<< <i>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. >>
I do think PCGS should post this fact on their website and in the pop report to make it clearer.
<< <i>By the way, that is one cooooooooooool set !! >>
chopmarked trade dollars are really neat and very collectable!
<< <i>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. >>
Why would they not consider each series or 'issue' (chopmarks, attribution ink, etc., etc.) on its own merits and make the best decision they can on a case by case basis?
It is pretty clear that they already do that with grading standards as applied to coins of different eras made using different minting technologies.
I still don't see why this issue is of concern to anyone other than those who collect the very coins in question (unless it is just to have a debate on a slow Sunday morning).
With regards to the comment that cleaning coins was standard practice for a very long time and therefore should be acceptable with regard to slabbing coins:
You're right, and it is. Just so long as it wasn't done too harshly.
I have a draped bust half with a "test mark", a little short scratch in the field, where, apparently it was tested by someone contemporaneously to be sure it was not plated (I can't prove the age of the mark any more than anyone can prove the age of a chop) Why should this coin be bodybagged and a chopmarked trade get a "details" pcgs slab? Can I get a PCGS "details" grade for this half dollar? how about my holed 1797 13 star half dime? If not, why not?
<< <i>I have a draped bust half with a "test mark", a little short scratch in the field, where, apparently it was tested by someone contemporaneously to be sure it was not plated (I can't prove the age of the mark any more than anyone can prove the age of a chop) Why should this coin be bodybagged and a chopmarked trade get a "details" pcgs slab? Can I get a PCGS "details" grade for my holed 1797 13 star half dime? If not, why not? >>
I have a trade dollar with a Chinese test mark. It's bodybagged. I have other trade dollars with the same test mark, but also with chopmarks - they're holdered. Go figure.
It does seem odd that PCGS will certify and grade chopmarked Trade dollars. It is also inconsistent with many other aspects of their certification or bagging policy, but at some point they evidently had an internal discussion (we can hope) and decided that this contemporary post-Mint damage-abuse-test-certification (take your pick) was different from most other alterations. This, however, is not limited to Trade dollars since PCGS will also certify 8R that have a portrait countermark on them. Perhaps the point is that the portrait countermark was put on by a government agency to proclaim the piece as legal tender and this might be similar enough to the quasi-official chopmark put onto a coin within China to proclaim that it was good coinage.
As a side point, NGC will certify and grade countermarked coins, but labels them as "Token" once they are put into a slab. Additionally, I have seen the enigmatic "E" and "L" counterstamped CB quarters slabbed, but do not know if they are slabbed by both PCGS and NGC or if they are slabbed with the note "Token". There would be other oddities within US numismatics such as the certification of "New Haven Restrike" Fugio coppers, certification of 1804 dollars without the proper date of production on them, certification of 1913 Liberty nickels even though they may or may not be an official US Mint issue and even certification of the 1933 double eagle before it was monetized by the government.
By the way, I own one PCGS certified example of a chopmarked Trade dollar and it is not net graded.
This is an excellent thread with interesting points on both sides - and conducted with civility I might add. I do like chopmarked trade dollars - and have one in a PCGS slab. I do see a difference in colorized coins as opposed to chopmarked coins. One was a part of normal commerce... the other (colorized) was done for the purpose of commerce. The cleaning question (old vs. current) poses a host of questions and would certainly require as much study as the toning issue. Cheers, RickO
These should be in a PCGS "Genuine" only holder as like it or not they are damaged just as the 1943 Copper Lincoln which was chopmarked across the cheek by a paperboy to check if it was authentic. Heritage I have noticed has no clue in which catagory to place these choped Trades as for the last few auctions they where clasified under mint errors
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
By the way - it's substantially incorrect to say that I twisted PCGS's arm in getting them deciding to slab chopmarks. PCGS wanted to display my trade dollar sets at Long Beach and I included the chopmarked coins in my shipment to them thinking they'd look neat on display alongside all the slabs. As I recall, the conversation went something like this: "do you want us to slab your chopmarks?" ... "sure!".
Regarding "test marks" versus chopmarks: You can't tall if a is a scratch or a mark made for a purpose as best I can tell, unless there is some way distinguish between the two that I don't know. A chopmark is quite obviously done for a purpose and can be distinguished as that.
<< <i>Regarding "test marks" versus chopmarks: You can't tall if a is a scratch or a mark made for a purpose as best I can tell, unless there is some way distinguish between the two that I don't know. A chopmark is quite obviously done for a purpose and can be distinguished as that. >>
No - the mark in question is a tiny conical punch with three spines at 120 degrees each. An obvious chopmark, but not a symbol like most.
<< <i>By the way - it's substantially incorrect to say that I twisted PCGS's arm in getting them deciding to slab chopmarks. PCGS wanted to display my trade dollar sets at Long Beach and I included the chopmarked coins in my shipment to them thinking they'd look neat on display alongside all the slabs. As I recall, the conversation went something like this: "do you want us to slab your chopmarks?" ... "sure!".
It's just my experience but I have had a lot more Chop Marked trade Dollars end up in a body bag than I have had holdered. PCGS does consider cleaning as well as other problems such as fake chop marks, color and marks when they grade these. As was previously mentioned, since the "with chop marks" is how over 90% of this issue circulated because it was made for export originally, I have no problem with them being holdered and graded.
<< <i>It's just my experience but I have had a lot more Chop Marked trade Dollars end up in a body bag than I have had holdered. PCGS does consider cleaning as well as other problems such as fake chop marks, color and marks when they grade these. As was previously mentioned, since the "with chop marks" is how over 90% of this issue circulated because it was made for export originally, I have no problem with them being holdered and graded.
jmho
>>
Just out of curiosity, where did you get your "90%" figure? MOST trade dollars that I come across dont have chops.
<< <i>It's just my experience but I have had a lot more Chop Marked trade Dollars end up in a body bag than I have had holdered. PCGS does consider cleaning as well as other problems such as fake chop marks, color and marks when they grade these. As was previously mentioned, since the "with chop marks" is how over 90% of this issue circulated because it was made for export originally, I have no problem with them being holdered and graded.
jmho
>>
Just out of curiosity, where did you get your "90%" figure? MOST trade dollars that I come across dont have chops. >>
Most trade dollars that circulated were sent from China to India to be melted for use in jewelry - so you'd never see them unless you're looking at a silver necklace. The 90% figure is low.... more like 99%!
<< <i>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. >>
My most expensive coin has an X in the reverse and is in a PCGS holder. I got lucky because it's an AU coin selling for net graded XF money.
Edited: Many people like to collect this way. If you don't like them don't buy them.
<< <i>It's just my experience but I have had a lot more Chop Marked trade Dollars end up in a body bag than I have had holdered. PCGS does consider cleaning as well as other problems such as fake chop marks, color and marks when they grade these. As was previously mentioned, since the "with chop marks" is how over 90% of this issue circulated because it was made for export originally, I have no problem with them being holdered and graded.
jmho
>>
Just out of curiosity, where did you get your "90%" figure? MOST trade dollars that I come across dont have chops. >>
Most trade dollars that circulated were sent from China to India to be melted for use in jewelry - so you'd never see them unless you're looking at a silver necklace. The 90% figure is low.... more like 99%! >>
So TDN, if 99% of T.D.'s were chop marked, then one without a chop mark is rare?
I think the debate about how many Trade dollars that circulated are chopmarked has to include the notion that many of the extant Trade dollars didn't circulate. Therefore, those that didn't circulate would be less likely to have a chopmark.
<< <i>I think the debate about how many Trade dollars that circulated are chopmarked has to include the notion that many of the extant Trade dollars didn't circulate. Therefore, those that didn't circulate would be less likely to have a chopmark. >>
Then surely a VFish piece without marks must be rare, right? Think along the lines of semi-modern PO1's.
<< <i>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? >>
These are not problem coins, they reflect a practice that was performed by a culture in the past. It is history, not a random mistreatment of a coin. I am very clear about the point, I just don't agree with you.
PEACE! This is the first day of the rest of your life.
I am not hip on chopmarks. However, they are a very real part of the numismatic history of seated and trade dollars. There is genuine interest in collecting them. The problems cited in the short bit of the thread I read are good points. Someone could add a chopmark to mask a surface problem. We cannot reliably authenticate vintage chopmarks and differentiate them from contemporary ones. (I am sure some folks will say they can. But they can't claim to always be able to into the future.) Unlike commercial counterstamps, chopmarks were pervasive and focused on those two series. The fact is that there is a market demand for grading them and PCGS makes their service available for that market demand. I don't want them and never look at them and am not bothered a bit by their presence. I am glad they are there for those who like and value them.
I voted "yes" because I think ALL coins should be slabbable if somebody wants to spend the money to slab them. I don't subscribe to the whole bodybag thing.
Of course, if you're a TPG, and you don't bodybag (except in cases like where there's active PVC), then you have to describe the coin's "issues" on the label, and I would imagine that gets to be a hassle. So I guess I see both sides of the issue.
Comments
<< <i>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. >>
I do think PCGS should post this fact on their website and in the pop report to make it clearer.
<< <i>By the way, that is one cooooooooooool set !! >>
chopmarked trade dollars are really neat and very collectable!
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>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. >>
Why would they not consider each series or 'issue' (chopmarks, attribution ink, etc., etc.) on its own merits and make the best decision they can on a case by case basis?
It is pretty clear that they already do that with grading standards as applied to coins of different eras made using different minting technologies.
I still don't see why this issue is of concern to anyone other than those who collect the very coins in question (unless it is just to have a debate on a slow Sunday morning).
You're right, and it is. Just so long as it wasn't done too harshly.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>I have a draped bust half with a "test mark", a little short scratch in the field, where, apparently it was tested by someone contemporaneously to be sure it was not plated (I can't prove the age of the mark any more than anyone can prove the age of a chop) Why should this coin be bodybagged and a chopmarked trade get a "details" pcgs slab? Can I get a PCGS "details" grade for my holed 1797 13 star half dime? If not, why not? >>
I have a trade dollar with a Chinese test mark. It's bodybagged. I have other trade dollars with the same test mark, but also with chopmarks - they're holdered. Go figure.
<< <i>(unless it is just to have a debate on a slow Sunday morning). >>
ummm yeah LOL, actually I have a bad cold, so I'm stuck inside and I have nothing better to do
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
As a side point, NGC will certify and grade countermarked coins, but labels them as "Token" once they are put into a slab. Additionally, I have seen the enigmatic "E" and "L" counterstamped CB quarters slabbed, but do not know if they are slabbed by both PCGS and NGC or if they are slabbed with the note "Token". There would be other oddities within US numismatics such as the certification of "New Haven Restrike" Fugio coppers, certification of 1804 dollars without the proper date of production on them, certification of 1913 Liberty nickels even though they may or may not be an official US Mint issue and even certification of the 1933 double eagle before it was monetized by the government.
By the way, I own one PCGS certified example of a chopmarked Trade dollar and it is not net graded.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
What a great looking quarter that also while circulating in Trade was damaged.
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>Is that the newly discovered "Mega O" mintmark variety ?? >>
That's called Macro Holed
Not a relation to marcovan
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I think PCGS should slab love tokens then as well Colonial. All it takes, according to your reasoning, is collector demand, correct? >>
Perhaps we just need the right collector to make the case for love tokens, potty dollars, hobo nickels, etc.?
If only everything was that easy!
<< <i>Regarding "test marks" versus chopmarks: You can't tall if a is a scratch or a mark made for a purpose as best I can tell, unless there is some way distinguish between the two that I don't know. A chopmark is quite obviously done for a purpose and can be distinguished as that. >>
No - the mark in question is a tiny conical punch with three spines at 120 degrees each. An obvious chopmark, but not a symbol like most.
<< <i>By the way - it's substantially incorrect to say that I twisted PCGS's arm in getting them deciding to slab chopmarks. PCGS wanted to display my trade dollar sets at Long Beach and I included the chopmarked coins in my shipment to them thinking they'd look neat on display alongside all the slabs. As I recall, the conversation went something like this: "do you want us to slab your chopmarks?" ... "sure!".
If only everything was that easy!
Good to know!
It's just my experience but I have had a lot more Chop Marked trade Dollars end up in a body bag than I have had holdered. PCGS does consider cleaning as well as other problems such as fake chop marks, color and marks when they grade these. As was previously mentioned, since the "with chop marks" is how over 90% of this issue circulated because it was made for export originally, I have no problem with them being holdered and graded.
jmho
<< <i>It's just my experience but I have had a lot more Chop Marked trade Dollars end up in a body bag than I have had holdered. PCGS does consider cleaning as well as other problems such as fake chop marks, color and marks when they grade these. As was previously mentioned, since the "with chop marks" is how over 90% of this issue circulated because it was made for export originally, I have no problem with them being holdered and graded.
jmho
Just out of curiosity, where did you get your "90%" figure? MOST trade dollars that I come across dont have chops.
<< <i>
<< <i>It's just my experience but I have had a lot more Chop Marked trade Dollars end up in a body bag than I have had holdered. PCGS does consider cleaning as well as other problems such as fake chop marks, color and marks when they grade these. As was previously mentioned, since the "with chop marks" is how over 90% of this issue circulated because it was made for export originally, I have no problem with them being holdered and graded.
jmho
Just out of curiosity, where did you get your "90%" figure? MOST trade dollars that I come across dont have chops. >>
Most trade dollars that circulated were sent from China to India to be melted for use in jewelry - so you'd never see them unless you're looking at a silver necklace.
I don't have my my reference material at my finger tips so I defer to TDN.
I do know that from 1876 on that the Trade Dollar was only minted for export and was no longer legal tender in the US.
<< <i>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. >>
My most expensive coin has an X in the reverse and is in a PCGS holder. I got lucky because it's an AU coin selling for net graded XF money.
Edited: Many people like to collect this way. If you don't like them don't buy them.
<< <i>By the way, I own one PCGS certified example of a chopmarked Trade dollar and it is not net graded. >>
I believe the point is that they are "details graded" and not net graded.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It's just my experience but I have had a lot more Chop Marked trade Dollars end up in a body bag than I have had holdered. PCGS does consider cleaning as well as other problems such as fake chop marks, color and marks when they grade these. As was previously mentioned, since the "with chop marks" is how over 90% of this issue circulated because it was made for export originally, I have no problem with them being holdered and graded.
jmho
Just out of curiosity, where did you get your "90%" figure? MOST trade dollars that I come across dont have chops. >>
Most trade dollars that circulated were sent from China to India to be melted for use in jewelry - so you'd never see them unless you're looking at a silver necklace.
So TDN, if 99% of T.D.'s were chop marked, then one without a chop mark is rare?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>I think the debate about how many Trade dollars that circulated are chopmarked has to include the notion that many of the extant Trade dollars didn't circulate. Therefore, those that didn't circulate would be less likely to have a chopmark. >>
Then surely a VFish piece without marks must be rare, right? Think along the lines of semi-modern PO1's.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
It would be difficult to make the arguement that ANY trade dollar is common - with or without chopmarks.
<< <i>
<< <i>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? >>
These are not problem coins, they reflect a practice that was performed by a culture in the past. It is history, not a random mistreatment of a coin. I am very clear about the point, I just don't agree with you.
Fred, Las Vegas, NV
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
Of course, if you're a TPG, and you don't bodybag (except in cases like where there's active PVC), then you have to describe the coin's "issues" on the label, and I would imagine that gets to be a hassle. So I guess I see both sides of the issue.