1800 Dime: Would not be surprised if you tell me it is a fake

Hello GDJMSP,
Numismaster.com says:

Basic Coin Information
KM#31
Denomination-Dime
Country-United States
Coinage Type-Circulation Coinage
Mint-U.S. Mint
Composition-Silver
Fineness-0.892
Weight-2.7 g 0.0774 oz ASW
Diameter-19 mm
Description Obverse-Draped bust right, date at angle below
Description Reverse-Heraldic eagle
Legend ObverseLIBERTY
Legend Reverse-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Designer Obverse-Robert Scot
Designer Reverse-Robert Scot
Notes-The 1805 strikes have either 4 or 5 berries on the olive branch held by the eagle.

Is this not right?
What do you have for Information?

Jim

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

GDJMSP,
My Red Book says 19 mm.

 

Redbook says 19 mm
Breen Encyclopedia says 19.8 mm
Coin World Almanac says 18.8 mm

Breen Encyclopedia says 19mm +/- .2 mm for the large size 1809 - 1828 dimes
Redbook says 18.8 mm for these
CWA also says 18.8 mm

The 1809 -28 are normally considered to be the same size as the early dimes so I would say the figure for the early dimes in the Breen Encylopedia is probably in error and should be 18.8 mm

 

I guess checking the diameter is going to be as useful as a football bat.
How about the magnet test?

On a different note, I just checked the price of Breens Encyclopedia. on amazon.com. They are starting off at $195.93 (American) used and $700.00 new. Is that accurate?

 

To me it looks like it could be either. It's either an excellent cast fake, or a coin from weak dies which has had a bad life. I still don't get why anyone would fake a 1800 in G instead of F though, so I'm looking towards real.

 

I also feel that this is a cast copy of the JR 2 marriage. According to the authors of EARLY U.S DIMES 1796-1837 pg 46-48;
The 1800 var. 2 dime is one of the only varieties of heraldic eagle reverse dimes to be widely counterfeited. All are light in weight, ''display an uneven strike, and show a short horizontal [die crack] extending left of the crossbar of A1 on the reverse.''

''Genuine coins have average strike with central weakness...'' they are also smaller in diameter than the average, authentic 19.9mm.

On the coin in question, the obverse/reverse rims seem a bit raised and appear to be the high points of the piece, the abnormal wear pattern, and the raised pitting points to a cast copy.

On a side note, be careful when referring to Breen and Red Book texts. While they provide a wealth of information covering the vast spectrum of numis.; there are also a lot inaccuracies and errata that have been noted in both. It's usually best to consult several sources in cases such as this.

Although counterfeit, it is still a very interesting piece and is still valuable to a certain niche of collectors.

Sources.
Davis, David J., Logan, Russell J., Lovejoy, Allen F., McCloskey, John W., Subjack, William J., Early United States Dimes 1796-1837 John Reich Collectors Society, Ypsilanti, MI 1984. p. 46-48.

 

You note though that the Dime book apparently repeats the same error in diameter given in he Breen Encyclopedia.

I take that back. From the publishing dates and the fact the language in the two books is almost identical, apparently Breen copied the error from the Dime Book.

 

It depends on which diameter you accept as fact. I would rely on the dime book as the authors combined handled and documented thousands of examples in the research for their text.

In my opinion, on the information regarding the 1800 dime diameter, an acceptable range could be could be .4-6mm of 19.9mm as no collars were used in the pressing of these dimes.

 

I did not think of that. It certainly is a sound point and would very neatly explain the various size differences documented.

 

We really need someone to measure a bust dime. Mine is at home and inside a capital plastic type set holder so it isn't easy to get at. Can someone else help?

And new research shows that they WERE struck in reeded collars. There are no early reeded edge coins known with blundered edges such as you see on the letter edge half dollars (no partially reeded, or overlapped reeds). If you have an edge with an identifiable anomaly such as a wide reed it is always in the same position compared to the obv/rev designs, and off-center coins have plain edges. This would indicate that they were NOT given reeded edges in the Castaining machine either before or after striking. So the reeds must have been imparted by a collar. What would be interesting would be to measure several coins keeping track of the varieties to see what the variability of the diameters actually is, and are the different sizes (if there are differences) grouped by variety? If they are different , but consistent by variety, that would indicate that there were different sizes of collars. Variability within a variety (assuming the marriage was not interrupted) would indicate the use of an open collar. WE NEED DATA!

 

,

 

Not my theory, I was introduced to it by Brad Karoloff who did at least some of th research on it.

 

,

 

Bingo. We have a winner.