1795 Half Cent C-2 - Thick or Thin Planchet?

I've got a 1795 Half Cent.
It's in a PCGS slab but labeled only "PCGS XF40/Lettered Edge".
I've ID'ed it definitely as a C-2 variety.

Fuhrman's book has three (sub?)-varieties listed:
- Lettered Edge/Thick Planchet
- Lettered Edge/Thin Planchet
- Plain Edge
Fuhrman has them all listed as variety C-2.

Manley's book has only two varieties listed:
- Lettered Edge (C-2a)
- Plain Edge (C-2b)

My Problem:
I'm not going to crack out my coin.
So it appears that I don't have a way to determine whether it's a Thick or Thin planchet.
Common sense says that it's on a Thick planchet since that variety has an R-3+ rarity.
The Thin planchet variety has an R-8 rarity.

So I'm going to call my coin the Thick Planchet variety.
There doesn't seem to be any other method of IDing it
... EXCEPT MAYBE ...
the "slight die bulging at AME" which my coin has but is not mentioned with respect to the Thin Planchet variety.

Comments?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Kangaroo? Where's the Pics please??

 

I’d need a photo of the coin to make a comment. Lol

 

I am a little thick about this subject.

 

Agree it is most likely the thick planchet, lettered edge if only due to the relative rarities.

The die bulge at MER is part of the early stage degradation of the C-2. Yes, Fuhrman doesn't mention it specifically with regard to the C-2 Thin Planchet Lettered Edge, the C-2 Thick Planchet Plain Edge, or the C-2 Thin Planchet, Plain Edge, the first two are R8 and badly worn. The latter is an R-6.

So, it is reasonable to assume that an early minimal bulging at MER that does not include the A is an early striking of C-2 before the mint reduced the weight with a shift to the thin planchet.

Unless you can see enough of the edge to make a judgement of thick vs. thin, then this is about as far as I can go. Fuhrman says this is possible with experience and judgement but that's not me.

I know you're a EAC member. Maybe take it to the next Convention and show it to the experts?

 

Thanks.
Good thought.
I'm pretty sure I'll go to the Pittsburgh convention next year.
IDing varieties often gives me fits, especially with the large cents from about 1835 through 1856.

 

Weigh the slab. Depending on the generation it will weigh a different amount:

Type 1: Solid Blue-Grey label with rectangular hologram on reverse. = 28.7 grams.
Type 2: Blue/White label with rectangular hologram on reverse. = 28.3 grams.
Type 3: Blue/White label with square hologram on reverse. = 31.6 grams or 28.2 grams.
Type 4 (Current): Blue/White label with strip hologram on reverse. = 25.8 grams.

The thick planchet weighs 6.73 grams, thin planchet weighs 5.44 grams.

 

Thanks.
I considered this but had no info on the slab weights.
Now I do.

 

That is immensely valuable information. Thanks for posting it. Can you confirm a couple of things?

- Avoirdupois weights?
- I assume slab weights are without the coin?
- The slab weights correspond to slab inserts sized for half cents?
- The Type 3 dual weights are for solid vs. pronged inserts?

I decided to run a test on the supplied slab weights, to wit;

Here is my 1797 C-1 in a Type 1 PCGS slab. After calibrating my scale (using avoirdupois), I weighed the slab with coin at 36.82 grams. Fuhrman says the C-1 was struck over cut down Talbot, Allum & Lee tokens and that the weights for the C-1 are inconsistent, ranging from 75 grains (4.86 grams) to 95 grains (6.16 grams).

Using my measured 36.82 grams for my 1797 C-1 slab and subtracting low and high estimates for a 1797 C-1, I arrive at a calculated range of empty Type 1 slabs of 31.96 grams and 30.66 grams.

Comparing that to the stated 28.7 grams results in an error variance of 1.96 grams to 3.26 grams.

I would be happy to entertain critiques of an error in this methodology.

 

Forgot to include photo of my coin on the scale.