1795 Mint Set 0

[Joe G.]

A couple years ago I completed an 1887 mint set and have had the itch to attempt another.  I've always admired the early flowing hair coins but was confused by the many variations and steep price tags.  After researching them a bit further I realized that the 1795 mint set might be a good fit with the beautiful Liberty Cap coppers and the Flowing Hair silvers (I will skip the gold coins . . . way out of my league).  The 1795 year avoids the scarce and expensive first year issue of each denomination with sufficient mintage to make them collectable.  1795 also provides an early look at the Draped Bust dollar, a beautiful coin in its own right.  This will be a collection I build slowly due to my budget but will enjoy the journey.

At the close of this year I purchased my first coin, an XF40 50cent piece in an old PCGS holder.  The holder doesn't identify the die pair but I believe it to be O-116 after comparing to other examples online.  To me the coin presents very well with pleasing toning.

 

Couple questions (1795 specific to far more general) . . .

1) Does the die clash of "UNITED" and "LIB" automatically make this O-116?  Likewise, does O-116 mean the same as T-11, R.4, & Tompkins die 2/2?

2) Is there a good resource on the early halves and silver dollars that outlines all the die pairs?  I recently purchased the David Bowers Red Book on half cents and large cents.  Is there an equivalent on the early silver coins?

3) I collected my 1887 mint set in all NGC (old holder), not going to limit myself in the same way on the 1795 mint set but once complete will likely cross-over everything to same holder.  Do old PCGS holders cross over well to new PCGS or NGC holders (grading standards same)?

4) From an obverse and reverse wear perspective, I think this coin is a strong XF40.  However, I note a small obverse rim nick at 11:00 position (difficult to see in scan - the old PCGS holder makes it difficult to see the outside perimeter of coin).  Should I be concerned over a perimeter rim nick with modern grading standards?

[Coinbuf]

Sorry I cannot help you with the coins, you are in an area that is well out of my league both numismaticly and financially.  As to crossing I would caution you to reconsider your goal if that is your plan, the two services are more alike than different when it comes to grading but, and this is a big but, I firmly believe both services have an inherent bias when crossing.  Last year I sent in a crossover submission to NGC (all PCGS coins), which is something I rarely ever do as I consider crossovers a waste of money, two of the coins were CAC'd and all failed to cross.  Now I'm not in the business of second guessing the TPG's but come on CAC approved coins that won't cross, what is wrong with this picture.  And there have been threads, even recent ones, ATS with similar issues where NGC CAC'd coins would not cross.

What I'm saying here is if you want the set all in one holder then I would strongly suggest that you buy them in that brand so that you will not have to go through the hassle of crossing.  It sounds like an interesting project and I hope you will stop by when you have new additions and share them with us.

[RWB]

Nice middle-of-the-road 1795 EF. What about the bump at 2:00, also? Neither seemed to bother the "grading" company.

[Just Bob]

I agree with this being the O-116 die marriage. Nice coin, too.

There is a good attribution site that I use, since I don't have a copy of Overton.

Here is a link to the O-116 page

[Joe G.]

Thank you Chris, RWB, and Bob.

Sorry to hear that cross-overs are not more straight forward.  In the end I desire a common appearance for display but may settle for an NGC and PCGS split.  A slight variation to my earlier question, if PCGS graded my coin XF40 in the late 90s, is there a good chance it would grade the same today?

RWB, there doesn't appear to be an issue with the coin at the 2:00 position.  This early generation PCGS holder has plastic tight against the coin full 360deg and what you note as an irregularity at 2:00 is on the PCGS slab.  The coin denticles define the perimeter, the smooth ring just outboard the denticles is actually the slab.  Then again, I really can't study the perimeter so I guess there could be an issue at 2:00

Bob, the website you linked to is perfect, thank you!, O-116 it is.  Some of these early coin variations are neat, adds another dimension to collecting them.  I've identified some half cent die variation favorites that I'll be keeping an eye out for.

[RWB]

Another advantage to selecting 1795 --- you can have the quarter "made to order" by several of Alibaba's Forty Thieves!

[MarkFeld]

That’s a very nice example and I agree with Coinbuf on the crossover issue. 
if ultimately, you’re going to want a coin in a particular holder, I wouldn’t buy it in a different one.

[physics-fan3.14]

19 hours ago, Joe G. said:

Couple questions (1795 specific to far more general) . . .

1) Does the die clash of "UNITED" and "LIB" automatically make this O-116?  Likewise, does O-116 mean the same as T-11, R.4, & Tompkins die 2/2?

2) Is there a good resource on the early halves and silver dollars that outlines all the die pairs?  I recently purchased the David Bowers Red Book on half cents and large cents.  Is there an equivalent on the early silver coins?

3) I collected my 1887 mint set in all NGC (old holder), not going to limit myself in the same way on the 1795 mint set but once complete will likely cross-over everything to same holder.  Do old PCGS holders cross over well to new PCGS or NGC holders (grading standards same)?

4) From an obverse and reverse wear perspective, I think this coin is a strong XF40.  However, I note a small obverse rim nick at 11:00 position (difficult to see in scan - the old PCGS holder makes it difficult to see the outside perimeter of coin).  Should I be concerned over a perimeter rim nick with modern grading standards?

Good luck on your set! A collection of 1795 coins is a very advanced undertaking, and I wish you luck! 

To answer your questions: 

1. First, the die clashing does not automatically make this O-116, but a clash in this area is seen on the O-116. Clashes can appear on numerous marriages, and a reverse could be paired with a difference obverse (and thus be a different marriage). The identifiers for the O-116 can be found here: http://maibockaddict.com/1795-o-116-r4

2. There are two primary references for early half dollar die marriages. The first is Overton's "Early Half Dollar Die Varieties" and the second is Tompkins "Early United States Half Dollars." Overton covers the entire series from 1794 to 1836 in a single volume, and has been the standard reference for decades (updated periodically). Tompkins is a new work, in the last few years, and is coming out in 3 volumes. Only the first volume is out, covering 1794-1807. It is gaining acceptance, but is nowhere near as widely recognized yet. 

So, to go back and finish answering part 1 - "O-116" is the numbering from the Overton reference, T-11 is the equivalent from the Tompkins reference. 2/2 indicates the die state, with 1/2 not having the clash, 2/2 having the clash. 

3. Properly graded coins will cross. You need to choose properly graded coins, coins with good eye appeal, and original coins - and then you will have no trouble crossing at all. 

4. Small rim nicks are completely acceptable on old coins like this. I'd avoid an AU coin with a decent nick, but I don't mind a small nick like this on an EF coin. 

[MarkFeld]

39 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Good luck on your set! A collection of 1795 coins is a very advanced undertaking, and I wish you luck! 

To answer your questions: 

1. First, the die clashing does not automatically make this O-116, but a clash in this area is seen on the O-116. Clashes can appear on numerous marriages, and a reverse could be paired with a difference obverse (and thus be a different marriage). The identifiers for the O-116 can be found here: http://maibockaddict.com/1795-o-116-r4

2. There are two primary references for early half dollar die marriages. The first is Overton's "Early Half Dollar Die Varieties" and the second is Tompkins "Early United States Half Dollars." Overton covers the entire series from 1794 to 1836 in a single volume, and has been the standard reference for decades (updated periodically). Tompkins is a new work, in the last few years, and is coming out in 3 volumes. Only the first volume is out, covering 1794-1807. It is gaining acceptance, but is nowhere near as widely recognized yet. 

So, to go back and finish answering part 1 - "O-116" is the numbering from the Overton reference, T-11 is the equivalent from the Tompkins reference. 2/2 indicates the die state, with 1/2 not having the clash, 2/2 having the clash. 

3. Properly graded coins will cross. You need to choose properly graded coins, coins with good eye appeal, and original coins - and then you will have no trouble crossing at all. 

4. Small rim nicks are completely acceptable on old coins like this. I'd avoid an AU coin with a decent nick, but I don't mind a small nick like this on an EF coin. 

Sorry, but based on how it was stated, I strongly disagree with “3. Properly graded coins will cross”. That’s definitely not necessarily the case. It might be because coins are more difficult to scrutinize in holders, bias or some combination thereof. I’ve heard of numerous instances in which coins failed to cross, were subsequently cracked out and submitted, then graded the same or even higher then the failed crossover grade. 

[GoldFinger1969]

21 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

As to crossing I would caution you to reconsider your goal if that is your plan, the two services are more alike than different when it comes to grading but, and this is a big but, I firmly believe both services have an inherent bias when crossing.  Last year I sent in a crossover submission to NGC (all PCGS coins), which is something I rarely ever do as I consider crossovers a waste of money, two of the coins were CAC'd and all failed to cross.  Now I'm not in the business of second guessing the TPG's but come on CAC approved coins that won't cross, what is wrong with this picture.  And there have been threads, even recent ones, ATS with similar issues where NGC CAC'd coins would not cross.

As I've never submitted and the whole crossing thing is a bit cloudy to me, bear with me...... but you're implying (and I always assumed) that a CAC'ed coin from one TPG had a great chance to gain a 1-grade or 1/2-grade increment from the other TPG, right ?  And this didn't happen ?  Or it isn't happening now with increasing frequency ?

I presume if you wanted to "cross" at the same grade they would have allowed that if you OK'd it, right ?  I recall someone with a 1927-D Saint-Gaudens once wanted a LOWER grade so it would then qualify for a CAC sticker.

Ah, the games people play.....

 

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

Can someone define what you are all saying by "failed to cross" ?

Means that the 2nd TPG wouldn't take the coin out of the 1st TPG holder because they didn't see it as going up by a 1-grade increment ?  Or maybe 1/2 grade ?

Thanks.... 

[MarkFeld]

9 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Can someone define what you are all saying by "failed to cross" ?

Means that the 2nd TPG wouldn't take the coin out of the 1st TPG holder because they didn't see it as going up by a 1-grade increment ?  Or maybe 1/2 grade ?

Thanks.... 

“Failed to cross” means that a coin in one company’s holder was submitted to a different grading company, which rejected it for crossover into their holder. The rejection could have been at the same grade (or, if applicable, a lower grade noted on the submission invoice as acceptable by the submitter). To my knowledge, crossover submissions at higher grades than the current grade are not accepted by NGC and PCGS.

[Coinbuf]

47 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

As I've never submitted and the whole crossing thing is a bit cloudy to me, bear with me...... but you're implying (and I always assumed) that a CAC'ed coin from one TPG had a great chance to gain a 1-grade or 1/2-grade increment from the other TPG, right ?  And this didn't happen ?  Or it isn't happening now with increasing frequency ?

I presume if you wanted to "cross" at the same grade they would have allowed that if you OK'd it, right ?  I recall someone with a 1927-D once wanted a LOWER grade so it would then qualify for a CAC sticker.

Ah, the games people play.....

 

 

No a CAC approved coin (green bean) will not automatically be given an upgrade by the next TPG, in fact as Mark pointed out when you submit for crossover you can only request the cross at the same grade or lower.  As the submitter you do not have the option to request a higher grade, if the new TPG decides it is undergraded they can bump the grade but I would guess that this happens in a very small number of crossovers.  In my instance I requested cross at the same grade, it would be a huge penalty financially speaking going from P67+ to N66.  Crossovers are tricky and the grade level is also a factor, crosses happen more frequently with the circulated grades but less frequent with the top end of the MS grades from what I have seen.  When you hear of someone getting a higher grade form one TPG chances are they cracked the coin and sent it in raw, a dangerous game that has winners and losers.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

“Failed to cross” means that a coin in one company’s holder was submitted to a different grading company, which rejected it for crossover into their holder. The rejection could have been at the same grade (or, if applicable, a lower grade noted on the submission invoice as acceptable by the submitter). To my knowledge, crossover submissions at higher grades than the current grade are not accepted by NGC and PCGS.

Thanks Mark......If your last sentence is true (I have no reason to doubt you)...then I must have mis-read what folks were doing here and elsewhere.....it must be owners taking a risk by cracking out the coin themselves in the 1st TPG slab and re-submitting it to TPG #2 in the hopes of getting a higher grade.

[GoldFinger1969]

53 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

When you hear of someone getting a higher grade from one TPG chances are they cracked the coin and sent it in raw, a dangerous game that has winners and losers.

Yup, this is what I was referencing.   But for some reason I thought folks were submitting a slabbed coin from TGP #1 to TPG #2 and figuring it either gets a higher grade in the new slab or gets returned.  In other words, nothing to lose except maybe the submission fee.

I can see now I was confused.  Thanks Coinbuf and Mark. 

[jtryka]

This is a very nice XF example of a great early half!  I would agree with the others on the die marriage.  For the O-116, you have a later die state for Obverse 8 (noted as obverse 8-s2, obverse 8, die state 2).  The diagnostics for Obverse 8 are star 1 extending through the curl, star 2 touching the outer end of the second curl and the lumpy die break that starts below star 1 and extends through stars 2 and 3.  There are some other minor diagnostics as well.  For the second die state on the O-116, the clashing is diagnostic along with an additional die crack from the milling to star 7.  It's hard to see the berries on the reverse (for me at least) based on the small image in the slab, but the positioning of berries would confirm that this is reverse M rather than L as on the O-115.

As for the other coins you want for your mint set, you might consider investing in a membership to the JRCS (John Reich Collectors Society) as the members run the gamut of collecting half cents to gold.  It's nice to network with other collectors and they produce the John Reich Journal 4 times a year (though last year with Covid it was only 3).  The dues are $25 a year and you can get a lot of info at the website: https://www.jrcs.org/.  They used to have meetings at the major shows, but since Covid we have started doing zoom meetings which I have found very informative and valuable.

Edited January 1, 2021 by jtryka

[Joe G.]

4 hours ago, jtryka said:

This is a very nice XF example of a great early half!  I would agree with the others on the die marriage.  For the O-116, you have a later die state for Obverse 8 (noted as obverse 8-s2, obverse 8, die state 2).  The diagnostics for Obverse 8 are star 1 extending through the curl, star 2 touching the outer end of the second curl and the lumpy die break that starts below star 1 and extends through stars 2 and 3.  There are some other minor diagnostics as well.  For the second die state on the O-116, the clashing is diagnostic along with an additional die crack from the milling to star 7.  It's hard to see the berries on the reverse (for me at least) based on the small image in the slab, but the positioning of berries would confirm that this is reverse M rather than L as on the O-115.

As for the other coins you want for your mint set, you might consider investing in a membership to the JRCS (John Reich Collectors Society) as the members run the gamut of collecting half cents to gold.  It's nice to network with other collectors and they produce the John Reich Journal 4 times a year (though last year with Covid it was only 3).  The dues are $25 a year and you can get a lot of info at the website: https://www.jrcs.org/.  They used to have meetings at the major shows, but since Covid we have started doing zoom meetings which I have found very informative and valuable.

The reverse seems to be a direct match with the O-116 example (600dpi scan below).  My scanner does a decent job but far from the high resolution quality some collectors and auction houses seem to achieve.

I filled out the JRCS membership form and will send it out with a check in tomorrow's mail.  Thank you for the recommendation!

I enjoy the reference books, might also spring for the Milferd Bollender/Jules Reiver or more recent Bowers-Borckardt volumes to prepare for one dollar purchases (Mint set tracks 3 coins for 1795 - Flowing Hair 2 Leaves, Flowing Hair 3 Leaves, and Draped Bust).

Edited January 2, 2021 by Joe G.

[Joe G.]

Order placed on resource books for early silver dollars, some good used examples of Milferd Bollender/Jules Reiver on Amazon.  The more recent Bowers-Borckardt  (2013 edition) required paying full price ($70).

[DWLange]

There is a good attribution site that I use, since I don't have a copy of Overton.

Here's another excellent site, right in the neighborhood:

https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/half-dollars/flowing-hair-half-dollars-1794-1795/?page=1

 

[RWB]

2 hours ago, DWLange said:

Here's another excellent site, right in the neighborhood:

...Yep. Less traveling and better mileage on your electrons.

(In Britain, the distance your car can travel on a liter of petrol is still called "mileage" although the kilometer is the standard unit of distance measurement. Should it be called your car's 'kilometerage' ...or ?)

Edited January 2, 2021 by RWB

[coinsandmedals]

On 1/1/2021 at 11:20 AM, MarkFeld said:

To my knowledge, crossover submissions at higher grades than the current grade are not accepted by NGC and PCGS.

This was my understanding as well, but it appears PCGS has started to do so. I take issue with this but that is a topic for another thread. 

[Conder101]

On 1/1/2021 at 12:20 PM, MarkFeld said:

To my knowledge, crossover submissions at higher grades than the current grade are not accepted by NGC and PCGS.

I believe you can't specify to cross at a higher grade, but if they feel a higher grade is justified they will cross it to the higher grade.

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

I believe you can't specify to cross at a higher grade, but if they feel a higher grade is justified they will cross it to the higher grade.

That’s what I’ve thought, but see the link in the post above yours. The language leads me to think there’s been a change.

[shirohniichan1]

I applaud your new venture, Joe G. Year sets are appealing, especially those that are challenging!

[Henri Charriere]

On 1/5/2021 at 5:19 PM, Conder101 said:

I believe you can't specify to cross at a higher grade, but if they feel a higher grade is justified they will cross it to the higher grade.

As to the first part, that is true.  As to the latter, that makes sense and is the most encouraging and positive thing I have heard regarding the gods of grading since I began perusing these threads. One of the pitfalls of cross-grading, as opposed to submitting raw, is the introduction of a point of departure subconsciously defining the limits of a grade to a tight range as previously expressed, if only as an opinion.  If you are handed an encapsulated coin, much of your work is already done.  If you are handed a flip, you are on your own with prior experience and exposure as your guide.