While I fully realize the rarity of this date, and I acknowledge that early dollars are well out of my area of expertise, I must agree with Afford on this one. The complete lack of eye appeal, and the rough ("messed with"?) surfaces should at least remove this coin from being designated as 'original'. Can it just be the photograph?
They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
The first two images (without the holder) have clearly been adjusted to allow for viewing the smallest details. The images of the coin in the holder are more natural to what a person would see with the coin in hand. It certainly has its share of handling marks, but nothing that suggests that it was intentionally "messed with," and that in and of itself sets this piece apart from many of the surviving 1794 Dollars.
“Complete lack of eye appeal”?
For a 1794 this one is really nice. Even for a 95 I’d call it average at least.
The strike is way above average for that year.
To provide some perspective for those who are not familiar with 1794 dollars, here is one that Harry Laibstain sold several years ago. There is nothing wrong with the coin, except the strike, which is not unusual for the issue. The problem was, the mint personnel were trying strike dollars on a coin press that was only big enough to strike cents.
This is why the first mint had to suspend the production of silver dollars until a new, larger press arrived and was set up in June of 1795. The silver lining for collectors was that more 1795 half dollars were struck, which makes them more affordable today.
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 ... ?
Ugh Bruce, if I like it in hand, I am going to try and buy it. I was brought up on the date being full on these coins, not so much weakness in the hair
"Ugh"? "Ugh"?
Holy crap, you should take that back! (context OT, two other threads on ughly coins today).
I will hyperbolically quote the most brutal interpretation of "I think you're spoiled by the ones you have owned" as voiced by Tom Petty, who wrote "Even a loser gets lucky sometimes." - "Are you blind?"
The most important thing (in strike) is the overall balance. Both of us were brought up on the fact that even a near-full date is very much the exception, not the rule, Likewise stars 1-5.
Please school myself, the Forum, and the two most prominent students of the date if you want us to accept any evidence to the contrary.
Your analysis of the images available from the known roster shows what percentage of strikes you would consider
1) awful
2) weak
3) decent
4) strong
5) full (R-11?)
In the absence of this evidence, you owe Bruce an apology
Whether he wants one or not, if you know what I mean, and you know I know you do.
Though I am sure you two will work it out the same way @BillJones and @JA did. With no apology needed,
"Ugh"?
"UGH"?
"UGH"?
also DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
(no emojis currently available for snicker, giggle, blush)
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
In my book, I identify five different die states (as opposed to the three die states identified by Bowers). My five die states are:
1) Original state, with no clash marks or lapping of the dies - just one specimen known.
2) Prominent die clash marks on both obverse and reverse, with no lapping of the dies.
3) Obverse and reverse dies lapped, lessening the appearance of the die clash marks, and lowering the relief of the dies.
4) Obverse dies lapped again, reverse dies as in dies state 3.
5) Reverse dies lapped, terminal die state.
This one falls into Die State 3, with clash marks and lapped dies. A significant percentage of the coins were struck with this die state, before the dies were lapped again.
The reason why the left side of the coin is generally weak, is that the coin press was intended for striking soft copper coins, as @BillJones stated. However, there is an additional reason for the weakness -- as the left spindles of the coin press were worn, and needed to be replaced. (Research done by Karl Moulton located the requisition for the replacement spindles.) Accordingly, the left side of the press could not exert as much pressure on the planchet as could the right side of the press.
With this coin, the left side is struck very well, meaning it was one of the earliest die state 3 specimens coined, shortly after the dies were lapped and replaced into the press in the proper positions, such that the dies were still parallel to each other when this particular coin was struck.
I just have to wonder, what would this coin have looked like when it first came off the dies? Too bad it ended up getting spent!
When a screw press was used for a larger coin or medal, it was common to over-stress the mechanism by adding too much weight or attempting to "throw" too hard. These could result in uneven pressure and deformities. Unfortunately, we have little contemporary information concerning the details of practical mechanics and the type of screw presses in use at the early Philadelphia Mint.
@specialist said:
Ugh Bruce, if I like it in hand, I am going to try and buy it. I was brought up on the date being full on these coins, not so much weakness in the hair
@specialist said:
Ugh Bruce, if I like it in hand, I am going to try and buy it. I was brought up on the date being full on these coins, not so much weakness in the hair
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
In my book, I identify five different die states (as opposed to the three die states identified by Bowers).
...
The reason why the left side of the coin is generally weak, is that the coin press was intended for striking soft copper coins, as @BillJones stated. However, there is an additional reason for the weakness -- as the left spindles of the coin press were worn, and needed to be replaced. (Research done by Karl Moulton located the requisition for the replacement spindles.) Accordingly, the left side of the press could not exert as much pressure on the planchet as could the right side of the press.
>
Interesting fact here. Would this same reasoning also hold to explain why a 1794 half might be weakly struck on the left hand side?
It is an amazing coin. Yes, there are some minor issues and certainly well explained by @Cardinal and @BillJones.... Other inputs as well. Discussing the minting issues of the time and pointing out the effects makes for great analysis and numismatic discussion - and certainly has it's place on this forum. My point and major interest, is the coin itself - a beautiful piece of numismatic history and an American treasure. Cheers, RickO
@earlycoins said:
Speaking to originality, and not being messed with, I owned an extremely original example aeons ago.
Very dark, adjustment marks almost everywhere around edge of coin, but pleasant centers.
The overall appearance to most people would have been “dark and ugly.”
I understand and agree that your dollar was most probably unmeshed with and original but too dark for the typical TPG and for most collectors for that matter. I and others on the other hand appreciate the coin that you described and would love to own such a piece. The subject coin looks washed and dried and somehow professionally messed with but nevertheless MA since most would be more comfortable with this one and it was imho made to reflect current tastes and standards to achieve its highest price/value. I realize this is my lousy opinion and i would be in lodged in the minority but it is what I believe. Most turn their hands and ignore what is before them.
Outstanding! Maybe you should apply for a position in PCGS' grading room! Apparently, you have the rare ability to grade coins just from photographs, or brief descriptions!
Comments
Wow, that is a nice coin. Still too many zeroes for my budget, but if I were to get a 1794 dollar this would be one I'd never turn down.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Yes, a very very nice piece, graded XF40 sometime between 2002 and 2004.
While I fully realize the rarity of this date, and I acknowledge that early dollars are well out of my area of expertise, I must agree with Afford on this one. The complete lack of eye appeal, and the rough ("messed with"?) surfaces should at least remove this coin from being designated as 'original'. Can it just be the photograph?
Looks like an old cleaning?
My YouTube Channel
The first two images (without the holder) have clearly been adjusted to allow for viewing the smallest details. The images of the coin in the holder are more natural to what a person would see with the coin in hand. It certainly has its share of handling marks, but nothing that suggests that it was intentionally "messed with," and that in and of itself sets this piece apart from many of the surviving 1794 Dollars.
“Complete lack of eye appeal”?
For a 1794 this one is really nice. Even for a 95 I’d call it average at least.
The strike is way above average for that year.
To provide some perspective for those who are not familiar with 1794 dollars, here is one that Harry Laibstain sold several years ago. There is nothing wrong with the coin, except the strike, which is not unusual for the issue. The problem was, the mint personnel were trying strike dollars on a coin press that was only big enough to strike cents.
This is why the first mint had to suspend the production of silver dollars until a new, larger press arrived and was set up in June of 1795. The silver lining for collectors was that more 1795 half dollars were struck, which makes them more affordable today.
Ugh the most important thing is the fullness of the date!
I kinda like it -- a nice, 'homey' coin....
Flowing Hairs must ALL be messed with.
Just look up any CAC approvals on any of them under a hundred grand.
Here is the coin from the original post: I like it.
.
.
.
Ugh Bruce, if I like it in hand, I am going to try and buy it. I was brought up on the date being full on these coins, not so much weakness in the hair
I think your spoiled by the ones you have owed
"Ugh"? "Ugh"?
Holy crap, you should take that back! (context OT, two other threads on ughly coins today).
I will hyperbolically quote the most brutal interpretation of "I think you're spoiled by the ones you have owned" as voiced by Tom Petty, who wrote "Even a loser gets lucky sometimes." - "Are you blind?"
The most important thing (in strike) is the overall balance. Both of us were brought up on the fact that even a near-full date is very much the exception, not the rule, Likewise stars 1-5.
Please school myself, the Forum, and the two most prominent students of the date if you want us to accept any evidence to the contrary.
Your analysis of the images available from the known roster shows what percentage of strikes you would consider
1) awful
2) weak
3) decent
4) strong
5) full (R-11?)
In the absence of this evidence, you owe Bruce an apology
Whether he wants one or not, if you know what I mean, and you know I know you do.
Though I am sure you two will work it out the same way @BillJones and @JA did. With no apology needed,
"Ugh"?
"UGH"?
"UGH"?
also DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
(no emojis currently available for snicker, giggle, blush)
Let me add this to the analysis.
In my book, I identify five different die states (as opposed to the three die states identified by Bowers). My five die states are:
1) Original state, with no clash marks or lapping of the dies - just one specimen known.
2) Prominent die clash marks on both obverse and reverse, with no lapping of the dies.
3) Obverse and reverse dies lapped, lessening the appearance of the die clash marks, and lowering the relief of the dies.
4) Obverse dies lapped again, reverse dies as in dies state 3.
5) Reverse dies lapped, terminal die state.
This one falls into Die State 3, with clash marks and lapped dies. A significant percentage of the coins were struck with this die state, before the dies were lapped again.
The reason why the left side of the coin is generally weak, is that the coin press was intended for striking soft copper coins, as @BillJones stated. However, there is an additional reason for the weakness -- as the left spindles of the coin press were worn, and needed to be replaced. (Research done by Karl Moulton located the requisition for the replacement spindles.) Accordingly, the left side of the press could not exert as much pressure on the planchet as could the right side of the press.
With this coin, the left side is struck very well, meaning it was one of the earliest die state 3 specimens coined, shortly after the dies were lapped and replaced into the press in the proper positions, such that the dies were still parallel to each other when this particular coin was struck.
I just have to wonder, what would this coin have looked like when it first came off the dies? Too bad it ended up getting spent!
When a screw press was used for a larger coin or medal, it was common to over-stress the mechanism by adding too much weight or attempting to "throw" too hard. These could result in uneven pressure and deformities. Unfortunately, we have little contemporary information concerning the details of practical mechanics and the type of screw presses in use at the early Philadelphia Mint.
You don’t collect screwpress coins do you?
I ❤️ This beauty.
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.
@cardinal - Sweet! TY
I'll second that.
And thanks TDN for showing this beauty.
I didn't just get off the phone with John Albanese, but he graded it UGH43
It looks like a very nice 1794 Dollar.
I think it is attractive and don't see a problem. It looks better than a lot of other 18th century silver on the market.
I would take that coin in a heartbeat and agree that it has a wonderful strike.
I like the full reverse letters too
@LittleMissBuzzKill didn't like your 04-D dollar either.
Indeed
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
>
Interesting fact here. Would this same reasoning also hold to explain why a 1794 half might be weakly struck on the left hand side?
Edit: spelling
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
Speaking to originality, and not being messed with, I owned an extremely original example aeons ago.
Very dark, adjustment marks almost everywhere around edge of coin, but pleasant centers.
The overall appearance to most people would have been “dark and ugly.”
It is an amazing coin. Yes, there are some minor issues and certainly well explained by @Cardinal and @BillJones.... Other inputs as well. Discussing the minting issues of the time and pointing out the effects makes for great analysis and numismatic discussion - and certainly has it's place on this forum. My point and major interest, is the coin itself - a beautiful piece of numismatic history and an American treasure. Cheers, RickO
It looks better in Wabbit's post of the slab shot. I guess it has too much light on the large pictures.
My YouTube Channel
Outstanding! Maybe you should apply for a position in PCGS' grading room! Apparently, you have the rare ability to grade coins just from photographs, or brief descriptions!