@CaptHenway said:
I must agree that when the Treasury received a coin that was too light in its eyes for redemption at full face value it should have just eaten the loss and issued a replacement coin.
By law, once the weight of a gold coin drops below its legal weight tolerance, it loses its legal tender status and is then valued as gold bullion which would be less than its face value. The subtreasury probably gave the owner of the lightweight coin the option of redeeming the coin for its bullion value or taking the coin back. Some were probably turned it in at a loss while others elected to keep the coin assuming that they could just spend it for its full face value.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
In 2021 I corresponded with PCGS to see if they would designate my 1851 $2.50 as counter-stamped rather than as genuine / damaged and included my rationale and copies of several articles.
I was told that "whether a coin receives a variety or Mint error designation is up to our graders to be determined. PCGS does not designate all varieties and wouldn't be able to designate a variety or error that we do not already recognize. All of our varieties that we designate can be found under our Pop Report https://www.pcgs.com/pop. In a case like this, I would recommend visiting a PCGS Authorized dealer so they may look into your specific coin and shed some light on this request. They can help sending you to the right direction for this special request."
I did submit my coin along with some others as my Collectors Club membership was expiring. At least the coin now has TrueViews and is better protected / preserved.
I think the efforts of a respected / quality numismatic researcher who is associated with a respected firm would be required to get these properly designated. Who could take up the mantle?
The problem with attributing these is the same one that has always existed with counterstamped coins. A single letter punch (or a longer counterstamp made up of single letters) can't be dated or attributed because the punches used are still available.
I have a couple vintage letter punch sets, as do many people. If you attach a premium to a vintage coin wirh a single letter stamped on it, the result will be predictable.
@JBK said:
The problem with attributing these is the same one that has always existed with counterstamped coins. A single letter punch (or a longer counterstamp made up of single letters) can't be dated or attributed because the punches used are still available.
I have a couple vintage letter punch sets, as do many people. If you attach a premium to a vintage coin wirh a single letter stamped on it, the result will be predictable.
Actually, there are two "L" letters with one on each side of the coin where the "L" on the reverse is at the same location and the same exact orientation as the obverse "L" except that it's a mirror image. I'm guessing that the NY Subtreasury used a device similar to a large pair of pliers where the "L" letters on each side of the pliers matched exactly to mark the light coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@JBK said:
The problem with attributing these is the same one that has always existed with counterstamped coins. A single letter punch (or a longer counterstamp made up of single letters) can't be dated or attributed because the punches used are still available.
I have a couple vintage letter punch sets, as do many people. If you attach a premium to a vintage coin wirh a single letter stamped on it, the result will be predictable.
Actually, there are two "L" letters with one on each side of the coin where the "L" on the reverse is at the same location and the same exact orientation as the obverse "L" except that it's a mirror image. I'm guessing that the NY Subtreasury used a device similar to a large pair of pliers where the "L" letters on each side of the pliers matched exactly to mark the light coins.
On this example, perhaps, but on the other example on the other thread, it's just a single letter punch that was used.
As for the pliers theory, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I can see that the pressure is not the same on both letters. The obverse punch is fairly evenly and cleanly struck, while the strike on the reverse punch is uneven.
Also, the punches are not oriented the same, and I don't understand why a reversed letter was used on one side (reverse punches for die- or mold-making did and do exist). It could have been something they jerryrigged for the task, but unless the tool is located we'll likely never know for sure.
@Nysoto said:
It is exciting to see another example.
From an 1886 Mint Report:
""In the United States the provisions of law in regards to light gold coins are contained in Section 3505 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which as follows:
"Any gold coins of the the United States, if reduced in weight by natural abrasion not more than one-half of one per centum below the standard weight prescribed by law, after a circulation of twenty years, as shown by the date of the coinage, and a rateable proportion for any period less than twenty years, shall be received at their nominal value, by the United States Treasury and its offices, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe for the protection of the Government against fraudulent abrasion or other practices."
In April, 1879, Dr. Frederick Eckfeldt, computer of bullion of the Bureau of the Mint, made a series of experiments to ascertain the average loss by abrasion suffered by United States gold coins...The result of this investigation showed that the eleven pieces of the face value of $40, with an average cirulation of 21.9 years, had lost in value $1.47 or a little over 3.5 percent...""
"Computer of bullion!" I love it!
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.
It seems to me that even a bank could stamp an "L" on a light coin. Then when one of these light coins got back to the Mint it would be melted. Why would the mint apply the "L". Sorry, already answered above in the newspaper clipping. That would also be the reason for different "L's" used around the country.
@Nysoto said:
It is exciting to see another example.
From an 1886 Mint Report:
""In the United States the provisions of law in regards to light gold coins are contained in Section 3505 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which as follows:
"Any gold coins of the the United States, if reduced in weight by natural abrasion not more than one-half of one per centum below the standard weight prescribed by law, after a circulation of twenty years, as shown by the date of the coinage, and a rateable proportion for any period less than twenty years, shall be received at their nominal value, by the United States Treasury and its offices, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe for the protection of the Government against fraudulent abrasion or other practices."
In April, 1879, Dr. Frederick Eckfeldt, computer of bullion of the Bureau of the Mint, made a series of experiments to ascertain the average loss by abrasion suffered by United States gold coins...The result of this investigation showed that the eleven pieces of the face value of $40, with an average cirulation of 21.9 years, had lost in value $1.47 or a little over 3.5 percent...""
"Computer of bullion!" I love it!
Cool! I guess this is why honestly worn, straight graded gold is so difficult to find.
Thank you, I just order the book that you recommended, can't wait until I receive it next week! I may have used the wrong term when I said the word chop mark. I assume that it isn't an authentic anything, somebody tried to fool a collector I imagine by faking a counter stamp as you describe it. But I will learn more when I receive the book in the mail
I picked up two examples of the "L" counterstamp last year, being quite drawn to them.
Both new Orleans pieces, this one holds the record for the most money I've ever spent on a coin...
Here I was thinking the L possibly stood for Luke... Lol
P.S. I just saw a 1853-C $5 raw on ebay with 'L' counterstamps on both sides for $1,500 BIN they are still out there, but I feel a great number of them were melted which in my opinion accounts for low pops of certain coin dates
@RobertScotLover said:
I just found a photo, obviously not authentic chop marks
This mark is interesting, and worthy of some attention, multiple pieces are known with this mark, one of which is this1880-S United States Five Dollar piece (Half Eagle); the mark is the character 桂 (gwei, cinnamon, or a shortened form of Kwangsi Province). The coin was sold as Lot 6628 of the Heritage Auctions Long Beach Expo Auction of June 2000, was profiled in the May 15, 2000 edition of Coin World (reprinted in The Chopmark News Vol. 6, Issue 3, July 2000), and later appeared again as Lot 4045 of the Heritage Auctions US Coins Signature Auction #1351 (December 16, 2022). The mark appears identical to a chop applied to an 1872 Great Britain Sovereign that appeared in the Rose Collection and was plated in Chopmarks _(Fig. 23 and Fig. 166) and in Gullberg’s _Chopmarked Coins – A History (Fig. 126). An 1854 Half Eagle with the same mark in the same position (but flipped orientation, previously listed in a J.D. Bowman inventory; The Chopmark News Vol. 4, Issue 2) was sold as Lot 12555 of the Stack’s Bowers Spring 2023 Auction (March 29, 2023). The ‘American Eagle’ is recorded in a table of assay values published in Morrison’s Chinese Commercial Guide, but the values presented specify assay at the London mint and do not necessarily indicate circulation in China. Debate on pieces of this type has not reached a conclusion.
Comments
By law, once the weight of a gold coin drops below its legal weight tolerance, it loses its legal tender status and is then valued as gold bullion which would be less than its face value. The subtreasury probably gave the owner of the lightweight coin the option of redeeming the coin for its bullion value or taking the coin back. Some were probably turned it in at a loss while others elected to keep the coin assuming that they could just spend it for its full face value.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
In 2021 I corresponded with PCGS to see if they would designate my 1851 $2.50 as counter-stamped rather than as genuine / damaged and included my rationale and copies of several articles.
I was told that "whether a coin receives a variety or Mint error designation is up to our graders to be determined. PCGS does not designate all varieties and wouldn't be able to designate a variety or error that we do not already recognize. All of our varieties that we designate can be found under our Pop Report https://www.pcgs.com/pop. In a case like this, I would recommend visiting a PCGS Authorized dealer so they may look into your specific coin and shed some light on this request. They can help sending you to the right direction for this special request."
I did submit my coin along with some others as my Collectors Club membership was expiring. At least the coin now has TrueViews and is better protected / preserved.
I think the efforts of a respected / quality numismatic researcher who is associated with a respected firm would be required to get these properly designated. Who could take up the mantle?
Here are the photos...
He who knows he has enough is rich.
The problem with attributing these is the same one that has always existed with counterstamped coins. A single letter punch (or a longer counterstamp made up of single letters) can't be dated or attributed because the punches used are still available.
I have a couple vintage letter punch sets, as do many people. If you attach a premium to a vintage coin wirh a single letter stamped on it, the result will be predictable.
Actually, there are two "L" letters with one on each side of the coin where the "L" on the reverse is at the same location and the same exact orientation as the obverse "L" except that it's a mirror image. I'm guessing that the NY Subtreasury used a device similar to a large pair of pliers where the "L" letters on each side of the pliers matched exactly to mark the light coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
On this example, perhaps, but on the other example on the other thread, it's just a single letter punch that was used.
As for the pliers theory, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I can see that the pressure is not the same on both letters. The obverse punch is fairly evenly and cleanly struck, while the strike on the reverse punch is uneven.
Also, the punches are not oriented the same, and I don't understand why a reversed letter was used on one side (reverse punches for die- or mold-making did and do exist). It could have been something they jerryrigged for the task, but unless the tool is located we'll likely never know for sure.
Who makes good letter stamps?
"Computer of bullion!" I love it!
Then that means the punch was applied in 1988.
It seems to me that even a bank could stamp an "L" on a light coin. Then when one of these light coins got back to the Mint it would be melted. Why would the mint apply the "L". Sorry, already answered above in the newspaper clipping. That would also be the reason for different "L's" used around the country.
An XF being pulled from circulation for being too light seems odd to me.
Cool! I guess this is why honestly worn, straight graded gold is so difficult to find.
Where do you come up with the date 1988?
I had never seen gold coins that were chopmarked until this thread.
I just found a photo, obviously not authentic chop marks
That is not a Chinese merchant chopmark. Not all counterstamps are chopmarks,
If you are interested in learning more, this book is amazing and highly recommended https://www.amazon.com/Weight-Not-Coyne-Introduction-Chopmarked/dp/B0C79L8GCT/
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Thank you, I just order the book that you recommended, can't wait until I receive it next week! I may have used the wrong term when I said the word chop mark. I assume that it isn't an authentic anything, somebody tried to fool a collector I imagine by faking a counter stamp as you describe it. But I will learn more when I receive the book in the mail
Thank you for the recommendation, I might buy one of those, it looks like a good book to learn more from.
I want to get mines in a PCGS slab that says
MINT ERROR
Lightweight planchet
Counterstamped at the US sub-treasury
7 years later - I sold the $5 but still have the $2.5 , its one of my favorite pieces.
P.S. I just saw a 1853-C $5 raw on ebay with 'L' counterstamps on both sides for $1,500 BIN they are still out there, but I feel a great number of them were melted which in my opinion accounts for low pops of certain coin dates
It's all about what the people want...
This mark is interesting, and worthy of some attention, multiple pieces are known with this mark, one of which is this1880-S United States Five Dollar piece (Half Eagle); the mark is the character 桂 (gwei, cinnamon, or a shortened form of Kwangsi Province). The coin was sold as Lot 6628 of the Heritage Auctions Long Beach Expo Auction of June 2000, was profiled in the May 15, 2000 edition of Coin World (reprinted in The Chopmark News Vol. 6, Issue 3, July 2000), and later appeared again as Lot 4045 of the Heritage Auctions US Coins Signature Auction #1351 (December 16, 2022). The mark appears identical to a chop applied to an 1872 Great Britain Sovereign that appeared in the Rose Collection and was plated in Chopmarks _(Fig. 23 and Fig. 166) and in Gullberg’s _Chopmarked Coins – A History (Fig. 126). An 1854 Half Eagle with the same mark in the same position (but flipped orientation, previously listed in a J.D. Bowman inventory; The Chopmark News Vol. 4, Issue 2) was sold as Lot 12555 of the Stack’s Bowers Spring 2023 Auction (March 29, 2023). The ‘American Eagle’ is recorded in a table of assay values published in Morrison’s Chinese Commercial Guide, but the values presented specify assay at the London mint and do not necessarily indicate circulation in China. Debate on pieces of this type has not reached a conclusion.
Here ya go
Knowing nothing about these, on both examples the counter whatever do look old and worn