Four 1796 Half Dimes – 2 Graded, 2 Body Bagged

[BillJones]

As a service those who might be considering the purchase of an early piece of silver raw with the idea of getting it graded, here is my experience with 1796 half dimes. I purchased two of these coins in the holders although I had reservations about them over cleaning. One of the body bag coins was a piece that I had purchased many years ago. The other one was purchased with hope that I could fill a hole in the collection for half the price of what I had to pay for the cleaned graded one. Obviously my idea didn’t work.

 

 

This 1796 over 5 half dime is in an NGC VG-8 holder. It is the lowest grade slab coin that I have in my collection. Why would I buy something like this? The reasons are that this is a very scarce coin with less than 50 examples known, and a better coin, even if I could have found it was out of my price range at the time I purchased it.

 

The coin has been cleaned and it might be bent. "Bent" is not an unusual situation for these coins. They were small and delicate and survived rough handling less well than the larger denominations. She’s not pretty, but she fills a slot that years ago I thought I would never cover. For years, the classic works on these coins stated that less than 10 examples were known. After the information got out there about how to spot them, collectors found more, mostly in low grades like this.

 

 

This piece was in my collection for about 20 years. It pulled a body bag as "damaged" although I've seen quite a number of early half dimes in PGCS and NGC with worse problems than this. It's sins were some teeth marks on the obverse one larger one above the eagle's right wing on the reverese. This coin is original and had a sharpness grade of VF. I had hoped that it would have pulled a net grade of Fine (I've seen net grades for early coins in holders many times), but gods were not smiling upon me. BTW despite the teeth marks, this coin was NOT bent. It was straight and quite decent for the issue.

 

 

This one got the hook for "improperly cleaned." It has EF sharpness, but the surfaces had this uniform gray with microscopic granularity.

 

 

This one is in a PCGS EF-45 holder. It has AU sharpness, but it has been cleaned, which I think left it net graded to EF-45.

 

You might ask why you buy a coin like this at a premium price. The answer is that nothing on this market to buy. As Dr. Sheldon once wrote, when the collector bug bites hard, collectors can end up doing irrational things.

[MBA101]

Neat story about some very rare coins. Thanks for sharing!

[relicsncoins]

I would have no problem buying or owning any one of those examples. I can imagine to find a totally original (if one even exists) example of this would be next to impossible and I think the TPG's should relax the standards a bit when dealing with 18th century U.S. coinage as probably most if not all have been messed with a bit over the years.

 

JJ

[rbrown4]

Nice Half Dimes and good information related to your experiences. I too would not have a problem at all owning those coins.

 

Rey

[dooly]

Great coins

[ibyandsellsmith]

Wow! very impressive.

[BillJones]

Great coins

 

I don't know. More like very expensive, very frustrating coins.

 

I LOVE early half dimes , but this date, 1796, has given me fits through the years. Some of the worst buys I've made as a collector have been made with these coins.

 

I always buy the wrong piece at the wrong time it seems.

 

But at least I did avoid the 1796 half dime that was in the PCGS AU holder that had been polished and recolored.

[realone]

Great story to go with 4 great coins, hey btw still waiting for an answer to some questions I had about an earlier post that you made, whasup with that?

 

Edited to say just read your great response to my question about your flowing hair dollars, for some reason I was waiting for a pm but I just realized it was in the thread, thanks alot,

Al

[WoodenJefferson]

<It's sins were some teeth marks on the obverse one larger one above the eagle's right wing on the reverese>

 

Precurser to modern day authentication services.

[BillJones]

Great story to go with 4 great coins, hey btw still waiting for an answer to some questions I had about an earlier post that you made, whasup with that?

 

I sent a PM to you last week via the system on these boards. If it did not get to you, I have no idea what happened to it.

[WinstonWare]

Thanks for the informative post Bill

[rrantique]

Thanks for post Bill

[MikeInFL]

Great post. Thanks for taking the time and sharing your knowledge and collection.

 

Bill, A few questions, if I may...

 

On the second coin, are the teeth marks just that? Human teeth? Is this common for early type coins?

 

As you've seen all of them in-hand, which did you prefer and why?

 

Take care...Mike

[bsshog40]

Nice informative post Bill. I would also think that the TPG's would be a little more lenient towards coins of this age. You know they've been thru heck just to get where they've gotten.

[Cladiator]

Man I love those little beauties.

[BillJones]

Great post. Thanks for taking the time and sharing your knowledge and collection.

 

Bill, A few questions, if I may...

 

On the second coin, are the teeth marks just that? Human teeth? Is this common for early type coins?

 

As you've seen all of them in-hand, which did you prefer and why?

 

Take care...Mike

 

Which one do I prefer? Well actually none of them because they all have issues. I’ll post up my 1797 half dimes. Now those are a group of coins that make me happy! But here's my take on each one of them.

 

The 1796 over 6 is my least favorite because it is low grade and not very attractive. The trouble is the only other one I've really had chance to own given my finances was too much for me at the time it was available. Sure these things show up in major auctions, but the prices were always WAY beyond my ability to pay. This was also sold at a major auction and a friend bid it in for me. The auction price was just short of $2,000, which was (is) too much money, but that's the nature of these things.

 

The coin with the teeth marks was my favorite. It was totally original and had decent eye appeal. I’m still very angry at NGC for body bagging this coin. I have seen many early coins and have a couple coins at in my collection that have more problems than this piece. If this coin had gone into a Fine-15 holder, no one who purchased at it the market price for the grade would have been ripped off. They would have gotten a really nice early coin at a fair price.

 

And yes the marks are from human teeth. I've read that 19th century Americans used coins has teething rings from kids. I can't believe that they would have used a half dime. Even a large cent would seem to be too small and too easy to swallow. My guess is this was either an early form of "authentication" or just some abuse. (People bite down coins to make sure they were not made of lead or white metal and therefore counterfiet.

 

Coin #3 was a product of my own stupidity. I had read where the services cut early coins some slack for cleaning. The slack did not go that far. It cost me $950, which is the most I’ve ever lost on coin in 40+ years of dealing and collecting. I wanted the thing out of my sight after I realized my mistake.

 

The last coin has a lot of detail, enough to be an AU coin if it had not been cleaned. I had to pay too much for it, but I went back and forth with the dealer who owned it for over a year before I finally gave in. It was the "reject," because of the outragious asking price, when I bought coin #3. I would have bought another if I’d found it, but there was nothing, not at Baltimore and not at FUN.

 

One guy on the forums suggested that I should crack it out and allow it to retone. It would be easy to let it retone in an envelope for four or five years, but then if I wanted to stick it back up on my registry set, I’d have to get it reholdered. No thanks. I’ve my fill of arbitrary treatment from the grading services on expensive rare coins, with which their graders are unskilled and poorly trained. You can't ask the Morgan dollar guy to grade early half dimes. He's a total fish out of water. This one will stay in its green label PCGS where it has been for over a decade.

[MikeInFL]

 

Which one do I prefer? Well actually none of them because they all have issues.

[...]

The coin with the teeth marks was my favorite. It was totally original and had decent eye appeal. I’m still very angry at NGC for body bagging this coin. I have seen many early coins and have a couple coins at in my collection that have more problems than this piece. If this coin had gone into a Fine-15 holder, no one who purchased at it the market price for the grade would have been ripped off. They would have gotten a really nice early coin at a fair price.

 

And yes the marks are from human teeth. I've read that 19th century Americans used coins has teething rings from kids. I can't believe that they would have used a half dime. Even a large cent would seem to be too small and too easy to swallow. My guess is this was either an early form of "authentication" or just some abuse. (People bite down coins to make sure they were not made of lead or white metal and therefore counterfiet.

[...]

 

Thanks Bill. FWIW, I prefer the coin with the teeth marks, too. The possiblity of this "problem" being contemporary in nature almost adds some appeal to me. Interesting to note how the coin the TPGs say is not market acceptable is the most desireable above even the slabbed examples you show.

 

Take care...Mike