Options
Is this an example of different grading standards based on the type of coin it is?
ms70
Posts: 13,957 ✭✭✭✭✭
1792 Half Disme VG10.
How can this be VG10 when three numbers of the date are completely gone, and about 60% of the reverse design is gone? I'm thinking G4 at best. Let's talk about it.
0
Comments
Please check out my eBay auctions!
My WLH Short Set Registry Collection
<< <i>Ask Bill Jones to post his 1792 copper half disme----It will blow you away..... >>
Yes, I've seen it. And yes, it does.
I don't collect them but there does seem to be a lot missing from the coin. Good example of knowing the series???
though the F in OF and then straightened and worn for a couple decades. It does
have a weak strike at the top.
It's hard to believe such a coin would be graded. It will be nice to hear an expert
opinion.
K S
Personally, I have no problem with that in this instance. Look at all of the obverse detail - it's not the coin's fault it (like others of its ilk) was produced unevenly/with a weak reverse.
Written grading guidelines do not typically address many of the earlier U.S. coins which were produced differently, less consistently and less impressively than later, more common/abundant ones - the example mentioned in this thread is one such coin.
If the coin were in fact bent after it was struck, that would be a different matter.
Accordingly, I'd like to add to my earlier post and state that I wouldn't want the coin referenced here (at that grade). If I were looking for one, while the wait might be very long, I'd hold out for a better made example.
<< <i>Mark, do you think the coin has been repaired? >>
ER, I don't know. And, unless I had good/specific evidence to lead me to such a conclusion, I wouldn't want to speculate on a sight-unseen basis, out of fairness to the seller (and potential bidders).
We may or may not agree, but as long as they are consistent, those are the "rules." And we always have the choice of passing on a weak-strike VG-10 with G-4 details or a VF early copper that would be bagged if it were an 1854 large cent.
Neat coin but I want to see a date.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Thanks for the press!
A large number of early half dimes are bent or otherwise damaged, which includes a large number of the 300 or surviving 1792 half dismes. Most pieces were bent after they left the mint. A few were bent when they were struck at the mint.
Looking at this piece I'd say that it took a hit on Ms. Liberty's temple on something that was NOT a flat surface. As a result the obverse by the head was bowed inward and the corresponding area on the reverse was bowed outward.
Conversely the date area of the obverse was forced outward while the reverse with bent inward. The coin then went into circulation, probably for a brief period of time. As it circulated the areas that were exposed by the bending were worn flat with the protected areas took far less wear. Therefore you see the wear patterns noted in the pictures. This could have also happened more quickly if someone tried to straighen it.
I don’t agree with that grading on this piece. PCGS has called it a VG-10 based upon the best areas of the coin, which are actually a bit better than that. In other words they have net graded it and did so a bit on the high side IMO. If this were a half dime from the 1794 to 1805 era, there would be a better than 75% chance that it would be in a body bag, not a holder. If it had been minted from 1829 to 1873 there would be a 100% chance of a body bag. PCGS just eased up on this and graded it.
I think that the minimum price is way too high, and I agree with Mark that I would look for another one.
And here’s mine, which far from a perfect strike, but better than average. It’s an NGC VF-30.
This piece does seem net graded, but afterall the main value of certification in this case is insurance of authenticity for retail non-experts. Looks like a Good to me, regardless.
Some Massachusetts silver, especially the Willow Tree type was struck bent because of the primitive minting methods of the time.
The story does not apply to early U.S. government coins. Certainly the government would have never intentionally produced coins that were bent because it would have considerably shortened their useful time in circulation. Some early coins were struck in a less than perfectly flat condition because the dies at the time produced improper metal flows, and because some dies were worn from overuse or improper preparation.
If fact the problem continued into the mid 1850s when many of the Type 2 gold dollars were struck slightly bent because of an improper metal flow that was the result of a design flaw. Improper metal flow, which resulted in poorly struck coins, accounted for the early demise of that short-lived gold dollar design.
others. This may have applied to the mid 18th century British 6P.
There are other reasons that coins get bent in large numbers. For instance many aluminum
school lunch tokens will be bent when it's discovered that some students can do it with their
hands and others can't. Some issues of these are virtually all bent. No doubt the same thing
happens with thin coins like 3c silvers.
The half dimes were really small and thin and seemed to suffer more of these problems. Most Draped Bust - Large Eagle half dimes were weakly struck in the right of the star area above the eagle. This was because that feature was usually on the opposite side of the bust, which was the highest point of the obverse. I can't prove it because I never tested these coins on a flat surface before I had them slabbed, but I'll bet that most of those coins are very slightly bent. That would explain the uneven wear that one sees about 90% of them.
There was an absolutely fascinating article about these half dismes in the latest issue of the ANS's American Journal of Numismatics. The article examined the legend that Washington supplied the silver in the form of silverware for the 1792 half dismes. By examining Thomas Jefferson's notebooks, the authors discovered that Jefferson delivered the silver to the mint (or, not actually the mint, but the location where the coins were struck) and then picked up the coins 2 days later. There were $75 of half dismes struck that Jefferson picked up. The authors believe that when Jefferson delivered the silver, he actually delivered planchents that had been made outside of the mint. (I am away from my issue of the AJN and so don't have all the names at the tip of my fingers. The authors believe that a man named Harper who did work for the early mint likely prepared the planchents.) What about the legend that the coins were made from Washington's silverware? The authors conclude that the coins were not made from his silverware. But they conclude that it is highly likely that Washington did, indeed, supply the silver from which these coins were struck.
The article was simply fascinating. It was written by Joel Orosz and someone else who, I am ashamed to admit, I cannot recall.
Mark
I think one thing you have to remember is that the mint did not exist at the time that the half dismes were struck at John Harper’s basement in July 1792. The mint property would be purchased a week or so later and from there go into preparation for operations in the fall. By the fall the mint began to strike some pattern coins like the Birch Cents and the dismes.
As to whether the silver was from Washington's flatware, I've heard of two sources for that. One is Breen who claims that Washington showed sterling silver in his records at one point and only silver plated flatware at a later date. Many people now doubt Breen's research for both good (valid – sometimes Breen made things up) and bad reasons. (He was a pedophile therefore everything he did in his life was bad.)
The other source is Adam Eckfeld who claimed in his old age that Washington had supplied the silver. The only argument I’ve heard against this source was that he was very old and probably did not have a good memory. My response to that is that many older people can remember what happened many years ago much better than what has happened to them a day ago. Using age as an excuse to discredit information is not foolproof.
One thing that I will argue about strongly is that the half dismes were the first U.S. coins. All but about 20 of the surviving examples are worn, most of them WELL WORN, which indicates that people spent them. AND George Washington referred to them as “a small beginning in coinage,” in his 1792 annual message to Congress. That’s good enough for me to call them an official issue, not a pattern.
The authors conclude that Eckfeld was correct. They conclude that Breen was probably wrong because the silver used in the coins was apparently a higher standard than that which was used in silverware. Breen based his assertion about Washington supplying the silver on a copy of memo he aparently owned at one time from a numismatist who talked with Eckfeld in the 1840s. In their very interesting article, the authors trace 3 versions of this memo and also the flatware story over time. As I mentioned, they conclude that Eckfeld was correct about the source of the silver however, the silverware part of the legend was made up. But the only tests the authors could perform were specific gravity tests and that was done on only two specimens. I am sure they would love it if you would volunteer your coin for sem/eds analysis.
Mark
The argument that the flatware would be too pure to be used on the coins should not be conclusive. There is nothing to say that a bit of copper could have been added to the mix if the flatware were melted, rolled into ingots and then rolled and cut into planchets.
I don't think for a minute that George and Martha gave up their sterling silver flatware and had none in their final years together. After Washington left the presidency, he had many visitors to Mt. Vernon. From what I read, he was a gracious host, despite the fact that he kept up a vigorous work schedule right up to the day before he died. In fact if he had not gone out on a very cold and sleet filled day to do his usual rounds around the plantation, he probably would have survived into the next century.
Dr Jones, I presume?
Joe.
<< <i>Hi Guys!
Thanks for the press!
And here’s mine, which far from a perfect strike, but better than average. It’s an NGC VF-30.
Bill,
Wonderful coin. Thanks for the history updates.
Don
The book is quite current and still available at bookstores.