Primer on Collecting Early Dollars: Part 3, Challenges to Collecting ED's

[EVillageProwler]

Thus far, nearly every general point I've made about ED's is also applicable to other ``early'' denominations. This third installment should be no different.

 

Bust coinage, including ED's, are fraught with problems and issues. These problems will give the discriminating collector headaches!

 

Our very own John Maben once said to me that this series is one of the most difficult to grade. This is true for a number of reasons. In the early days of our nation, our nascent Mint infrastructure was woefully lagging the great nations of the Europe. We had poor technology, insufficient raw materials, and poorly made planchets.

 

These challenges made for specimens that are often poorly or unevenly struck. A notable example of this is the 1794 dollar. The lower left obverse quadrant is usually very poorly struck, and oftentimes making most of the date unreadable.

 

Sometimes, the dies would fail very quickly. This would result in scarce varieties that are hard to grade because the failing die would not impart enough detail to the planchet. A good example of this would be 1796 Bol.6 (BB-64). The reverse die of this variety failed very quickly, and only 3 specimens are known. (This variety has a huge vertical die crack going from around 1 o'clock to 5 o'clock.)

 

In my opinion, the best way to differentiate between strike and wear is to look at the entire coin. If the center detail is weak, then look at the peripheral stars. A coin with EF central details due to wear would not have AU peripheral details. It is more likely that the lack of central detail is due more to strike and not wear.

 

The planchets oftentimes were of poor quality, or not of proper weight. To compensate for overweight planchets, the Mint employees would scratch off thin slivers from the planchet until they are within tolerance. To compensate for underweight planchets, the employees would drill a little hole into the planchet and insert a silver plug to bring the planchet up to tolerance.

 

Sometimes, a specimen will have both adjustment marks and a silver plug. I guess the employees sometimes needed to correct their own corrections!

 

While adjustment marks can be found on ED's from 1794 to 1803, only 1795-dated Flowing Hair specimens are known to have silver plugs.

 

It should be made clear that both the adjustment marks and the silver plugs were applied prior to striking. A scratch and a repair job applied to a coin post-striking are considered serious damage to the coin.

 

Another serious challenge to collecting this series is the serious lack of original specimens. The huge majority of the extant specimens have been cleaned or otherwise damaged. For Flowing Hair specimens, even the original specimens look ugly and lusterless.

 

The 1797 9x7 Stars, Small Letter reverse (BB-72) is a really rare specimen in grades ChVF or better. The Amon Carter specimen is probably the 2nd or 3rd finest of that variety, and has been graded AU55 by both NGC and PCGS. It is beautiful, yet even that coin has hairlines.

 

And, the fact that so many varieties are R.6 or better makes it a serious challenge to obtain even a single specimen. Factor in the fact that many varieties don't even exist in high grade (AU or better), and you'll see many discriminating collectors shy away from this series.

 

EVP

 

[EVillageProwler]

I'm attaching a picture of a specimen that has light adjustment marks, an area of weakness due to strike, and how you can look at the periphery to get a better feel for its true grade.

 

(The coin is graded VF30 by PCGS, yet I feel it is very close to an EF specimen.)

 

Also, this specimen, BB-91, is rated R.7 by the JRCS. That means 4 to 12 specimens extant. It is thus rare in absolute terms, as well as being nearly condition census. The finest known is the San Marino specimen, which is a beautiful near UNC. But, even that specimen has light hairlines. And, the next finest is only an EF specimen. So, this variety poses a real challenge to discriminating collectors.

 

For an example of a silver plug, look on Cardinal's new web site: Silver Plug

 

EVP

[GP_]

very cool! It looks like it would be hard to tell an adjustment mark from an after minting scratch though.

[nwcs]

Do you think the dies were improperly produced to make them deteriorate so quickly?

[nwcs]

I would think adjustment marks, being done on blanks or planchets would be struck out in most circumstances or appear similarly to roller marks. I think the key is looking at how it travels across the surface and devices and the characteristics of the marks itself.

[EVillageProwler]

i think that adjustment marks is easy to discern from post-mint scratches if you keep one thing in mind: that a scratch presents itself as a sharp groove on the surface of the coin, whereas an adj mark is a groove with soft features from the metal flow caused by the striking process.

 

evp

 

[nwcs]

Good point, and another thing I forgot. A post mint scratch would reveal fresh metal and will show more shinyness than an adjustment mark. I would also think (if you're fortunate to have originality) that the toning would also be a good indicator of adjustment versus damage.

[GP_]

ahhh I see. Guess I will have to see one in person to get the true idea of how they look. Thanks for all the info!

[EVillageProwler]

i have seen very old scratches where the toning blended into the coin and the scratch nicely.

 

evp

 

[keithdagen]

I have found that, if you haven't had the opportunity to see one in person yet, adjustment marks tend to be more visible on gold.

 

Here's a 1807 half eagle with very prominent adjustment marks on the portrait. Picture taken from a Heritage auction because I can never link to their archives.