1792 half disme - are these two coins the same?
Coinosaurus
Posts: 9,631 ✭✭✭✭✭
Stack's 3/20/2007, lot 111:
Stack's Bowers 5/23/2018, lot 91088: https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-AA1JY
This is coin 3-03 in the recent book on 1792 coinage (p. 192).
6
Comments
Certainly looks like it to me.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
Those obverses have to be mixed up?
Yes. While the most offensive of the scratches were repaired and the portrait detail re-engraved, the smaller scratches remain. PCGS's assessment of "repaired" is accurate, perhaps because they dug up the same "before" picture, and perhaps because of the general appearance of the coin.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
If they're both real, they're the same coin.
It could be that both are fakes, but that seems highly unlikely given the scratches on the obverse of the first piece.
Or the second piece could be a cast copy of the first, with the scratches removed.
The challenge for the day is proving that the second piece is authentic, and that the two coins are therefore, in fact, the same coin.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I am heartbroken. I saw that coin and posted about it in another thread as it's in a PCGS secure holder with no associated photo on the cert page. It is details as repaired.
That said, I'm quite certain that not only are they the same, but it's the example that was found while metal detecting in Virginia.
Even though it had damage I felt the way it was discovered was amazing and I would've been proud to own it as found. When it came for sale I was preparing to bid beyond my means to get it but it was not to be. Who ever messed with this incredible piece of history that was found by a stroke of luck should be banned from numismatics.
Here's the story with pics. I am seriously heartbroken.
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2014/05/metal-detecting-1792-silver-half-dime-thrill-of-a-lifetime.all.html
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Looks the same to me.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Wow, interesting story, thanks for sharing !!!
I am happy there is only one seriously FUBAR half disme (on this thread) to discuss rather than two.
A half disme could shoot someone in front of witnesses on Fifth Avenue and still bring five figures, but that doesn't mean you'd want to vote for bid on one
This kind of thing sucks all the pleasure out of coin collecting.
Fixed Up Beyond All Reason?
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
You're goooood!
We must be the only two Cub Scouts who still think SNAFU is for Situation Normal All Fouled Up.
Excellent Sleuthing!
To think that Thomas Jefferson himself could have dropped that piece on the trail from Alexandria to Monticello..........
I agree with ms70. It was great as found with the cool old scratches. Now it's as much a relic of 2015 as 1792. It's not something I'd want in my collection.
all kinds of shenanigans going on with 1792 half dismes. I forget how many years ago it was, but Heritage had a few of these in an ANA or FUN auction. One of the coins was "oversized" and in a no problem PCGS holder. I don't think it made it through lot viewing before it was pulled.
Guess it's not my first rodeo. Reality has its own brutal esthetic.
@MrEureka and I were at Heritage lot viewing when he passed me that coin. We'd previously owned the Parmelee Silver Disme and I was fuzzy on anything about the worst of the three known, so as he passed it to me I said "So that's what the worst one looks like".
"Look again", says he.
And the holder says 1792 H10c XF45. It's that half disme, rolled out so flat I still think of it as The 1792 seven and a half cent piece. That was the day I realized I was on the downward slope towards becoming a has-been.
I don't care who finalized it. The surrealist in me wants to know who matched that coin to that non-half-dime gasket?
Martin Paul bought the next year for about $20K and made a few grand.
My favorite part of the lot description: "Liberty's portrait is relatively bold".
Considering that the profile has been almost completely reconstructed, i.e., fabricated, it's not surprising that the portrait is "relatively bold".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Removing the scratches appears to be justifiable "conservation." Adding engraving to the portrait less so. Still a coin I would not mind owning even as is. The history of its finding continues with the coin regardless of its "conservation." I recall the original auction description mentioning something to the effect that the coin presented a rare opportunity to acquire an affordable example.
Regardless, I found those scratches a put off for me then. I do like the coin better now without them. Less enthusiastic about the attempt to add detail. At least it appears there was an effort made not to alter what was visible on the portrait so arguably its originality was not destroyed. The details appear to have been added to complement rather than to change what was originally evident. (i.e., adding a nose and a mouth but leaving what was already there undisturbed.)
^^^ That sums it up perfectly ^^^
It's now someone else's rendition of a half disme, not that of the original designer.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
When I looked at this, I thought, the same thing. The auction catalog description is particularly deceiving.
“A well circulated example, however the obverse does retain outline to bold definition over most devices. Liberty's portrait is relatively bold, …”
Yes, the portrait is bold because an engraver almost totally restored it. What you see there is mostly the result of the work of an engraver who did his work recently, not an impression from a die made 226 years ago. If you are not familiar with Ms. Liberty's expression on an undamaged coin, you could easily be fooled into thinking that the portrait aspect of this coin is fairly well preserved.
"In the good old days," a coin repair artist made sure than any re-engraved letters or devices were easily detectable as such. The letter or device was restored, but there was also a bend in the letter that called attention to the fact that it was not the original device. Here there is a small difference in Ms. Liberty’s countenance, but it does not exactly jump out at you.
No doubt there has been restoration performed.... That is, for the most part, unacceptable to numismatists. Strange how it is acceptable for paintings and other art. Cheers, RickO
I highly disagree. This coin was doctored and tooled, not conserved. There was no need for this coin to be conserved: i.e. the need to stabilize and protect a coin’s surfaces from further damage. This coin is now able to fool the uninformed as an original coin, which it most certainly isn't. This is the type of stuff that angers me as a coin collector.
In almost all cases (not all but almost), I prefer original coins as opposed to "restored" coins.
In the reconstructed portrait of Miss Liberty, it looks like she has some gum stuck in her hair.
I agree with others.....I like the original so much better with the scratches.
The altered coin is a debauchery.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Lipstick on a dead pig.......
When did the process of "conservation" ever include "repair".
The coin is a rare eff'ed up POS (lower than dreck) accurately described on the holder.
Makes me think of a sign I saw at the 7-11.
Lost dog: Missing left eye, back left paw and 1/2 of tail. Answers to "Lucky"
A repaired "earthwreck." Still would be a cool piece to have in a collection.
Who in their right mind would do that? If someone had tried that in the 19th century you could at least forgive. But that is recent now that we know the coins origin. Just insanity!
My Early Large Cents
A well repaired coin is usually worth more than the piece in its original state. This is especially true for coins that have been holed. The owner, I would hope, knows that it has been holed, but with the repair, the piece is "easier on the eyes" and more acceptable.
I don't agree with what the repair guy did with the portrait, and smoothing out the scratches alone, might have enhanced the value.
This coin was not holed when it was discovered by metal detector.
My Early Large Cents
I understand the passion of your post but I am more in the camp of what Billjones stated in his post just above yours - that coin looked worse with the scratches on it and like everyone here I am not happy about the added detail.
I did not bid on the coin the first time around because of the scratches. My main point though is that the unique "story" and history of this coin as detailed in the Coin World article is not lost just because of what was done to the coin. It looks enough like it did when it was dug out of the ground to identify it as the coin it appeared then.
I also share gtstang's view posted above:
"A repaired "earthwreck." Still would be a cool piece to have in a collection."
Yeah, I would be happy to own it.
Should? This so-called lib will "should" all over that naïve conceptualization.
Quoting myself:
Reality has its own brutal esthetic
Quoting the exquisite poet Mary Oliver
This is hope retching, the world as it is
the black the red
the
bottomless
pool
Bitchin', huh?
"Should"?
I know the coin was not holed, but I was trying to make the point that a well done repair can increase a coin's value. Than can go for bad scratches as well.
Amazing
well I wont get upset over something that is not mine.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
The upsetting part is that I tried to make it mine..... And if I was able to do it, it wouldn't have been messed with.
That was probably the only shot I'll ever have to coming anywhere near having one.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
"wouldn't" perhaps?
Smitten with DBLCs.
I would be disappointed if I bought this and found out later that the auctioneer didn't describe how it was worked on. I can imagine the snarky caveat emptor "well, it says 'repaired' on the slab, and it didn't sticker
, so you should have known." This makes me wonder how much a coin can be "restored" before Stacks discloses the before and after.
I wonder if they were even aware a before image existed. But with 1792 Half Dismes being so few, it was just a matter of time.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Perhaps as an alterntive to the pathos and ethos style comments made this far, a logos argument could be made and instituted as a practice by sellers/auctioneers when practical and possible? Simply put the before and after pictures in the auction and let the bidder decide which they prefer by virtue of a vote with their wallet?
This is by default best practice in the art community where restoration is accepted at worst and celebrated in many cases.
Lets bring this sort of behavior out of the shadows, shall we?
siliconvalleycoins.com
Just to put things into perspective, the 1792 half disme is not a huge rarity compared to other U.S. coins from this era. The total population is about 325 pieces. The trouble is a lot of those survivors are damaged. I have seen a few of them with a hole, and many more that were scratched or bent. Finding a "no problem" one is the trick.
Excellent work that easily outdoes @screwie.
I wasn't "correcting your prose".
I was deconstructing one word.
"Should" is the second saddest word in the world after "if".
Want some auto-diagnosis as a commentary on my thoughts about yours?
Neurotics build castles in the sky. Psychotics live in them.
Overwrought, inaccurate and effectively making my point.
"Should" suggests alternatives are less morally(?) desirable.
"Should" closes the door on discussion.
I find it almost as unacceptable, when it implies that position of authority, as the word "unacceptable"
I had a court-mandated patient (I worked with domestic violence offenders and their victims (more often than not unindicted co-conspirators)) who told me I was crazier than he was. No one, not me, not his wife, and especially not the judge, could tell him he was wrong because he'd "warned that bitch!":
I told him I had the idea to punch someone out most every day, could see pictures of it in front of me, and sometimes scared myself with the sound of my blood pounding in my ears.
He looked at me like we were the only two monsters in the world who would admit it.
I told him it didn't matter if he thought I was crazier than him, it didn't matter whether I thought he was wrong or right about hitting his wife, or thought his thinking was eff'ed up. I was there to help him keep himself out of jail.
"Should" meets sudden death when the rubber hits the road.
The moral suasion implicit in "should", especially as placed in the final line of your post, tolerates no argument. It is not hard to take it as an announcement from on high.
Nathan Jessup was incredibly right and tragically wrong.
I chose the persona not because I think you all have a problem with denial, but because we all do.
If @ColJessup upsets you, he's done his job. What questions you might ask yourself (or not) about some of the less obvious pieces of sub-text are beyond my ken or control.
I try to use my "twitches" constructively.
I'm actually quite humble disingenuous.
If you find me insufferable, I suggest you consider something else in addition to the individual who reminded you of some personal form of pain from the bucket of wounds and gripes everyone carries around.
Buy you a $4.00 bottle of water at ANA?.
If it's as warm and muggy as I expect, you can pour half of it on me. We will both be highly satisfied.