Chopmarks vs. Counter-stamp

It seems that chopmarks are treated entirely as damage by PCGS and NGC, while counter-stamped / counter-marked coins are treated just like a government issue coin (because they are). My understanding is that all chopmarked coins are privately marked, usually by individuals or bankers.

But, are there any rare chopmarks? They are, after all, the coins that circulated and made that way for various purposes, including to identify any fake coins (e.g. cut on the edge). What if, say, Florence's Medici banking family oligarchy of Renaissance Italy chopmarked their precious metal coins? If they did, then I'd want one in silver. But, knowing their position at the time, they'd probably mint their own coins.

And, aren't pieces of eight, 8 Reales coins the ultimate chopmarked coin, as they are literally chopped? They are the furthest chop one can make on a coin.

Thanks in advance!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This will take a long time to answer. You should get some good answers from the members. I'll fill in my thoughts later.

Basically, Chinese chops are one thing. Counter stamps can be official, fanciful, or advertising. Chopping a coin into "bits" is entirely different.

PS I have heard that some numismatists are making a catalogue of Chinese Chops and yes, some are rare.

 

I love chopped coins.. I have x2 British trade dollars that are chopped..



They're very interesting I think.. I can see why PCGS and NGC would think this as a countermark would 9/10 be a genuine government issue.. I also have quite a few of those like a Jamaica 1 reale coin stamped to make it 10 pence.
My best example of a countermark.. Well a complete overstrike.


Here's another Jamaican countermark but a private issue too alleviate the shortage of change, another case of acceptable damage.



It seems the Far East is the area which always prefers test/ chop marks.

Java Rupee drags the grade right down.



A countermark during Japanese occupation after WWII when they were melting them down apparently the marks mean for collection.

 

I would think,for grading purposes using the Sheldon scale, a chop mark or counterstamp/counterpart should "details" a coin and make it ungradeable. The coin has been damaged after striking.

 

It depends on the grading service. For example, I have seen ICG chopped coins straight graded w/"chopmarked" on the label. I have also seen ICG chopmarked coins in "details" slabs. So from that, they may be in a state of flux

I have read posts that PCGS has a chopped T$1 coin registry so looks like they will also start straight grading some chopped coins. I would call and ask but they were snippy on the phone with me once.

 

Guess what the market wants the market gets. Me, I would consider the coin damaged, however my countermarks are collected for the mark and the grade doesn't matter much.

 

Purists can say that anything done to a coin after it leaves the mint is damage AND THEY WOULD BE CORRECT. Punching numbers/letters into a Stone Mt half is damage; yet increases the value. Foreign coins countermarked by the Philippines for example are also damaged; yet this is another case of numismatic/historical acceptable damage.

 

I agree with what you're saying. A limitation of the Sheldon scale/ANA scale. Guess if enough collectors want MS65s with something stamped in it, it's a matter of time until they get it.

 

But for counter-stamps, isn't the counter-marking government effectively using a different government's coin as a planchet as-is? The counter-marking government's mint could simply melt those coins, but it may have probably been cheaper to counter-mark at the time given its economic situation.

For instance, a counter-marked 19th century Peruvian Peso on a Guatemalan silver coin wouldn't necessarily be damaged, per se, either due to the grade of the Guatemalan silver coin without the countermark, or because of the countermark. If you look at the original base coin as a planchet, since it effectively is one, then any damage grade should be on the counter-stamped area and/or the damage to the coin as a whole only after the counter-stamp was made. The latter is impractical, so I can see why only a single grade would apply, and not be given a Details grade by the TPGs so long as the coin in its entirety is not damaged.

 

Black and white is easy for me. Marked/stamped/graffitied is damage. Doesn't matter who did it or why. I don't think it's remotely necessary to grade the countermark.

 

Speaking of 65's, I'm reminded of an interesting grading story from an ANA Seminar in the 1970's. The instructor was explaining how technical grading worked.

If he took an "O" Mint Morgan dollar that had NO marks but a flat strike (no hair design over the ear) it would grade MS-65 (highest grade at the time) Weak Strike. Then he had the students visualize what the coin looked like. Everyone in the class could.

Next, he said let's drill a 1/8" hole in it at 12 o'clock at the point where the dentils touch the field. The class could still "see" what the coin looked like.

What do you think the technical grade of that coin would be? Easy right?

He explained that every time that coin was sent in (as long as it did not get more marks or any wear) it would grade the same. Thus, technical grading was precise and did not change over time or due to market conditions.

Answer: Some form of MS-65, Weak Strike w/hole at 12 o'clock.
Now forget everything I just wrote as "technical" grading has not been practiced for decades. Eye appeal rules!

 

But is a scuffed up planchet, in which the scuffs show up after its strike, a damaged coin? It's technically damage, but it's damage to the planchet prior to its mintage.

Similarly, isn't the base coin used for counter-stamping, a planchet that's "damaged"? Though, I can see that it's all in perspective - if you're grading it from the point of view of the base coin, then it's damage to the base coin; if you're grading it from the perspective of the coin as a counter-stamped issued coin, then it's not necessarily damage to the base coin since it's used as a planchet (a coin-planchet hybrid!).

 

Exactly. But by putting their Official mark (the damage ) they changed the coin's originality and usually its denomination & country.

 

Ya, that's a part of why I left U.S. With my tokens I rarely if ever grade them, and then it's always AU, MS, EF, etc. with damage noted.

 

True.. I've seen coins such as the Bank of England and Anguilla dollars described as F planchet VF C/Strike etc... I Do think chops are damage but highly collectible, the countermarked coins on the other hand are a grey area because the host becomes irrelevant the countermark gives the coin a new value and in most cases a new country.

Such as my Bank of England overstrike.

 

In theory, that's another good point. When was this coin damaged, before it was counterstamped or after? And as I said, a purist would not be incorrect calling the counterstamp damage. In cases like this, I believe all the major TPGS's straight grade the coins. However, there are different opinions as to whether the "planchet" coin is graded or just the counterstamp!

 

@iPen I think you may be adding an unnecessary consideration to the equation when you describe the under coin as a planchet rather than a struck coin with all its wear/non wear and problems (hairlines, scuffs, etc.).

 

I'm stating that it's a hybrid, though that was a later assertion from my initial inquiry.

 

Very valid point. We all know the countermark on most coins is all that really matters but at the end of the day when you have the choice between say a worn VG Mo host Bank of England oval countermark. And an EF Mo you would always pick the higher grade. My Jamaica 10 pence isn't a high grade but it's what it is makes me keep it !

 

Originally, ANACS slabbed countermarks, counterstamps, whichever, as 'problem' pieces.

I am searching for one of my 'problem' ANACS slabs.


Today: They slab them clean, if no problems.

I discussed this with them at the last ANA, and they decided to do this some years ago.