@Washingtoniana said:
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.
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.
Bill: Are there ~325 graded problem-free? I've never owned one or even held one but at 1.3g and 17.5mm they must be like "fish scale" trimes are they not?
@Washingtoniana said:
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.
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.
Bill: Are there ~325 graded problem-free? I've never owned one or even held one but at 1.3g and 17.5mm they must be like "fish scale" trimes are they not?
No, they are like the other early half dimes, which are a little bigger.
And no, they are not all graded. That 325 estimate includes all of the survivors. Many or most of them are not nice. The "Coin Facts" estimate is 275 survivors. The half dime die variety book estimate is a bit higher.
I should also add that the reeding on the 1792 Half Dismes is diagonal, not vertitcal as it usually is.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@MrEureka said:
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".
Also like the line "the coin presents as much smoother than one might expect". Well, yes it does. And if it is not smooth enough for you, then that can always be achieved later.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@MrEureka said:
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".
Also like the line "the coin presents as much smoother than one might expect". Well, yes it does. And if it is not smooth enough for you, then that can always be achieved later.
Think about it: A "relatively bold" portrait on a coin that's "much smoother than one might expect".
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I could have accepted this for what it was. I try to do that with people. However, I cannot stand "phony" (by that I do not mean counterfeit) coins or people.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I believe the 1792 H10c aggregate survival rate is less to be assumed than to be observed. I've handled about fifteen of them from MS64 to plugged VG, and many here, like I, may have seen 100.
If I can rephrase @afford's statement a bit, wholesome-acceptable ones are now proving out to be tougher than we thought 20 years ago, and they were always in the minority
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@northcoin said:
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.)
As I started reading this thread in an attempt to find out who "Screwie" is, It didn't take me long at all. Allow me to disagree with much of the previous post. AFAIK, in numismatic terminology, conservation not the same process as a repair, alteration, or restoration. While the repaired coin looks to be more collectable than it was as found (BECAUSE WITHOUT OUR MODERN IMAGING AND RETRIVAL SYSTEMS 98% of the folks who saw it would never know its original state), it is in no way "original." It's originality was destroyed the minute the repair started.
I like to think that conserve indicates "kept from..." while restore indicates "bring back..." There is a big difference.
@Alltheabove76 said:
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!
Actually, if the repair would have been done in the 19th Century, it would have been much better. There were true "artists" around back then.
@Washingtoniana said:
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.
This makes me laugh. We send out coin's with notations such as "scratched," "damaged," "repaired," and "Plugged" on the label and sure enough the submitter calls because they don't see it! Last week we sent out a "damaged" quarter that looked like it was run over in a gravel road for a month and sure enough, I got the call.
@Alltheabove76 said:
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!
Actually, if the repair would have been done in the 19th Century, it would have been much better. There were true "artists" around back then.
@Washingtoniana said:
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.
This makes me laugh. We send out coin's with notations such as "scratched," "damaged," "repaired," and "Plugged" on the label and sure enough the submitter calls because they don't see it! Last week we sent out a "damaged" quarter that looked like it was run over in a gravel road for a month and sure enough, I got the call.
Interesting comparisons with regard to how alterations were viewed and done in the past by coin "artists." There certainly appears to be a consensus here that the subject coin would have been more desirable without the "artist" adding a nose and chin.
Here is a proposed challenge. Take a close look at the OP's before and after photos and focus just on exactly what was added, changed or altered. Then picture that just the outline of a nose and chin are erased. See if you then agree that apart from the repaired scratches that there would then be no other differences between the before and after photos.
If so agreed, then it should be very easy to have this coin "restored" back to its "before" appearance simply by removing the added outline of a nose and chin. I know I would like the coin better without those added features. I guess some might want to even add back the scratches, but as noted before I am in agreement with Billjones that some repairs can be justified.
I think many are overlooking that this coin was severely damaged to begin with and never would have qualified for more than a Details holder in any event. Its value is in being a highly desirable rarity regardless of its condition. In addition, for some of us, its unique story regarding how it was found as written up in Coin World adds to its desirability. I am in agreement with those who have suggested that the current auction description should identify this coin as the one with the interesting story relating to its discovery.
@Insider2 said:
I think there is an undercurrent in the thread. Who is "Screwie?"
Huey and Dewey's cousin!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Alltheabove76 said:
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!
Actually, if the repair would have been done in the 19th Century, it would have been much better. There were true "artists" around back then.
Here is a proposed challenge. Take a close look at the OP's before and after photos and focus just on exactly what was added, changed or altered. Then picture that just the outline of a nose and chin are erased. See if you then agree that apart from the repaired scratches that there would then be no other differences between the before and after photos.
If so agreed, then it should be very easy to have this coin "restored" back to its "before" appearance simply by removing the added outline of a nose and chin. I know I would like the coin better without those added features. I guess some might want to even add back the scratches, but as noted before I am in agreement with Billjones that some repairs can be justified.
I think many are overlooking that this coin was severely damaged to begin with and never would have qualified for more than a Details holder in any event. Its value is in being a highly desirable rarity regardless of its condition. In addition, for some of us, its unique story regarding how it was found as written up in Coin World adds to its desirability. I am in agreement with those who have suggested that the current auction description should identify this coin as the one with the interesting story relating to its discovery.
IMO, the ONLY thing that should (that word again) have been done is to fill in the scratches without altering/adding any design outlines using silver "melt" from an 18th Century .89 fine coin from any country. Unfortunately, from the repairs I have seen over the decades, the folks who could do that are few and far between.
There was no need to add a face to the original coin EXCEPT to make the coin appear more valuable. To do anything to this piece now would only damage it further.
Comments
Bill: Are there ~325 graded problem-free? I've never owned one or even held one but at 1.3g and 17.5mm they must be like "fish scale" trimes are they not?
No, they are like the other early half dimes, which are a little bigger.
And no, they are not all graded. That 325 estimate includes all of the survivors. Many or most of them are not nice. The "Coin Facts" estimate is 275 survivors. The half dime die variety book estimate is a bit higher.
I should also add that the reeding on the 1792 Half Dismes is diagonal, not vertitcal as it usually is.
Also like the line "the coin presents as much smoother than one might expect". Well, yes it does. And if it is not smooth enough for you, then that can always be achieved later.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Think about it: A "relatively bold" portrait on a coin that's "much smoother than one might expect".
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I could have accepted this for what it was. I try to do that with people. However, I cannot stand "phony" (by that I do not mean counterfeit) coins or people.
I believe the 1792 H10c aggregate survival rate is less to be assumed than to be observed. I've handled about fifteen of them from MS64 to plugged VG, and many here, like I, may have seen 100.
If I can rephrase @afford's statement a bit, wholesome-acceptable ones are now proving out to be tougher than we thought 20 years ago, and they were always in the minority
I think there is an undercurrent in the thread. Who is "Screwie?"
I even figured that out!
Smitten with DBLCs.
I'm not as intelligent as you.
Perhaps you can ID "Screwie" for me so I can read the thread in full from the beginning.
most everyone who participates, no?
That was not meant to be demeaning! My apologies! (I'm sure "Screwie" is a play on a name well known here.)
Smitten with DBLCs.
No apology needed. I didn't take it that way at all. So I'll need to figure out "Screwie's" Alt for myself.
As I started reading this thread in an attempt to find out who "Screwie" is, It didn't take me long at all. Allow me to disagree with much of the previous post. AFAIK, in numismatic terminology, conservation not the same process as a repair, alteration, or restoration. While the repaired coin looks to be more collectable than it was as found (BECAUSE WITHOUT OUR MODERN IMAGING AND RETRIVAL SYSTEMS 98% of the folks who saw it would never know its original state), it is in no way "original." It's originality was destroyed the minute the repair started.
I like to think that conserve indicates "kept from..." while restore indicates "bring back..." There is a big difference.
Actually, if the repair would have been done in the 19th Century, it would have been much better. There were true "artists" around back then.
This makes me laugh. We send out coin's with notations such as "scratched," "damaged," "repaired," and "Plugged" on the label and sure enough the submitter calls because they don't see it! Last week we sent out a "damaged" quarter that looked like it was run over in a gravel road for a month and sure enough, I got the call.
I'm probably being Captain Obvious, but I'll bet anything it was sent in with the intent of making it into a no problem holder.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Isn't everything?
Interesting comparisons with regard to how alterations were viewed and done in the past by coin "artists." There certainly appears to be a consensus here that the subject coin would have been more desirable without the "artist" adding a nose and chin.
Here is a proposed challenge. Take a close look at the OP's before and after photos and focus just on exactly what was added, changed or altered. Then picture that just the outline of a nose and chin are erased. See if you then agree that apart from the repaired scratches that there would then be no other differences between the before and after photos.
If so agreed, then it should be very easy to have this coin "restored" back to its "before" appearance simply by removing the added outline of a nose and chin. I know I would like the coin better without those added features. I guess some might want to even add back the scratches, but as noted before I am in agreement with Billjones that some repairs can be justified.
I think many are overlooking that this coin was severely damaged to begin with and never would have qualified for more than a Details holder in any event. Its value is in being a highly desirable rarity regardless of its condition. In addition, for some of us, its unique story regarding how it was found as written up in Coin World adds to its desirability. I am in agreement with those who have suggested that the current auction description should identify this coin as the one with the interesting story relating to its discovery.
Huey and Dewey's cousin!
This is the first Hobo Half Disme I have seen
Did the artist actually make the 2 in the date weaker?
Pacific Northwest Numismatic Association
IMO, the ONLY thing that should (that word again) have been done is to fill in the scratches without altering/adding any design outlines using silver "melt" from an 18th Century .89 fine coin from any country. Unfortunately, from the repairs I have seen over the decades, the folks who could do that are few and far between.
There was no need to add a face to the original coin EXCEPT to make the coin appear more valuable. To do anything to this piece now would only damage it further.