POLL: Should chop marked coins be in slabs?

gecko109 · February 23, 2008 10:52PM

With Trade dollars, and seated dollars showing up in PCGS slabs with chop marks, it begs the question "isnt it just really post mint damage?". Some may argue that since it was done by a merchant for a reason, its exempt from the "grafitti" category. By that token, if I was to put my own mark on my gold type coins, would PCGS reslab those?

MrEureka · February 23, 2008 11:07PM

At present, there's no problem with slabbing chopmarked coins. However, if some chopmarked coins one day bring a premium to non-chopmarked coins, the services will need to stop slabbing chopmarked coins until they gain the expertise to identify "authentic" chopmarks. (I put "authentic" in quotation marks because it remains to be seen how the market will define "authentic chopmarks".)

291fifth · February 23, 2008 11:22PM

Chop-marked coins should not be slabbed excepts in "details" holders.

ziggy29 · February 23, 2008 11:24PM

Well, it's true these were used in commerce and that the chops were done in "ordinary commerce."

But there are also a lot of older coins that have an 'X' through them where a merchant wanted to make sure the coins they were receiving in payment were real silver/gold, and not just a plated fake. So if we slab chopmarks because they were done by merchants with a purpose, wouldn't that also apply to a Bust half with an 'X' through the face?

I'm in the "bodybag" camp here.

PerryHall · February 23, 2008 11:27PM

<< By that token, if I was to put my own mark on my gold type coins, would PCGS reslab those? >>

PCGS slabbed an 1804 dollar with a tiny "D" punched into one of the clouds on the reverse. I believe the collector who did this was named Dexter and he liked to mark his coins with a tiny punched D. So, if your coins are rare enough and/or you become a famous collector, PCGS will slab your marked coins.

MrEureka · February 23, 2008 11:28PM

But there are also a lot of older coins that have an 'X' through them where a merchant wanted to make sure the coins they were receiving in payment were real silver/gold, and not just a plated fake. So if we slab chopmarks because they were done by merchants with a purpose, wouldn't that also apply to a Bust half with an 'X' through the face?

It might, if we could be certain that the X's were done at the time, for that reason. But obviously that's not the case.

gecko109 · February 23, 2008 11:31PM

<< But there are also a lot of older coins that have an 'X' through them where a merchant wanted to make sure the coins they were receiving in payment were real silver/gold, and not just a plated fake. So if we slab chopmarks because they were done by merchants with a purpose, wouldn't that also apply to a Bust half with an 'X' through the face?

It might, if we could be certain that the X's were done at the time, for that reason. But obviously that's not the case. >>

Can you be 100% certain that a chop mark was not added 3 weeks ago to a nasty bag mark on an otherwise beautiful trade dollar?

WinPitcher · February 23, 2008 11:32PM

Ahhh so that is why I had that X on the cheek on my 1812 Bust half.

Steve

ColonialCoinUnion · February 23, 2008 11:34PM

<< Can you be 100% certain that a chop mark was not added 3 weeks ago to a nasty bag mark on an otherwise beautiful trade dollar?

>>

Would a chop mark added to conceal a bag mark increase the value of the coin?

Sunnywood · February 23, 2008 11:34PM

With all due respect to TDN and his set, I have always thought it completely ridiculous that these mutilated coins are certified. It is even more ridiculous to have a Registry set for these coins, but of course that was done at our friend's request

(It's good to be TDN !!)

Aside from questions of authenticity, and even without premiums in the marketplace, these damaged, sometimes outright mangled coins do not belong in slabs regardless of the historic interest of the marks. (However, I still think they are interesting, cool, and fun to collect !! What's wrong with having a raw set of them?) Other coins that were counterstamped, holed, or inscribed with graffiti are banned from slabs, and that is as it should be. We can distinguish planchet adjustment marks, roller marks and flakes because they were mint-made.

Of course if we are talking about a different slab type that designates damagedand net graded coins, then it would be appropriate. For example, I don't have a problem with chopmarked trade dollars in NCS holders marked "Damaged - Chopmarked." But as PCGS explicitly excludes damaged coins from its standard slabs, the chopmarked trade dollars don't belong there.

Sorry TDN !!!

ttown · February 23, 2008 11:35PM

It's a real part of history so I have no problems with it.

gecko109 · February 23, 2008 11:36PM

<< 

<< Can you be 100% certain that a chop mark was not added 3 weeks ago to a nasty bag mark on an otherwise beautiful trade dollar?

>>

Would a chop mark added to conceal a bag mark increase the value of the coin? >>

If it was a nasty hit highly distracting in the field, perhaps it would. But I do get your point. So far, the chopped dollars in slabs I have seen have been at slightly discounted prices.

BAJJERFAN · February 23, 2008 11:42PM

Too bad those chopmarkers dint know that PCGS was gonna be in the future. Should Morgans that were used to procure the services of a lady of the evening be slabbed, even tho those services didn't leave evidence on the coin? If chopmarking was a traditional or customary practice back then, well so be it. Too bad those mint workers in Carson City didn't think about us when they handled some of those coins so rough.

ColonialCoinUnion · February 23, 2008 11:43PM

<< With all due respect to TDN and his set, I have always thought it completely ridiculous that these mutilated coins are certified. It is even more ridiculous to have a Registry set for these coins, but of course that was done at our friend's request

(It's good to be TDN !!)

Aside from questions of authenticity, and even without premiums in the marketplace, these damaged, sometimes outright mangled coins do not belong in slabs regardless of the historic interest of the marks. Other coins that were counterstamped, holed, or inscribed with graffiti are banned from slabs, and that is as it should be.

Of course if we are talking about a different slab type that designates damaged coins, then it would be appropriate. For example, I don't have a problem with chopmarked trade dollars in NCS holders marked "Damaged - Chopmarked." But as PCGS explicitly excludes damaged coins from its standard slabs, the chopmarked trade dollars don't belong there.

Sorry TDN !!!

>>

What's the big deal? Is this causing some problem of which I'm not aware? I don't collect chop marked Trade Dollars, I've never bought one for inventory and I really have little interest in them one way or the other, but if there is sufficient demand I don;t know why PCGS wouldn't slab them.

In a related story, at a recent show I saw a colonial coin in a PCGS holder marked 'Inked Attribution' with the variety painted in the field in white ink. I thought that was perfectly appropriate - lots of state coins have such markings, they are collected without stigma by people in the series and so it seems logical that PCGS would slab them rather than considered them damaged goods.

MrEureka · February 23, 2008 11:46PM

With all due respect to TDN and his set, I have always thought it completely ridiculous that these mutilated coins are certified. It is even more ridiculous to have a Registry set for these coins, but of course that was done at our friend's request (It's good to be TDN !!)

Aside from questions of authenticity, and even without premiums in the marketplace, these damaged, sometimes outright mangled coins do not belong in slabs regardless of the historic interest of the marks. (However, I still think they are interesting, cool, and fun to collect !! What's wrong with having a raw set of them?)

Some might say that this is true of all coins, not just the mutilated ones.

gecko109 · February 23, 2008 11:46PM

I think PCGS should slab love tokens then as well Colonial. All it takes, according to your reasoning, is collector demand, correct?

ColonialCoinUnion · February 23, 2008 11:52PM

<< I think PCGS should slab love tokens then as well Colonial. All it takes, according to your reasoning, is collector demand, correct? >>

It's not my reasoning, it's PCGS's.

Sunnywood · February 24, 2008 12:03AM

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. Why don't they slab colorized Walkers then? I see a lot of those being hawked on one of the cable TV channels. The big deal is that there should be a standard as to what is certified, not a popularity contest. Wear and bagmarks are deemed natural components of a coins condition, and the certified grade is based on them. Chopmarked coins are graded as though the chopmark weren't there. If they're all going into slabs with the reasoning that it is no different from wear, then they should all be graded AG because of the mutilation.

They belong in a "Details" holder, but PCGS doesn't have one yet.

TwoSides2aCoin · February 24, 2008 12:03AM

Anything that caters to the rich and famous is "market acceptable".

ColonialCoinUnion · February 24, 2008 12:12AM

<< Oh come on, that's ridiculous. Why don't they slab colorized Walkers then? >>

Wait a minute, are you actually equating a Connecticut Copper coin with inked attribution painted by Dr. Hall with a colorized Walker?

gecko109 · February 24, 2008 12:14AM

<< 

<< Oh come on, that's ridiculous. Why don't they slab colorized Walkers then? >>

Wait a minute, are you actually equating a Connecticut Copper coin with inked attribution painted by Dr. Hall with a colorized Walker? >>

On the most basal level, both items have been defaced, have they not?

Sunnywood · February 24, 2008 12:14AM

No, I'm equating chopmarked trade dollars with colorized Walkers. That was the subject of my post.

TwoSides2aCoin · February 24, 2008 12:14AM

<< 

<< Oh come on, that's ridiculous. Why don't they slab colorized Walkers then? >>

Wait a minute, are you actually equating a Connecticut Copper coin with inked attribution painted by Dr. Hall with a colorized Walker? >>

AT ?

RYK · February 24, 2008 12:14AM

I have no problem with it. The chopmarks are part of the normal circulation pattern for these, they are obvious, and the fact that they are chopmarked is clearly indicated on the holder.

Konahead · February 24, 2008 12:15AM

These marks are part of the history of the coin and part of its journey in time, like bag marks on a morgan. These should be noted and slabed. If a collector doesn't like them they should avoid these type coins like toning. IMHO

TwoSides2aCoin · February 24, 2008 12:16AM

The Chinese defaced them. Even if we're trading partners, it don't make it right to deface our coins.

Sunnywood · February 24, 2008 12:16AM

RYK, that's a good argument. But then shouldn't the chopmark be reflected in a net grade, just as normal wear is? When a coin is worn, the grade goes down. When a coin is mangled with a metal punch (possibly applied last week) shouldn't the grade go down a lot more? This is why they belong in details holders.

What the slab really wants to say is, "Other than the chopmark, this coin has AU55 details." That is the point of a details holder. It is absurd to call a chopmarked coin MS63 without qualifying that it is only a details grade.

RYK · February 24, 2008 12:19AM

<< RYK, then shouldn't the chopmark be reflected in a net grade, just as normal wear is? When a coin is worn, the grade goes down. When a coin is mangled with a metal punch (possibly applied last week) shouldn't the grade go down a lot more? This is why they belong in details holders. >>

Perhaps. I do have a problem with a chopmarked coin grading MS-64, or even MS for that matter. If the coin has been chopmarked, it should not grade higher than AU-58, IMO.

I do not own a chopmarked Trade dollar and never have, but I have toyed with replacing my Dansco 7070 Trade dollar with one that has been chopped.

gecko109 · February 24, 2008 12:19AM

<< These marks are part of the history of the coin and part of its journey in time, like bag marks on a morgan. These should be noted and slabed. If a collector doesn't like them they should avoid these type coins like toning. IMHO >>

You are missing the point. "if you dont like them, avoid them"? Well why doesnt PCGS slab other obvious problem coins then and if you dont like that, just avoid those as well?

RYK · February 24, 2008 12:20AM

<< 

<< These marks are part of the history of the coin and part of its journey in time, like bag marks on a morgan. These should be noted and slabed. If a collector doesn't like them they should avoid these type coins like toning. IMHO >>

You are missing the point. "if you dont like them, avoid them"? Well why doesnt PCGS slab other obvious problem coins then and if you dont like that, just avoid those as well? >>

This is obviously a gray area, and PCGS has chosen their side on the issue.

Sunnywood · February 24, 2008 12:25AM

We can distinguish between mint-made impairments from planchet preparation (flakes, adjustment marks), striking (die cracks, cuds, strike doubling), and handling (bagmarks, roller marks, reeding marks); natural changes that occur with the passage of time in a normal environment (toning); normal changes due to normal handling (wear); and artificial impairments such as chopmarks, grafitti, counterstamps, holes, tooling, cleaning, artificial toning, etc.

The mint-made impairments and the toning are both normal attributes of mint state coins. Wear is a normal attribute of a circulated (non-mint state) coin. The artificial, man-made impairments should be kept out of slabs, unless it is a details / net grade slab.

Defacements are what they are.

This is of course, my opinion - that's what the thread is about. If PCGS has chosen a different policy, that's their business. I don't happen to agree with it.

ColonialCoinUnion · February 24, 2008 12:26AM

<< 

<< 

<< Oh come on, that's ridiculous. Why don't they slab colorized Walkers then? >>

Wait a minute, are you actually equating a Connecticut Copper coin with inked attribution painted by Dr. Hall with a colorized Walker? >>

On the most basal level, both items have been defaced, have they not? >>

The good news is that this discussion need not be conducted on the "most basal level" - it can be considered based on collecting norms in the series in question.

Such markings on Connecticut coppers have been accepted by collectors in this series for a century or more, and will continue to be whether PCGS slabs them or not. As such, PCGS is adhering to the standards of what is acceptable for those coins, for which there is demand by collectors and that makes sense (to me).

TwoSides2aCoin · February 24, 2008 12:26AM

If you don't like it, buy as many shares of CLCT as you can because WallStreet runs this place ! It's a business decision and whatever rules have to be "BENT"... have to be bent in order for the company to survive. Easy to figure out these things, really.

direwolf1972 · February 24, 2008 12:30AM

Personally I think that the chop marks were part of commerce at the time for that series and were widely used. Thats like saying body bag a trade dollar for wear since it was used in commerce and isnt MS any longer.

Sunnywood · February 24, 2008 12:31AM

Is this MS64, or "Chopmarked, MS64 details" ?? I guess we could simply say that the "Chopmark" holders really are just details holders, and end the debate there. We would all agree with that. Perhaps the Connecticut coppers in question should be similarly labeled, "Hall inscription" ("Hallmarked" !!)

gecko109 · February 24, 2008 12:33AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Oh come on, that's ridiculous. Why don't they slab colorized Walkers then? >>

Wait a minute, are you actually equating a Connecticut Copper coin with inked attribution painted by Dr. Hall with a colorized Walker? >>

On the most basal level, both items have been defaced, have they not? >>

The good news is that this discussion need not be conducted on the "most basal level" - it can be considered based on collecting norms in the series in question.

Such markings on Connecticut coppers have been accepted by collectors in this series for a century or more, and will continue to be whether PCGS slabs them or not. As such, PCGS is adhering to the standards of what is acceptable for those coins, for which there is demand by collectors and that makes sense (to me). >>

And cleaning your collection was accepted for well over 100 years, yet that "accepted" practice has stopped. Maybe its time to rethink chopmarks and painted coins as well.

Sunnywood · February 24, 2008 12:34AM

Good point gecko, cleaning was once considered quite appropriate.

MidLifeCrisis · February 24, 2008 12:35AM

A third party grader provides certain services to the collector by slabbing a coin. These include:
- Authentication
- Identification and attribution
- An opinion as to the grade (market or technical)
- Safety and security for the coin
- Convenient storage and handling capability

If a person only collects slabbed coins, yet wants to collect chopmarked Trade dollars...shouldn't they be able to collect them? These are legitimate numismatic objects. TPGs should slab these and other "controversial" coins, tokens, medals, etc., as what they are.

A TPG should not be in the business of telling us what we can collect and what is "not collectible". A collector should be able to collect whatever he or she wants and still enjoy the benefits of the slab.

ColonialCoinUnion · February 24, 2008 12:36AM

<< And cleaning your collection was accepted for well over 100 years, yet that "accepted" practice has stopped. >>

It has?

<< Maybe its time to rethink chopmarks and painted coins as well. >>

Go ahead - rethink to your heart's content.

RYK · February 24, 2008 12:38AM

<< Good point gecko, cleaning was once considered quite appropriate. >>

But it never was part of the intended life cycle for the coin.

Let's face it, guys. This issue is probably political to some degree, and PCGS has already made their decision. Coins authentically chopmarked in 19th century Asian commerce are apparently considered desirable by some collectors, and I, myself, see the charm. It is silly to equate this with colorizing SAEs.

IGWT · February 24, 2008 12:38AM

It's completely inconsistent to slab a chopmarked Trade Dollar while bodybagging another coin for a rim ding (as just one example). Which means, of course, that there are things more important than consistency.

Sunnywood · February 24, 2008 12:39AM

MidLife, of course I agree with that !! But the slab type and the slab grade accorded a defaced coin should be different from that accorded an unimpaired example. Otherwise, your argument would apply equally to many other collectibles that don't belong in PCGS holders, wuch as my earlier example of enameled colorized Walkers. The whole purpose of certification was to identify unimpaired, genuine coins, and to assign them a grade based on condition. Why should a highly desirable 1796 quarter that has been harshly cleaned (as so many have) be kept out of a slab, but a chopmarked trade dollar put in ??

RYK, it was part of the ordinary life cycle of gold coins to be bitten and filed. Should those marks have no effect on the grade, or the suitability for slabbing? The point isn't whether they are desirable or charming, the point is why there should be this unique exception to an otherwise fairly consistent standard? Why aren't all counterstamped coins certified as "Counterstamped" ?

Obviously PCGS has already made their decision, but the point of the thread is to debate it LOL. To say that we can't have contrary opinions because PCGS has already made their decision obviates the point of the thread.

Anyway, enough on this subject ...

TwoSides2aCoin · February 24, 2008 12:40AM

<< Go ahead - rethink to your heart's content. >>

... that's what I like about you.

Baley · February 24, 2008 12:42AM

It seems inconsistent to me that they would certify chopmarked trade dollars and not other countermarked coins.

RYK · February 24, 2008 12:46AM

<< It seems inconsistent to me that they would certify chopmarked trade dollars and not other countermarked coins. >>

I do not disagree with this.

MidLifeCrisis · February 24, 2008 12:51AM

<< MidLife, of course I agree with that !! But the slab type and the slab grade accorded a defaced coin should be different from that accorded an unimpaired example. Otherwise, your argument would apply equally to many other collectibles that don't belong in PCGS holders, wuch as my earlier example of enameled colorized Walkers. The whole purpose of certification was to identify unimpaired, genuine coins, and to assign them a grade based on condition. Why should a highly desirable 1796 quarter that has been harshly cleaned (as so many have) be kept out of a slab, but a chopmarked trade dollar put in ?? >>

Sunnywood, my post was in direct response to the OP question "Should chop marked coins be in slabs?" To which, my answer is yes.

I do agree with you that the slab type and grade for such a defaced coin should be different than a coin which has not been defaced.

But I would argue that the "purpose of certification" is to provide a service to collectors. As I mentioned previously, through this service TPGs can identify unimpaired, genuine coins; impaired but genuine coins; counterfeit coins; and any other numismatically collectible item.

Sunnywood · February 24, 2008 12:54AM

Then we are in complete agreement. However, PCGS does not currently provide those services or make that distinction, and that is why I took the opposing stance in this thread.

gecko109 · February 24, 2008 12:55AM

I see where we are going with this debate, and im to blame. I should have phrased my question/poll, "Since PCGS slabs chop marked coins, should they slab any other types of damaged/impaired coins such as love tokens, other counterstamped pieces, and the like?". THAT is really the true question here I think.

tradedollarnut · February 24, 2008 12:56AM

<< Is this MS64, or "Chopmarked, MS64 details" ?? I guess we could simply say that the "Chopmark" holders really are just details holders, and end the debate there. We would all agree with that. Perhaps the Connecticut coppers in question should be similarly labeled, "Hall inscription" ("Hallmarked" !!)

>>

Actually, IMO, it's MS65 ... but as they say "ownership adds a point".

Every holder says "chopmarked", which automatically denotes a details grade.

Baley · February 24, 2008 12:57AM

No, I do not think they should start slabbing ALL damaged coins. They should simply say we don't slab damaged coins and stick with it.

Sunnywood · February 24, 2008 12:58AM

Yeah, I guess if I had just realized off the bat that the "Chopmark" holder is in fact a details holder, then there would have been no discussion.

By the way, that is one cooooooooooool set !!

POLL: Should chop marked coins be in slabs?

Comments

Leave a Comment