, mint marks all but gone, residual scrapes and much worse. One can find exceptions of all of these in graded holders. >>
True, but it's only a matter of educating the market to acknowledge that those so-called "trifoil" marks are contemporary countermarks and not just any joe-schmoe with a drill bit. >>
Once again I agree with all the trade dollar fans so it is hard arguing the counter point, that said its what I do so:
They aren't graded countermarked or test marked, they are graded "chop mark". Most would agree that chop marks consist of a word, brand or title that consists of Chinese charters. I don't think PCGS wants to get in the business of declaring Chinese merchant damage apart from other damage. >>
Hm...but it is their purpose to determine what is "market acceptable," so I don't see much difference between trying to determine between chop mark and damage and the issue of what is artificial and natural. I'm sure many are wary about the crazy toned ASE's, but PCGS and NGC have both drawn the line about where they stand.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>Here is a close up pic.
With this picture I would support what Dan said in the previously linked thread about the trifoil mark.
You can see somewhat of an excuse river running down the left side of the chop, constituting the unfinished 3rd side of trifoil mark.
Now taking into consideration that the river is present while the third tip is not, it seems reasonable to take a gander at what the punch looked like. I would propose that the punch looked somewhat like this from the top with the insides of the triangles being incuse. Clearly the real punch would most likely have had equidistant triangular sections.
If you think about it, slamming the punch into the surface of the coin and then rocking it back and forth would clear out that river of metal and push it to the rim of the punch, resulting in a clear interior that allows the punch applier to check the inside. Thus it's not possible to be the product of a straight punch but rather something used as a test. The little river is also rather askew, suggesting that a twisting motion may have been applied immediately following the initial puncture.
Disproved by pictures below.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>I took a good look and yes i see the three cut's you guy's are talking about. >>
Type2, those pictures give even greater insight and totally de-value what I proposed. The largest blob of metal on the rim of the punch also
has the most prominent river of metal in the bowl. Very interesting, I really can't think of any way that could be formed.
The really interesting thing is that you can see rims inside the bowl itself, almost as if somebody was trying to smooth out the interior.
Hoard the keys.
Rob
Successful Trades with: Coincast, MICHAELDIXON
Successful Purchases from: Manorcourtman, Meltdown
<< <i>Beautiful coin
Good grading stealer
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>AU détails, pmd >>
<< <i>I have no objection to calling an uncirculated but chopmarked Trade Dollar "Mint State," but I cannot see calling it any higher than an "MS-60." >>
You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but can you explain the logic behind limiting it to a 60 grade? Is it just your equivalent to bagging the coin without withholding a numerical grade?