Conder101

Or a popular hangout when coins would be lost.

Unless it was made before 1973. The problem is, how to tell then it was made, and being able to prove it.

More like having one pushed at you, not sold. No one is buying.

I don't collect this type of material, but just seeing it I have all kinds of alarm bells going off saying "Stay away!" I can't articulate why, but I think it is a fake.

They used a 1795 B-14 dollar that had those "fang marks" (there are other marks as well) to make a hub. Then they ground the date off and used it to make undated dies. They could then punch any date they wished into the die. You can find these "Vampire Hub" dollars with every date from 1795 to 1804. Of course that means that somewhere out there there is a REAL 1795 B-14 dollar with those two marks in the neck. And I suspect whoever owns it is going to have real headaches trying to sell it someday.

Not likely, the composition of the outer layers of the quarters and the nickels are the same material, and you would expect the softer material of the cent to have more problems. (Frankly I've never bothered to pay attention and don't know if the nickels get marked up worse or not.)

That would be interesting because as far as I know all of the 1794 dollars came from the same die pair.

Not a proof, maybe a little PL to it but impossible to say with all the reflections coming from the holder.

And they have been circulated, so they are worth less than a dollar apiece. Having them graded will cost you over $65, and they will still be worth less than a dollar apiece.

+1 I don't like seeing coins damaged but there are plenty of these and they are probably already well circulated so go ahead. They will give you more pleasure that was than just as tow common circulated wheat cents. That you CAN'T do. You can make them look worse, you can't make them look better.

Remember the Mints major concern is "will they work in commerce". If they will, nicks a scratches on business strike coins is of no real interest to them.

Unless it was made before 1973. If it was then it is perfectly legal. The HPA only applies to pieces made AFTER the passage of the Act. The problem is you are comparing two different die varieties, The OP coin is based on the 1795 B-14 variety and the overlay you have made is of the obv of B-15. Since the obverse were made by hand and the date letters and stars punched in individually, two different obverse will show different positions like your overlay. If you overlayed a B-14 obv you will find the match up will be about perfect. It IS a counterfeit though. (Vampire hub)

Harshly cleaned/buffed/polished etc.

Not seeing any doubling, and it isn't an SMS coin. At least with that wear it doen't look like it, or matter.

A link no, facts about it? It is a genuine 1794 dollar, it is high grade, It is from the earliest die stage known so it is one of the first coins struck. There is no way to prove it is THE first one struck. This coin has received a lot of undeserved hype. Opinion. The idea it was struck as a presentation piece strikes me as unlikely. If you were striking a presentation piece you would want it to be a perfect as possible. You wouldn't chose a planchet that had been holed and plugged, you would pick through the available planchets and find a good unblemished one. If the die had been polished for a presentation strike it would still have imparted the PL surfaces to at least the next few coins struck.

They can be made less noticeable, but they will still be there. A hard corrosion spot like the one on the pictured coin has actually etched into the surface of the coin and there is no way to remove that. It will always reflect light differently than the undisturbed metal around it, and that will keep it visible.

Yes that is from the "vampire hub" modeled on the B-14 variety. Chances of it being real is pretty much zero.

Knowledge of the alloy was better in the latter half of the 19th century but still wasn't precisely "known". In the early 19th century composition was much more variable. Then you have the problem that at the time they couldn't say what the exact degree of heat being applied was and could only be estimated by observing the color of the heated metal. What would you use for testing? Yes punching a number into a die blank is destructive but at the time it was probably the fastest and easiest for one of the craftsman engravers to judge the hardness of the blank, and if they believe the punch would be by the hubbing they wouldn't have considered it to be destructive. So can you tell us what the standard practices and procedures were in the mint in the latter part of the 19th century?

Picture isn't good but what I am seeing looks like Longacre doubling. It was common on the obverses of the indian head cents thru 1886.

You just got them reversed, no big deal. We all make mistakes.

I'm coming up with O-119, and it looks real to me. Now we need pictures of the 1795 Draped Bust dollar (which is what I assume it means by what google translates as "tied hair".

It will probably induce toning, whether or not that toning will be "beautiful", is still a matter of luck.

Would depend on whether the punch to date in before or after they turn down the diameter of the die face on the lathe. And that would make sense if they were using it to test hardness post annealing and pre-hubbing, because they would expect the hubbing to "erase" the test punching (But sometimes it didn't.) In the 19th century?? And even in the latter half of the 19th century I doubt they wanted to discard a tool steel die blank.

Value is 10 cents, See the last part of my previous post, not far enough out of spec to command a premium.

One other comment about the "Economite Hoard", those were mostly half dollars not quarters., and they were not punched with a L or E, they tended to have a single vertical punch mark, like with a standard screwdriver, at 12 oclock on the obv. The L and E quarters only come dated 1815 or 1825 and the letter punches are the same on both dates. The placement of the E and L differ, but the E's are in the same place on both dates, and the L's are in the same place on both dates. The coins were probably stamped while on a medium hardness wood block that was able to conform to the shape of the rev and support it as there is very little damage to the reverse from the stamping.