<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real. >>
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does? >>
Why would you make such a negative comment? Do you have ANY reason to suggest that PCGS turned it down first?
David Camire did an excellent job with THAT error.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
<< <i>Yes, the Davy Collection sale is probably the one that I had in mind. Lot 367Lot 368. Lot 368 says it's from the Superior 5/29/05 sale, which is probably the other one that I was thinking of.
Agreed that large cent planchets are much more common than half cent planchets. >>
Thanks for the links! They did sale for about 3-5X what a large cent planchet sales for, at $600 and a little over $1000. Large cents seem to always go for $150-$250, depending grade, slabbing, etc.
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real. >>
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does? >>
Why would you make such a negative comment? Do you have ANY reason to suggest that PCGS turned it down first?
David Camire did an excellent job with THAT error. >>
As long as 1.The alloy is correct 2.The diameter is correct 3.The style of the planchet is correct (as compared to other 1/2 cent planchets) 4.The weight is correct 5.The edge lettering "style" is correct (as compared to normally struck 1793 1/2 cents) 6.And being about 225 years old, it should (but doesn't have to) have a reasonable degree of toning and problems. 7.If it has any provenance which can be traced (e.g. the reference Andy gave to the 1869 report about a edge lettered 1793 existing, is a good example), also helps.
So all in all, as long as NGC checked out all of these things, and I'm sure they did, there is no reason to doubt the coin's authenticity.
<< <i>Seems like it's neither a pattern or error - simply unfinished, lost in process. >>
This. >>
Exactly. How is this an error? >>
It is an error because it was never intended to be released by the mint without a strike. All a mint error is, is a coin which is not as the mint intended it to be when it was released (missing edge lettering $1 coins, missing clad layers, clips, brockages, die caps, etc.)
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real. >>
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does? >>
Why would you make such a negative comment? Do you have ANY reason to suggest that PCGS turned it down first?
David Camire did an excellent job with THAT error. >>
Good point with regard to the link. That was an exciting find. Also the added point that one like this was described in the past adds credibility. I guess my question is more to the point of why NGC seems to have more of the fringe items in holders than PCGS?
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real. >>
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does? >>
Why would you make such a negative comment? Do you have ANY reason to suggest that PCGS turned it down first?
David Camire did an excellent job with THAT error. >>
As long as 1.The alloy is correct 2.The diameter is correct 3.The style of the planchet is correct (as compared to other 1/2 cent planchets) 4.The weight is correct 5.The edge lettering "style" is correct (as compared to normally struck 1793 1/2 cents) 6.And being about 225 years old, it should (but doesn't have to) have a reasonable degree of toning and problems. 7.If it has any provenance which can be traced (e.g. the reference Andy gave to the 1869 report about a edge lettered 1793 existing, is a good example), also helps.
So all in all, as long as NGC checked out all of these things, and I'm sure they did, there is no reason to doubt the coin's authenticity. >>
THANKS! Those were some of the things I was curious about, but short of destructive testing it might be difficult to confirm the composition of the alloy. It would be interesting if the TPG services would record and share their notes on exactly what steps they took but do not think that is their practice.
<< <i>THANKS! Those were some of the things I was curious about, but short of destructive testing it might be difficult to confirm the composition of the alloy. It would be interesting if the TPG services would record and share their notes on exactly what steps they took but do not think that is their practice. >>
They can do a non destructive test to determine the alloy accurately, which is what they did if they did in fact test the alloy.
I've found in many cases, it's simply the choice of the submitter whether it goes to PCGS or NGC.
I happen to know the owner of the coin, and although we talked about it last week, I didn't ask him why NGC instead of PCGS.
I'll ask him again in a day or two when we talk about the coin again.
Fred
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real. >>
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does? >>
Or perhaps this is a victim of the new PCGS High value fee. I expect we will see more and more high end coins in NGC holders as a result of that fee.
With all due respect to our gracious hosts, I really don't think that on a one-of-a-kind error like this it really doesn't matter which of the two services you use. It's not like anybody is putting together a date set of them and wants matching holders.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
I think this is dang cool and I wouldn't mind it for the right price If we had the 1/2c collection we wanted (we are still a few away), then it would certainly be something to try to get.
<< <i>It will be in ANA auction in May any idea as to value? >>
I'm going to predict that it sells for about $10,000. That's NOT a comment on its value, just what it will sell for. There are VERY FEW errors that have ever sold for over $10,000 at auction. The Heritage archives have over 10,000 items in the Errors category, of which only 60 sold for $10,000 or more. A year ago a blank planchet for a double eagle (wow!) sold for $12,650. That's pretty darn neat also.
During the ANA seminar on Chinese counterfeits, the speaker stated that both NGC and PCGS had determined that they would never again certify a blank planchet without a provenance, because the quality of the (top grade) Chinese fakes was simply too good. Was this just wrong, or did the lettering give them enough info to make a definitive call? If they can do an exact metallurgical match to an 1804 dollar, you'd think they could do copper to match a 1793.
<< <i>During the ANA seminar on Chinese counterfeits, the speaker stated that both NGC and PCGS had determined that they would never again certify a blank planchet without a provenance, because the quality of the (top grade) Chinese fakes was simply too good. Was this just wrong, or did the lettering give them enough info to make a definitive call? If they can do an exact metallurgical match to an 1804 dollar, you'd think they could do copper to match a 1793. >>
I'm thinking that the fact that there was one similar reported historically before the Chinese began perfecting their copying skills that may have been sufficient enough provenance for NGC. PCGS, on the other hand, may be holding to their guns though for the very reason you stated. It is all a bit puzzling at this point since we are still waiting to learn if the coin was first submitted to PCGS.
<< <i>During the ANA seminar on Chinese counterfeits, the speaker stated that both NGC and PCGS had determined that they would never again certify a blank planchet without a provenance, because the quality of the (top grade) Chinese fakes was simply too good. Was this just wrong, or did the lettering give them enough info to make a definitive call? If they can do an exact metallurgical match to an 1804 dollar, you'd think they could do copper to match a 1793. >>
I haven't seen the piece, but since the edge was in effect struck with distinctive dies from the castaing machine, it should be easily certifiable with camparable edges from normal coins.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
<< <i>During the ANA seminar on Chinese counterfeits, the speaker stated that both NGC and PCGS had determined that they would never again certify a blank planchet without a provenance, because the quality of the (top grade) Chinese fakes was simply too good. Was this just wrong, or did the lettering give them enough info to make a definitive call? If they can do an exact metallurgical match to an 1804 dollar, you'd think they could do copper to match a 1793. >>
I haven't seen the piece, but since the edge was in effect struck with distinctive dies from the castaing machine, it should be easily certifiable with camparable edges from normal coins. >>
I tend to agree with you and as clever as some of these Chinese counterfeiters are I question their motivation to come up with a one off for such a unique piece. That said, it is unfortunate that their skills in creating fakes puts a pale over our whole hobby.
I can't believe that listing only has one edge shot! The edge is 90% of the coin in this case!
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
"...Iam curious to what this ends up at since I have always heard that collectors want to SEE the coin, and it is interesting because many here predict a huge price but I just don't see that, since there is nothing really to be seen in this piece..." - Realone
Hi,
I think the "coolness" factor can be very present but appear "invisible" - a pedigree may not be tangible in the strictest sense apart from a name on an insert, an old Mehl envelope, an old catalog plate if you are lucky, but beyond that what is there? The greats of pedigrees bring in the $ though, no? My "half-cent".
<< <i>I can't believe that listing only has one edge shot! The edge is 90% of the coin in this case! >>
if there were ever a coin to do the flashlight trick on, this would be it!!
this and my beloved S-79s . >>
Indeed!
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
I thought the coin planchet since it had been through the Castaing machine was an important example of the early American minting process. I have developed a small collection of early mint patterns and die trials and errors such as the 1795 half eagle and 1797 half eagles in copper and the 1798 dollar struck on a copper scrap. This piece fits nicely when that early context. Clearly, not coin for everyone's taste. A bit of an orphan actually. But it's really not just a blank plancet like some of the other noted planchets mentioned in the thread, but a stuck coin although only the edge dies struck it. The fact that the edge lettering matches a normal 1793 half cent and that this can be readily distinguished fit nicely into this eclectic genre. I also thought it being a first year coin was amazing that it could have survived. It will now takes its place next to three other half cents (all 1795 Cohen 6a half cents) that were over stuck on cut down 1794 or 1795 half dollars struck in copper. I know completely off the beaten path, but I've been captured by these early mint oddities. Also
<< <i>Mint error or pattern? Inquiring minds want to know!
Error. >>
Do explain >>
Error because pattern requires that the Mint be testing out an unofficial design that they intend to use or modify for later official production coins. This coin was never struck by any dies and is therefore an error.
Zircon Cases - Protect Your Vintage Slabswww.ZirconCases.com Former CoFounder of Choice Numismatics
As a bit of speculation, I once attended a coin club meeting in southern California where I was a visiting attendee. The members could bring in their own items to auction off, as I expect it is in many coin clubs. Well, someone brought in a piece that looked very similar to this and claimed to have brought it to a number of dealers who all told him that it was most likely the real deal. Well, it sold that night to another (somewhat reluctant) member of the coin club for five dollars. If this is the same piece, what a low-risk, high-reward deal that was!
Just my two cents. And yes, it is some speculation, but it matches up pretty well with a lot of the details in what little story there is, IMO.
Zircon Cases - Protect Your Vintage Slabswww.ZirconCases.com Former CoFounder of Choice Numismatics
That was without the juice....but I really felt there was true early Americana value there. Others may not of course.
Castaing machine
A machine developed by Jean Castaing, a French engineer. He was the one to add the edge lettering and devices to early coins of the United States before these were minted. Castaining machines were used until close collar dies were launched. These applied the edge device during the minting process.
I've been an affectionato of lettered edge capped bust half dollars. I have been building a set of edge errors that has over 30 different "third" die errors. the toughest of which are the tripled edge lettered and no edge lettered coins.
Below is an example of an 1929/7 O.101a Capped Bust Half Dollar with triple edge lettering revealed using an edge mirror. The third die remains a very, very under appreciated part of numismatics IMHO.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real.
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does? >>
Why would you make such a negative comment? Do you have ANY reason to suggest that PCGS turned it down first?
Edited to add: See this thread:
linky
David Camire did an excellent job with THAT error.
<< <i>Yes, the Davy Collection sale is probably the one that I had in mind. Lot 367 Lot 368. Lot 368 says it's from the Superior 5/29/05 sale, which is probably the other one that I was thinking of.
Agreed that large cent planchets are much more common than half cent planchets. >>
Thanks for the links! They did sale for about 3-5X what a large cent planchet sales for, at $600 and a little over $1000. Large cents seem to always go for $150-$250, depending grade, slabbing, etc.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real.
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does? >>
Why would you make such a negative comment? Do you have ANY reason to suggest that PCGS turned it down first?
Edited to add: See this thread:
linky
David Camire did an excellent job with THAT error. >>
As long as 1.The alloy is correct 2.The diameter is correct 3.The style of the planchet is correct (as compared to other 1/2 cent planchets) 4.The weight is correct 5.The edge lettering "style" is correct (as compared to normally struck 1793 1/2 cents) 6.And being about 225 years old, it should (but doesn't have to) have a reasonable degree of toning and problems. 7.If it has any provenance which can be traced (e.g. the reference Andy gave to the 1869 report about a edge lettered 1793 existing, is a good example), also helps.
So all in all, as long as NGC checked out all of these things, and I'm sure they did, there is no reason to doubt the coin's authenticity.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Seems like it's neither a pattern or error - simply unfinished, lost in process. >>
This. >>
Exactly. How is this an error? >>
It is an error because it was never intended to be released by the mint without a strike. All a mint error is, is a coin which is not as the mint intended it to be when it was released (missing edge lettering $1 coins, missing clad layers, clips, brockages, die caps, etc.)
<< <i>Seems like it's neither a pattern or error - simply unfinished, lost in process. >>
Until it falls into the hands of a collector.
NGC does not asign a grade to planchets?
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Bastiat
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real.
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does? >>
Why would you make such a negative comment? Do you have ANY reason to suggest that PCGS turned it down first?
Edited to add: See this thread:
linky
David Camire did an excellent job with THAT error. >>
Good point with regard to the link. That was an exciting find. Also the added point that one like this was described in the past adds credibility. I guess my question is more to the point of why NGC seems to have more of the fringe items in holders than PCGS?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real.
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does? >>
Why would you make such a negative comment? Do you have ANY reason to suggest that PCGS turned it down first?
Edited to add: See this thread:
linky
David Camire did an excellent job with THAT error. >>
As long as 1.The alloy is correct 2.The diameter is correct 3.The style of the planchet is correct (as compared to other 1/2 cent planchets) 4.The weight is correct 5.The edge lettering "style" is correct (as compared to normally struck 1793 1/2 cents) 6.And being about 225 years old, it should (but doesn't have to) have a reasonable degree of toning and problems. 7.If it has any provenance which can be traced (e.g. the reference Andy gave to the 1869 report about a edge lettered 1793 existing, is a good example), also helps.
So all in all, as long as NGC checked out all of these things, and I'm sure they did, there is no reason to doubt the coin's authenticity. >>
THANKS! Those were some of the things I was curious about, but short of destructive testing it might be difficult to confirm the composition of the alloy. It would be interesting if the TPG services would record and share their notes on exactly what steps they took but do not think that is their practice.
<< <i>THANKS! Those were some of the things I was curious about, but short of destructive testing it might be difficult to confirm the composition of the alloy. It would be interesting if the TPG services would record and share their notes on exactly what steps they took but do not think that is their practice. >>
They can do a non destructive test to determine the alloy accurately, which is what they did if they did in fact test the alloy.
I've found in many cases, it's simply the choice
of the submitter whether it goes to PCGS or NGC.
I happen to know the owner of the coin, and
although we talked about it last week, I didn't
ask him why NGC instead of PCGS.
I'll ask him again in a day or two when we talk
about the coin again.
Fred
<< <i>Northcoin -
I've found in many cases, it's simply the choice
of the submitter whether it goes to PCGS or NGC.
I happen to know the owner of the coin, and
although we talked about it last week, I didn't
ask him why NGC instead of PCGS.
I'll ask him again in a day or two when we talk
about the coin again.
Fred >>
Wow. That will really be interesting. Thanks for your contributions generally as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>Very cool. Let's hope it's not another Gallery Mint Museum piece manipulated to look real.
another? Has this been a problem in the past? I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese to counterfeit something like this. At least NGC is not sticking its neck out on authenticating it since there isn't anything to compare it to even if found to not be authentic. Who wants to guess that PCGS turned it down first? After all the dealer who submitted it is located in PCGS country there in California. Or is this simply a type of item that PCGS does not authenticate and holder and NGC does? >>
Or perhaps this is a victim of the new PCGS High value fee. I expect we will see more and more high end coins in NGC holders as a result of that fee.
If we had the 1/2c collection we wanted (we are still a few away), then it would certainly be something to try to get.
Dang cool!
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
<< <i>It will be in ANA auction in May any idea as to value? >>
I'm going to predict that it sells for about $10,000. That's NOT a comment on its value, just what it will sell for. There are VERY FEW errors that have ever sold for over $10,000 at auction. The Heritage archives have over 10,000 items in the Errors category, of which only 60 sold for $10,000 or more. A year ago a blank planchet for a double eagle (wow!) sold for $12,650. That's pretty darn neat also.
But in an auction, you never know!
<< <i>$30-50k. Just too cool to sell for less >>
Too bad it doesn't have a CAC sticker as apparently that will eliminate one potential bidder.
<< <i>During the ANA seminar on Chinese counterfeits, the speaker stated that both NGC and PCGS had determined that they would never again certify a blank planchet without a provenance, because the quality of the (top grade) Chinese fakes was simply too good. Was this just wrong, or did the lettering give them enough info to make a definitive call? If they can do an exact metallurgical match to an 1804 dollar, you'd think they could do copper to match a 1793. >>
I'm thinking that the fact that there was one similar reported historically before the Chinese began perfecting their copying skills that may have been sufficient enough provenance for NGC. PCGS, on the other hand, may be holding to their guns though for the very reason you stated. It is all a bit puzzling at this point since we are still waiting to learn if the coin was first submitted to PCGS.
<< <i>During the ANA seminar on Chinese counterfeits, the speaker stated that both NGC and PCGS had determined that they would never again certify a blank planchet without a provenance, because the quality of the (top grade) Chinese fakes was simply too good. Was this just wrong, or did the lettering give them enough info to make a definitive call? If they can do an exact metallurgical match to an 1804 dollar, you'd think they could do copper to match a 1793. >>
I haven't seen the piece, but since the edge was in effect struck with distinctive dies from the castaing machine, it should be easily certifiable with camparable edges from normal coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>During the ANA seminar on Chinese counterfeits, the speaker stated that both NGC and PCGS had determined that they would never again certify a blank planchet without a provenance, because the quality of the (top grade) Chinese fakes was simply too good. Was this just wrong, or did the lettering give them enough info to make a definitive call? If they can do an exact metallurgical match to an 1804 dollar, you'd think they could do copper to match a 1793. >>
I haven't seen the piece, but since the edge was in effect struck with distinctive dies from the castaing machine, it should be easily certifiable with camparable edges from normal coins. >>
I tend to agree with you and as clever as some of these Chinese counterfeiters are I question their motivation to come up with a one off for such a unique piece. That said, it is unfortunate that their skills in creating fakes puts a pale over our whole hobby.
Lot #54. Undated (1793) Liberty Cap Half Cent Copper Planchet. Lettered Edge. (NGC).
<< <i>I can't believe that listing only has one edge shot! The edge is 90% of the coin in this case! >>
The images are pretty poor... Photos of a Girl Scout Thin Mint cookie would be more eye appealing!
Hi,
I think the "coolness" factor can be very present but appear "invisible" - a pedigree may not be tangible in the strictest sense apart from a name on an insert, an old Mehl envelope, an old catalog plate if you are lucky, but beyond that what is there? The greats of pedigrees bring in the $ though, no? My "half-cent".
Eric
<< <i>I can't believe that listing only has one edge shot! The edge is 90% of the coin in this case! >>
if there were ever a coin to do the flashlight trick on, this would be it!!
this and my beloved S-79s
.
<< <i>
<< <i>I can't believe that listing only has one edge shot! The edge is 90% of the coin in this case! >>
if there were ever a coin to do the flashlight trick on, this would be it!!
this and my beloved S-79s
. >>
Indeed!
[URL=http://s423.photobucket.com/user/hgtri/media/1_1793_Half_Cent_Planchet_Edge_NGC_zps25966531.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s423.photobucket.com/user/hgtri/media/1798J-25arawobvandrev_zps1770abba.jpg.html]
Hope others might think these are an interesting small off shoot of early American coinage.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mint error or pattern? Inquiring minds want to know!
Error. >>
Do explain >>
Error because pattern requires that the Mint be testing out an unofficial design that they intend to use or modify for later official production coins. This coin was never struck by any dies and is therefore an error.
Former CoFounder of Choice Numismatics
All of my collection is in a safe deposit box!
Just my two cents. And yes, it is some speculation, but it matches up pretty well with a lot of the details in what little story there is, IMO.
Former CoFounder of Choice Numismatics
All of my collection is in a safe deposit box!
<< <i>
<< <i>$30-50k. Just too cool to sell for less >>
Too bad it doesn't have a CAC sticker as apparently that will eliminate one potential bidder. >>
Now if it had gotten a CAC sticker I'm guessing that 17k selling price would have doubled.
Castaing machine
A machine developed by Jean Castaing, a French engineer. He was the one to add the edge lettering and devices to early coins of the United States before these were minted. Castaining machines were used until close collar dies were launched. These applied the edge device during the minting process.
I've been an affectionato of lettered edge capped bust half dollars. I have been building a set of edge errors that has over 30 different "third" die errors. the toughest of which are the tripled edge lettered and no edge lettered coins.
Below is an example of an 1929/7 O.101a Capped Bust Half Dollar with triple edge lettering revealed using an edge mirror. The third die remains a very, very under appreciated part of numismatics IMHO.
[URL=http://s423.photobucket.com/user/hgtri/media/1829O101obvtriplededgelettersphoto4_zpsaaa32ca3.jpg.html]
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5