Moxie15

There are many who could use that book around here.  am glad it is on its way

My bet is that they are prop coins. I have been told it used to be taboo to use real coins in movies. 

well, I'll be! Fred Weinberg is listed as 'Advisor' is he on this forum?

I have heard people use the terms 'trails' before. It seems to be used as a misnomer of plating separation lines or gas bubbles. But I am not sure if this is what the OP is asking. 

@Ratzie33 

I am totally convinced that you have the world's greatest collection of never was, never has been, does not exist, impossible errors and varieties. You need to start documenting your collection and publish a two volume set of books along the line of the Cherry Pickers Guide, You can name it "The Complete Guide to Impossible Die Varieties" subtitled 'Why am I the Only One to See This Junk ?'

I collect French minor coinage and it is my opinion that the French Mints of the nineteenth century was not concerned with quality and the coins show it.

WHOOSH!

I would not pay 65 money for it.

It is extremely poorly struck at best and I do not like the tarnish. I do not collect these and am not an expert on holders. With that said I would ask someone with more knowledge to look at it to make sure it is authentic.

7 hours ago, Endgame said:

In last week's comments RWB and Kbb correctly pushed me for facts. Here they are:

1 There were no more 1794 silver dollars paid out on warrants after October 15, 1794.

2 There is no 1794 silver dollar in President Washington's Last Will and Testament.

3 There are at least 3 1794 silver plug silver dollars.

4 The 1795 silver plug silver dollar proves Strickland was at the mint in June 1795.

5 The  Columbian Centinel describes a weakly struck coin.

6 Reports of circulating 1794 dollars did not appear until late 1795.

I want to correct one part of last week's comments. The main varieties are:

B-1 Original, no silver plug, weak US letters

B-2 Restrikes, silver plug and no silver plug, strong US letters

I feel positive that aditional new research will confirm the direction that has been laid out. The criticism would have been withering if they had released a quantity of defective originals. The Mint was already on a short string with Alexander Hamilton.

A whole new die state order is required for 1794 Silver Dollars and I hope someone will take up the task. 

I have some questions concerning your listed facts

1 There were no more 1794 silver dollars paid out on warrants after October 15, 1794.

This statement cause me to think that prior to October 15, 1794 there were 1794 dollars paid out on warrants, so there were 1794 dollars circulating reported or not. Therefore the statement in #6 proves nothing other that that is the first written report known of circulating 1794 dollars. So how does this report prove the dollar mentioned in this thread was minted in any particular day or year, or its order off of the press?

2 There is no 1794 silver dollar in President Washington's Last Will and Testament.

This is a verifiable fact, but the only thing it shows is he did not own one at the time of the will's drafting. Were any other mint coins listed in the will?

4 The 1795 silver plug silver dollar proves Strickland was at the mint in June 1795.

How does this prove he was at the mint? It very well could have been presented to him after he left.

I have never had a 1794 in my hands so I have no first hand knowledge of what they look like. Some have stated that some 1794 dollars show signs of die clashes  and perhaps other signs of die use, and that only one die pair was used on this year's dollars.

So...

If all the known coins with weak letters were struck on the old press in 1794 and some of them show the marks of  die wear and clashing and this nearly perfect coin was struck on the new press in 1795 with the old dies: then why does it not show the signs of die wear and clashing that were on the old dies?

You might need to ask NGC directly about this. I would expect they will ask you to send it in and they will evaluate the coin for conservation.

it is not an error that has value. The die was most likely not cleaned properly and still had some crease on it. Some of the letters were weakly struck of even missing upon striking and then the circulation wear did the rest. This is rather common they are referred to as struck through grease , or a grease filled die. They carry no premium and in this condition it is just another heavily circulated cent worth 2 or 3 cents.

it does look like a die clash the close up looks to be the nose. The mark in the lettering may be a small die crack or something else as it looks to be to close to the rim to be the back of his head. But I am doing it by eye so could be wrong

. It is post mint damage that coin did not leave the mint looking like that

and all this time I thought they were arrows. Shows what I know

A circulated dime with no outstanding features, worth 10 cents. Nothing more.

“Silence is sometimes the best answer”

                                                                Dalai Lama XIV:

3 hours ago, kbbpll said:

Here is an article from 2004. I assumed all of this was already known but perhaps useful. A lot of history about who looked at what, opinions, etc. Apparently it got the SP66 "later in 2003".

I see two people saying "there is no doubt in my mind" and "clues that this is the first". The rest hedge with "may be", "conceivable", "conjecture", "not possible to precisely ascertain", "leads me to believe", "suggests".

I would not say hedge at all. There is plenty of evidence it is one of the earliest, but no proof it is the first one. They are being professional and honest.

29 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

True ‘nuff, but what is your theory on why nickels usually come out looking worse than other denominations, both smaller and larger?

I have wondered if the nickel press is on the second floor and the collection bin is on the first floor. 

I always thought it was the composition and weight

There is no die clash in the area you mark. I do not see a strike error either. What I think you are seeing is a slight shadow of an impression of the reverse of the coin 'in front' of this coin in the roll. 

@RWB,

Are you trying to say something specific here, without coming out and saying it?

45 minutes ago, RWB said:

 

Simply put: All basic data on 1794 dollars should be available from a single reliable, objective source. Nysoto's comments are great as are Bowers' and some others - yet no one should have to look under numismatic rocks for fundamental information to America's first silver dollars.

You have done more original research than most people have read opinions. I would expect you to have a more direct 'link' to facts on this coin than any one of us here. 

Something I learned in college when researching an event from WWII, the first researchers 'may have' easily becomes the next researches 'most likely' and becomes the next researchers 'definitely'

In this context;

first researcher..

"This may have been the first dollar struck'

second researcher;

'This is likely the first dollar struck'

Third researcher;

'This is the first dollar struck'

No one means to lie or misinform but without original research it is very easy for this to happen and future scholars get caught in the trap.

That is all the facts I have. 

please point out the die clash you think you see and describe the part of the reverse element you think it is.

Thank you

It does not look proof to me, very sorry.

It may help if you remove it from that holder and re take the pictures as clearly as possible. That is an inexpensive aftermarket hold and adds no value or marketability.

I do not think grading would help the value at all. It may help the sale-ability a bit, but most likely it would be a net loss to you.

Look on this website to learn about grading costs, remember to add it shipping costs 

To me it does not look like a misaligned die

Were do you see doubling?

Remember that hubs are made with a single pressing now, so any traditional doubling is not possible. These days any "doubling" is near the center of the coin and seems to be caused more by slippage than being misaligned slightly on the subsequent punching or pressing.

Is the die clash you see on the reverse just right of the torch?

If so I doubt it is a clash as I can not see anything on the obverse design that would make these marks. Perhaps a more knowledgeable member can tell for sure.

love them as brown Lincolns. If you can't and decide you must have red ones, please PM me and i will send you my address and I will love them as they are.

NEVER CLEAN A BROWN COPPER COIN! 

I know of no way to bring back the nice shiny red all you will do is ruin it.

an easy way is put it in a 2X2 use only 3 staples, Be sure to keep Lincoln's head is straight up and one of the staples is below the bottom of the coin.

Then you have an un-moving reference point so pictures will show the rotation and you can calculate the rotation