@CommemKing said:
That's a lot of jing right there. IMO, no coin is worth that much.
Especially not with the distracting obverse carbon spots. Of course as a rarity no one is going to throw it out of a box of 20. I like TDN's coin and the 66+ much better. If this is an almost $3M coin as is, the 66+ sounds like a bargain at $5M.
@thebigeng said:
The black spots would bug me personally...
+1 I'd send it in for conservation.
It looks like it already has been dipped. I think the spots are there to stay forever. Also, look at how Stacks-Bowers described it in its auction records:
A few tiny obverse carbon spots are noted over and before Liberty's cheek and neck, as well as in isolated peripheral areas, especially outside stars 12 and 13. Close examination with a loupe suggests that these spots are associated with tiny planchet pits caused by minor impurities in the alloy.
@tradedollarnut said:
Have you seen it in hand? It’s a 65 without those impurities. A coin from 1794 deserves some leeway
Bruce, putting aside this particular coin, why should a coin from 1794 (or any other date/type) be given leeway?
For example, if in the absence of leeway, the finest known example of coin X is a (fill in the blank), why not just grade it as such? There would be no shame in that and it would be more honest.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Anyone who thinks coins from 1793 or 1794 come 100% perfect is living in a bubble.
Bruce has enjoyed the time to own and throughly inspect his coins. Nothing is ever perfect from that era-except for the one coin that brought $10,000,000.00! And tha's why it did-it was near perfect!
The 1794 is a lock 54 EVERY day. The microscopic impurities are nothing.
I deal in more of this stuff then anyone. Why do people come here silly ideas-to put their names out?
@specialist said:
Anyone who thinks coins from 1793 or 1794 come 100% perfect is living in a bubble.
Bruce has enjoyed the time to own and throughly inspect his coins. Nothing is ever perfect from that era-except for the one coin that brought $10,000,000.00! And tha's why it did-it was near perfect!
The 1794 is a lock 54 EVERY day. The microscopic impurities are nothing.
I deal in more of this stuff then anyone. Why do people come here silly ideas-to put their names out?
This is a great coin period.
No one said coins from 1793-1794 “come 100% perfect”. The fact that such coins don’t “come perfect” doesn’t mean they should be graded to a different standard.
With respect to people putting their names out - you’ve done a lot of great things, but I don’t know anyone who brags (anywhere near) as much as you do. Why not let others sing your praises?
And I think you meant to type “64”, not “54” for the grade of the 1794 $1.😉 One thing we do agree upon is that it’s a great coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@specialist said:
Anyone who thinks coins from 1793 or 1794 come 100% perfect is living in a bubble.
Bruce has enjoyed the time to own and throughly inspect his coins. Nothing is ever perfect from that era-except for the one coin that brought $10,000,000.00! And tha's why it did-it was near perfect!
The 1794 is a lock 54 EVERY day. The microscopic impurities are nothing.
I deal in more of this stuff then anyone. Why do people come here silly ideas-to put their names out?
This is a great coin period.
No one said coins from 1793-1794 “come 100% perfect”. The fact that such coins don’t “come perfect” doesn’t mean they should be graded to a different standard.
With respect to people putting their names out - you’ve done a lot of great things, but I don’t know anyone who brags (anywhere near) as much as you do. Why not let others sing your praises?
And I think you meant to type “64”, not “54” for the grade of the 1794 $1.😉 One thing we do agree upon is that it’s a great coin.
@tradedollarnut said: Bruce, putting aside this particular coin, why should a coin from 1794 (or any other date/type) be given leeway?
All coins are net graded. Some are net net graded.
Honestly, you just can't compare the early mint products with the modern mint products using the same criteria! The die press used in 1794 was operated by the strength of human hands, and it was worn out such that the spindles were slipping. Modern hydraulic presses of today strike coins at multiple tons of pressure! In fact, the PCGS Guide to Grading states that high point weakness/rub is acceptable for capped bust half dollars up to the grade of MS67! Would you grade a circulation strike Kennedy Half Dollar as MS67 with high point rub?? Heck, the Guide even gives different standards for "O" mint Morgans and "S" mint Morgans, due to their different manufacture!
(1) If the coin was dated 1795 instead of 1794, do any of you believe that it would be in a 64 holder with a green bean?
(2) Assuming leeway as you suggest, were the differences in production from 1794 to 1795 so different as to warrant drastically different standards from one year prior (assuming you agree that a 1795 "common" date would be treated differently)? This isn't merely about striking - it is about planchet preparation if you agree with the catalog description. Were the differences in planchet preparation and alloy purity really that different one year later?
(3) I can agree with a gem grade without the spots. The difference of opinion is in how much the spots should take away from the numerical grade.
@cameonut2011 said:
(1) If the coin was dated 1795 instead of 1794, do any of you believe that it would be in a 64 holder with a green bean?
(2) Assuming leeway as you suggest, were the differences in production from 1794 to 1795 so different as to warrant drastically different standards from one year prior (assuming you agree that a 1795 "common" date would be treated differently)? This isn't merely about striking - it is about planchet preparation if you agree with the catalog description. Were the differences in planchet preparation and alloy purity really that different one year later?
(3) I can agree with a gem grade without the spots. The difference of opinion is in how much the spots should take away from the numerical grade.
The Mint screw-press and its spindles were replaced in 1795, prior to the striking of the new year's coins. So, yes, the 1795 dated coins are generally of higher quality that those of 1794.
@cardinal said:
The Mint screw-press and its spindles were replaced in 1795, prior to the striking of the new year's coins. So, yes, the 1795 dated coins are generally of higher quality that those of 1794.
Thanks! I enjoy historical discussions like this. As for planchet quality, source, and issues with alloy impurities (as opposed to the striking apparatus itself), where there any significant differences? In other words, are 1794 issues more likely to develop carbon spots or similar issues compared to the next year's coinage?
@cardinal said:
The Mint screw-press and its spindles were replaced in 1795, prior to the striking of the new year's coins. So, yes, the 1795 dated coins are generally of higher quality that those of 1794.
Thanks! I enjoy historical discussions like this. As for planchet quality, source, and issues with alloy impurities (as opposed to the striking apparatus itself), where there any significant differences? In other words, are 1794 issues more likely to develop carbon spots or similar issues compared to the next year's coinage?
The entire year of 1793 the mint only struck copper coins, as the bond requirement for Mint employees was too high to allow the workers to work with silver and gold bullion.
When the bond requirement was reduced, it was later in the year 1794 and the mint employees had to figure out how to create the planchets. There were impurities in the silver that created streaks and pits in the silver. The weakness of screw-press striking the large silver coins could not press out the voids in the rough planchets. Accordingly, those impurities are visible on the struck coins. In 1795, the press was repaired and the employees had more expertise in refining the silver, rolling out smooth silver sheets, and cutting out the planchets! It’s no wonder that the 1795 silver coins were much better that 1794!!
As for planchet quality, source, and issues with alloy impurities (as opposed to the striking apparatus itself), where there any significant differences? In other words, are 1794 issues more likely to develop carbon spots or similar issues compared to the next year's coinage?
There has only been one research study that accurately determined the alloy composition of 1794 and 1795 silver coins, completed recently by Chris Pilliod and David Finkelstein. They used actual coins donated for the study, and utilized Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy analysis. Each sample is first dissolved in nitric acid; a highly corrosive acid. A plasma torch then vaporizes fine droplets of the sample at a temperature of approximately 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The atoms of the sample generate wavelengths that were measured by an array of semiconductor photodetectors.
Mint documents reported a slight difference in silver content between 1794 and 1795. The study confirmed this. The silver coins ranged from 88.43% silver (1794) to 91.31% silver (1795), with copper from 8.35% to 11.01%, and trace amounts of gold, lead, and other metals.
@specialist said:
Anyone who thinks coins from 1793 or 1794 come 100% perfect is living in a bubble.
Bruce has enjoyed the time to own and throughly inspect his coins. Nothing is ever perfect from that era-except for the one coin that brought $10,000,000.00! And tha's why it did-it was near perfect!
The 1794 is a lock 54 EVERY day. The microscopic impurities are nothing.
I deal in more of this stuff then anyone. Why do people come here silly ideas-to put their names out?
This is a great coin period.
No one said coins from 1793-1794 “come 100% perfect”. The fact that such coins don’t “come perfect” doesn’t mean they should be graded to a different standard.
With respect to people putting their names out - you’ve done a lot of great things, but I don’t know anyone who brags (anywhere near) as much as you do. Why not let others sing your praises?
And I think you meant to type “64”, not “54” for the grade of the 1794 $1.😉 One thing we do agree upon is that it’s a great coin.
@tradedollarnut said: Bruce, putting aside this particular coin, why should a coin from 1794 (or any other date/type) be given leeway?
All coins are net graded. Some are net net graded.
Honestly, you just can't compare the early mint products with the modern mint products using the same criteria! The die press used in 1794 was operated by the strength of human hands, and it was worn out such that the spindles were slipping. Modern hydraulic presses of today strike coins at multiple tons of pressure! In fact, the PCGS Guide to Grading states that high point weakness/rub is acceptable for capped bust half dollars up to the grade of MS67! Would you grade a circulation strike Kennedy Half Dollar as MS67 with high point rub?? Heck, the Guide even gives different standards for "O" mint Morgans and "S" mint Morgans, due to their different manufacture!
Martin, I understand and agree with that. I was speaking of situations where, for example, an especially tough type and/or date appears to have been graded to a different standard, merely because it is among the finest known. My point is that a coin can be THE finest and still be (only) a low mint state grade, an AU or whatever. It need not/should not be graded more liberally, due solely to its rarity.
On a another note, it is always a pleasure to read your posts - thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As for planchet quality, source, and issues with alloy impurities (as opposed to the striking apparatus itself), where there any significant differences? In other words, are 1794 issues more likely to develop carbon spots or similar issues compared to the next year's coinage?
There has only been one research study that accurately determined the alloy composition of 1794 and 1795 silver coins, completed recently by Chris Pilliod and David Finkelstein. They used actual coins donated for the study, and utilized Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy analysis. Each sample is first dissolved in nitric acid; a highly corrosive acid. A plasma torch then vaporizes fine droplets of the sample at a temperature of approximately 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The atoms of the sample generate wavelengths that were measured by an array of semiconductor photodetectors.
Mint documents reported a slight difference in silver content between 1794 and 1795. The study confirmed this. The silver coins ranged from 88.43% silver (1794) to 91.31% silver (1795), with copper from 8.35% to 11.01%, and trace amounts of gold, lead, and other metals.
For the carbon spots on the 1794 dollar, I believe they are most likely from external contaminants.
I am familiar with that cited research study. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it is my understanding that ZERO 1794 Dollars were subjected to the destructive testing that befell the 1794 half dollars and 1795 half dollars in the study. While that study generated its own conclusions, it does not directly prove anything about the 1794 Dollar coins, as those were not tested. I have studied the 1794 dollars extensively, and have examined a large portion of the remaining population of 1794 Dollars - including personal examination of those coins outside of their TPG holders - and it is my opinion that the carbon spots resulted from the manner in which the planchet metal was prepared.
I am familiar with that cited research study. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it is my understanding that ZERO 1794 Dollars were subjected to the destructive testing that befell the 1794 half dollars and 1795 half dollars in the study. While that study generated its own conclusions, it does not directly prove anything about the 1794 Dollar coins, as those were not tested. I have studied the 1794 dollars extensively, and have examined a large portion of the remaining population of 1794 Dollars - including personal examination of those coins outside of their TPG holders - and it is my opinion that the carbon spots resulted from the manner in which the planchet metal was prepared.
The silver also had some level of firescale from annealing, and would be immersed into a pickling (acid) solution after annealing to remove any firescale. Some residue from this could remain, although I believe the Mint personnel were more skilled than we realize.
No 1794 dollars were tested in the study. Their preliminary conclusion: "Since the 1794 Dollars were struck before the 1794 Half Dollars, it is logical to conclude that the Mint also attempted to melt the metals in the 1794 Dollars to a standard of 89.24+% silver and 10.76-% copper alloy."
Pilliod is a metallurgist. Most of us have had little or no metallurgical education. I am not a metallurgist, but have been in a number of graduate level metallurgy seminars from professors of metallurgy, through my employment. Heat treating, corrosion, metal fatigue, alloy properties, etc. I generally will ask side questions about die steel and planchets - their answer is always the same "I can't give an exact answer, without testing the alloy composition." This is exactly what Pilliod did, he tested the alloy composition to prove the Mint correspondence was correct - the Mint refined silver in 1795 (half dollars) to a fineness that did not comply with 1792 Coinage Act, which Boudinot corrected when he became Director.
I have owned many early coins of the flowing hair and draped bust years, and have yet to see two coins tone exactly the same, some have carbon spots - all were in different environments after the Mint. I cannot conclude anything without testing the alloy composition. However, there is a difference in die failure between 1794 and 1795 half dollars, which Scot addressed in his Congressional engraving report.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
I am familiar with that cited research study. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it is my understanding that ZERO 1794 Dollars were subjected to the destructive testing that befell the 1794 half dollars and 1795 half dollars in the study. While that study generated its own conclusions, it does not directly prove anything about the 1794 Dollar coins, as those were not tested. I have studied the 1794 dollars extensively, and have examined a large portion of the remaining population of 1794 Dollars - including personal examination of those coins outside of their TPG holders - and it is my opinion that the carbon spots resulted from the manner in which the planchet metal was prepared.
The silver also had some level of firescale from annealing, and would be immersed into a pickling (acid) solution after annealing to remove any firescale. Some residue from this could remain, although I believe the Mint personnel were more skilled than we realize.
No 1794 dollars were tested in the study. Their preliminary conclusion: "Since the 1794 Dollars were struck before the 1794 Half Dollars, it is logical to conclude that the Mint also attempted to melt the metals in the 1794 Dollars to a standard of 89.24+% silver and 10.76-% copper alloy."
Pilliod is a metallurgist. Most of us have had little or no metallurgical education. I am not a metallurgist, but have been in a number of graduate level metallurgy seminars from professors of metallurgy, through my employment. Heat treating, corrosion, metal fatigue, alloy properties, etc. I generally will ask side questions about die steel and planchets - their answer is always the same "I can't give an exact answer, without testing the alloy composition." This is exactly what Pilliod did, he tested the alloy composition to prove the Mint correspondence was correct - the Mint refined silver in 1795 (half dollars) to a fineness that did not comply with 1792 Coinage Act, which Boudinot corrected when he became Director.
I have owned many early coins of the flowing hair and draped bust years, and have yet to see two coins tone exactly the same, some have carbon spots - all were in different environments after the Mint. I cannot conclude anything without testing the alloy composition. However, there is a difference in die failure between 1794 and 1795 half dollars, which Scot addressed in his Congressional engraving report.
Are you familiar with the Petition of John Vaughan of 1799, that was settled by order of Congress?
I am familiar, although not with the specifics. Can you explain the Petition to the forum? As Vaughan was the Mint's largest early depositor, I do have an interest in the source the silver, and his position with the APS.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@Nysoto said:
I am familiar, although not with the specifics. Can you explain the Petition to the forum? As Vaughan was the Mint's largest early depositor, I do have an interest in the source the silver, and his position with the APS.
>
I posted the full copy of the Petition in the latter thread you referenced, from an original printing of that Petition.
While reading about the early Mint, several references relayed the “rumor” that the Mint’s Director David Rittenhouse was told that the statutory finess would cause the silver coins to turn black very quickly in circulation, and so he agreed to have the finess of the silver content increased to 90% pure. Obviously, the research done recently (while destroying a number of 1794 and 1795 half dollars), has proven that so-called “rumor” was true.
That being said, the U.S. Congress had already settled that rumor in 1799. John Vaughan was a merchant and major depositor if silver to the Mint, to be processed into newly struck coins. Vaughan knew the weight of his deposits, and so had calculated the amount of coinage he should receive from the Mint. He did not receive the amount he expected, and sued the government. Clearly, the coins he received used up all of his deposited silver, yet what he got did not give him the full face value he deserved.
Congress considered the Petition and awarded Vaughan $3,000 in extra coinage. Absent that award, the situation would have been an extraordinary breach of the Mint Act of 1792, which ordered that anyone responsible for loss of depositors’ bullion, it would be punishable by DEATH!
The recent research identified the ranges of the actual levels of purity that were used in coining during that period, but the confirmation of the non-statutory levels of silver content in the coins of that era was conclusively settled more than 2 centuries ago.
I love it when the big guns weigh in. I can’t take notes fast enough
mark
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......
While reading about the early Mint, several references relayed the “rumor” that the Mint’s Director David Rittenhouse was told that the statutory finess would cause the silver coins to turn black very quickly in circulation, and so he agreed to have the finess of the silver content increased to 90% pure.
The actual wording by Boudinot, while heading the Congressional Committee of the Mint (and not Mint Director yet) 2-9-1795:
"Your Committee further finds, that the standard fineness of silver directed by law, in the opinion of the officers of the Mint, contains too great an alloy [i.e. too much copper, too little silver], and will expose the coin to turn black; and, therefore, that the alloy should be reduced."
However, the opinion the coins will turn black was not the only issue the Mint, and the Committee on the Mint, had with fineness mandated by the 1792 Coinage Act, "This extreme fractional part of our standard for silver [89.24278% silver], produces great inconvenience, without any advantage, that your committee could discover..."
The Committee of the Mint gave further reason to change the standard to 90.0% silver, citing fluctuations in the price of copper. There were several reasons the Committee on the Mint requested the change to .900 on February 9, 1795, but the request was not approved, and the fineness remained the same at .8924278, to be calculated without an Excel spreadsheet.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Comments
Especially not with the distracting obverse carbon spots. Of course as a rarity no one is going to throw it out of a box of 20. I like TDN's coin and the 66+ much better. If this is an almost $3M coin as is, the 66+ sounds like a bargain at $5M.
The black spots would bug me personally...
Yes, the coin is PCGS CAC. Black Cat just adores it
We will have it on display in the future. This year, he chose a few incredible patterns for the ANA to display. MEOW!
nm
+1 I'd send it in for conservation.
It looks like it already has been dipped. I think the spots are there to stay forever. Also, look at how Stacks-Bowers described it in its auction records:
A few tiny obverse carbon spots are noted over and before Liberty's cheek and neck, as well as in isolated peripheral areas, especially outside stars 12 and 13. Close examination with a loupe suggests that these spots are associated with tiny planchet pits caused by minor impurities in the alloy.
I'm a bit surprised it stickered.
Have you seen it in hand? It’s a 65 without those impurities. A coin from 1794 deserves some leeway
Bruce, putting aside this particular coin, why should a coin from 1794 (or any other date/type) be given leeway?
For example, if in the absence of leeway, the finest known example of coin X is a (fill in the blank), why not just grade it as such? There would be no shame in that and it would be more honest.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Anyone who thinks coins from 1793 or 1794 come 100% perfect is living in a bubble.
Bruce has enjoyed the time to own and throughly inspect his coins. Nothing is ever perfect from that era-except for the one coin that brought $10,000,000.00! And tha's why it did-it was near perfect!
The 1794 is a lock 54 EVERY day. The microscopic impurities are nothing.
I deal in more of this stuff then anyone. Why do people come here silly ideas-to put their names out?
This is a great coin period.
No one said coins from 1793-1794 “come 100% perfect”. The fact that such coins don’t “come perfect” doesn’t mean they should be graded to a different standard.
With respect to people putting their names out - you’ve done a lot of great things, but I don’t know anyone who brags (anywhere near) as much as you do. Why not let others sing your praises?
And I think you meant to type “64”, not “54” for the grade of the 1794 $1.😉 One thing we do agree upon is that it’s a great coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Bruce, putting aside this particular coin, why should a coin from 1794 (or any other date/type) be given leeway?
All coins are net graded. Some are net net graded.
Honestly, you just can't compare the early mint products with the modern mint products using the same criteria! The die press used in 1794 was operated by the strength of human hands, and it was worn out such that the spindles were slipping. Modern hydraulic presses of today strike coins at multiple tons of pressure! In fact, the PCGS Guide to Grading states that high point weakness/rub is acceptable for capped bust half dollars up to the grade of MS67! Would you grade a circulation strike Kennedy Half Dollar as MS67 with high point rub?? Heck, the Guide even gives different standards for "O" mint Morgans and "S" mint Morgans, due to their different manufacture!
Comparison of the Chain Cent to that dollar is largely dependent on psychology.
Good to know. It’s good to hear more about him and I’m glad he’s displaying his coins.
The great thing about collecting is everyone can do it their own way. Black Cat is doing a type set so he needs both anyway.
(1) If the coin was dated 1795 instead of 1794, do any of you believe that it would be in a 64 holder with a green bean?
(2) Assuming leeway as you suggest, were the differences in production from 1794 to 1795 so different as to warrant drastically different standards from one year prior (assuming you agree that a 1795 "common" date would be treated differently)? This isn't merely about striking - it is about planchet preparation if you agree with the catalog description. Were the differences in planchet preparation and alloy purity really that different one year later?
(3) I can agree with a gem grade without the spots. The difference of opinion is in how much the spots should take away from the numerical grade.
@cardinal
Yes it would. It’s a gem with planchet impurities
Worth every penny. Nice sale.
Brian Hodge
Partner, President of Numismatics
Minshull Trading
The Mint screw-press and its spindles were replaced in 1795, prior to the striking of the new year's coins. So, yes, the 1795 dated coins are generally of higher quality that those of 1794.
Courtesy Photo Post of OP’s Subject Coin for Discussion purposes...
1794 PCGS MS-64 (CAC) - Ex Norweb - Flowing Hair Dollar
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
the strike blows away all but a handful of 1794's that still exists. please. here we go again, with people yakking before they understand things.
also, to see this coin in person, you'd have a much different opinion.
Thanks! I enjoy historical discussions like this. As for planchet quality, source, and issues with alloy impurities (as opposed to the striking apparatus itself), where there any significant differences? In other words, are 1794 issues more likely to develop carbon spots or similar issues compared to the next year's coinage?
The entire year of 1793 the mint only struck copper coins, as the bond requirement for Mint employees was too high to allow the workers to work with silver and gold bullion.
When the bond requirement was reduced, it was later in the year 1794 and the mint employees had to figure out how to create the planchets. There were impurities in the silver that created streaks and pits in the silver. The weakness of screw-press striking the large silver coins could not press out the voids in the rough planchets. Accordingly, those impurities are visible on the struck coins. In 1795, the press was repaired and the employees had more expertise in refining the silver, rolling out smooth silver sheets, and cutting out the planchets! It’s no wonder that the 1795 silver coins were much better that 1794!!
It is extraordinary how quickly they learned; they were very resourceful people.
@cameonut2011:
There has only been one research study that accurately determined the alloy composition of 1794 and 1795 silver coins, completed recently by Chris Pilliod and David Finkelstein. They used actual coins donated for the study, and utilized Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy analysis. Each sample is first dissolved in nitric acid; a highly corrosive acid. A plasma torch then vaporizes fine droplets of the sample at a temperature of approximately 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The atoms of the sample generate wavelengths that were measured by an array of semiconductor photodetectors.
Mint documents reported a slight difference in silver content between 1794 and 1795. The study confirmed this. The silver coins ranged from 88.43% silver (1794) to 91.31% silver (1795), with copper from 8.35% to 11.01%, and trace amounts of gold, lead, and other metals.
Here is a link to part 3 of the excellent study http://jrcs.org/education/1794_95_Chem_Analysis_Part_3.pdf
For the carbon spots on the 1794 dollar, I believe they are most likely from external contaminants.
Thank you @nysoto , @cardinal , and to all the others who responded to my inquiries. Great information! This is what I enjoy most about the forums.
Martin, I understand and agree with that. I was speaking of situations where, for example, an especially tough type and/or date appears to have been graded to a different standard, merely because it is among the finest known. My point is that a coin can be THE finest and still be (only) a low mint state grade, an AU or whatever. It need not/should not be graded more liberally, due solely to its rarity.
On a another note, it is always a pleasure to read your posts - thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I am familiar with that cited research study. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it is my understanding that ZERO 1794 Dollars were subjected to the destructive testing that befell the 1794 half dollars and 1795 half dollars in the study. While that study generated its own conclusions, it does not directly prove anything about the 1794 Dollar coins, as those were not tested. I have studied the 1794 dollars extensively, and have examined a large portion of the remaining population of 1794 Dollars - including personal examination of those coins outside of their TPG holders - and it is my opinion that the carbon spots resulted from the manner in which the planchet metal was prepared.
@cardinal:
The silver also had some level of firescale from annealing, and would be immersed into a pickling (acid) solution after annealing to remove any firescale. Some residue from this could remain, although I believe the Mint personnel were more skilled than we realize.
No 1794 dollars were tested in the study. Their preliminary conclusion: "Since the 1794 Dollars were struck before the 1794 Half Dollars, it is logical to conclude that the Mint also attempted to melt the metals in the 1794 Dollars to a standard of 89.24+% silver and 10.76-% copper alloy."
Pilliod is a metallurgist. Most of us have had little or no metallurgical education. I am not a metallurgist, but have been in a number of graduate level metallurgy seminars from professors of metallurgy, through my employment. Heat treating, corrosion, metal fatigue, alloy properties, etc. I generally will ask side questions about die steel and planchets - their answer is always the same "I can't give an exact answer, without testing the alloy composition." This is exactly what Pilliod did, he tested the alloy composition to prove the Mint correspondence was correct - the Mint refined silver in 1795 (half dollars) to a fineness that did not comply with 1792 Coinage Act, which Boudinot corrected when he became Director.
I have owned many early coins of the flowing hair and draped bust years, and have yet to see two coins tone exactly the same, some have carbon spots - all were in different environments after the Mint. I cannot conclude anything without testing the alloy composition. However, there is a difference in die failure between 1794 and 1795 half dollars, which Scot addressed in his Congressional engraving report.
Are you familiar with the Petition of John Vaughan of 1799, that was settled by order of Congress?
I am familiar, although not with the specifics. Can you explain the Petition to the forum? As Vaughan was the Mint's largest early depositor, I do have an interest in the source the silver, and his position with the APS.
@RogerB started a couple of threads on John Vaughan https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1005112/using-mint-facilities-for-private-refining-john-vaughan-friends
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1005175/mint-response-to-john-vaughans-petition-to-congress-1798
>
I posted the full copy of the Petition in the latter thread you referenced, from an original printing of that Petition.
While reading about the early Mint, several references relayed the “rumor” that the Mint’s Director David Rittenhouse was told that the statutory finess would cause the silver coins to turn black very quickly in circulation, and so he agreed to have the finess of the silver content increased to 90% pure. Obviously, the research done recently (while destroying a number of 1794 and 1795 half dollars), has proven that so-called “rumor” was true.
That being said, the U.S. Congress had already settled that rumor in 1799. John Vaughan was a merchant and major depositor if silver to the Mint, to be processed into newly struck coins. Vaughan knew the weight of his deposits, and so had calculated the amount of coinage he should receive from the Mint. He did not receive the amount he expected, and sued the government. Clearly, the coins he received used up all of his deposited silver, yet what he got did not give him the full face value he deserved.
Congress considered the Petition and awarded Vaughan $3,000 in extra coinage. Absent that award, the situation would have been an extraordinary breach of the Mint Act of 1792, which ordered that anyone responsible for loss of depositors’ bullion, it would be punishable by DEATH!
The recent research identified the ranges of the actual levels of purity that were used in coining during that period, but the confirmation of the non-statutory levels of silver content in the coins of that era was conclusively settled more than 2 centuries ago.
Interesting the slab only has the Norweb pedigree.
To me, it's more noteworthy that this is the William Strickland - Lord St. Oswald coin.
Here's are links for the coin:
Thank you, thank you very much. I intend to spend it at the local car wash. My truck needs a good vacuuming.
I am a HUGE fan of every coin Lord St Oswald. It will be pedigreed that again when the kitten is finished.
wow. the rev is hammered. nice to see those photos.
I love it when the big guns weigh in. I can’t take notes fast enough
mark
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......
@cardinal:
The actual wording by Boudinot, while heading the Congressional Committee of the Mint (and not Mint Director yet) 2-9-1795:
"Your Committee further finds, that the standard fineness of silver directed by law, in the opinion of the officers of the Mint, contains too great an alloy [i.e. too much copper, too little silver], and will expose the coin to turn black; and, therefore, that the alloy should be reduced."
However, the opinion the coins will turn black was not the only issue the Mint, and the Committee on the Mint, had with fineness mandated by the 1792 Coinage Act, "This extreme fractional part of our standard for silver [89.24278% silver], produces great inconvenience, without any advantage, that your committee could discover..."
The Committee of the Mint gave further reason to change the standard to 90.0% silver, citing fluctuations in the price of copper. There were several reasons the Committee on the Mint requested the change to .900 on February 9, 1795, but the request was not approved, and the fineness remained the same at .8924278, to be calculated without an Excel spreadsheet.