• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What's up with this three cent silver?

4 posts in this topic

I'm sorry if I offend anyone by posting a link to ebay, but I don't want to bother saving off the pictures and reposting them here. I came across this auction and was wondering what was wrong with this coin.

 

1852 Three Cent Silver MS64 NGC

 

Look at the close-up of the obverse. Is that a planchet flaw? It looks like a lamination with a big chunk missing. I'm surprised it got slabbed, much less at MS64. It's certainly not worth MS64 money to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of character on that coin! I believe it is a planchet lamination, as-struck. In fact, the whole right edge looks like it has a planchet annealment problem.

 

As a type coin, it's definitely not worth MS-64 money, but as an interesting numismatic piece, I think it's great.

 

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like coins with character, but lamination is not typically the kind of character I like. One of the reasons I posted this is that I read somewhere in a post across the street where someone got a BB from PCGS because the coin had a planchet defect.

 

A few years ago I won an 1838 half dime on ebay in an NGC MS62 or MS63 holder (the memory goes with age). The coin had a large "chunk" of extra metal at the rim on the reverse. It didn't look like a cud because it was very rough instead of smooth. It actually looked like a rough blob of sodder or something. I returned the coin but sometimes wish I had kept it, just so I could find out what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks to me like a planchet lamination. It is certainly large enough (considering the size of the coin) and distracting enough to affect the price of the coin. How much however, is in the eye of the beholder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites