For the last several years when the Mint tests new alloys for coins they use nonsense dies to strike the test pieces. The nonsense dies usually have Martha Washington on the obverse and are dated 1799 (or earlier) so the test pieces will not be confused with a genuine modern coin. I don't think I have ever seen one of these test pieces struck by nonsense dies for sale but one is currently offerred on eBay: 1999 Martha Washington Test Piece J-2188 NGC MS-62 This piece can be yours for less than $7,000*. * One cent less than $7,000. Plus $3 S/H.
i bet either someone at the mint has sticky fingers or it was given to someone as a gift from the mint
It is definitely not unique... There are maybe a half dozen or so known. I purchased this coin from a customer who's late father owned a vending company and it was in his estate.
Matt, I did not make the connection that you are the seller. That is definitely a COOL piece. That's why I shared it here. Do you have any idea why the two Ns were punched into the fields of the obverse die or what they mean?
The mint loaned out the dies to outside firms that were doing some of the testing. Most likely the pieces out out from those sources. security would be more lax there. The cent pieces that Wolfe mentioned almost certainly got out by that method because the Mint has said that the Martha dies were not used for testing the copper plated zinc composition, but that is what the "Martha" cents are struck on. Also both Martha cents I have seen have been struck off-center using dime size dies.
They were struck on planchets that did not contain manganese. Since they look identical to the ones that did contain the manganese they punched the "N"s on the obverse to show that they were non-manganese.
So I'm expecting this to be your "interesting find" on episode 36 Coin Show coming up. That's truly...well, can't find the words!!
So that date "1759" made me curious, and I checked up on her. It's the year she married George. Also, that old gal was married before, husband died, and she was left a rich widow. Which leads to another realization. If that profile on that coin is any indication, she was not an attractive woman. But, if she was a rich widow, that'd be a reason for George to marry her. She didn't need looks if she had money.
The date may be 1759, but that is not a representation of what Martha looked like in 1759. She was still a young woman at that time and was considered attractive. Here is an image of her a couple years before she married George. This would have been around 1756.
