Silver Three Cent Pieces(Trimes) (1851-1873) Let's see them

my only two an 1854 mintage 671,000 and a 1862/1 mintage 343,550 combined.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

nice.

I really, really need to get a good set of photos of my primary set (1851-1862 XF).

 

My only one. Currently residing in my 7070

 

Sorry, I only have nickel.

 

My one & only, 1861

 

A taste:


and

 

Only one I got a decent image of

 

Nice color, nice clash.. I like it!

 

Never even noticed the die clash and it's a good one too. I bought it for the color

 

Here's something different Bill a little something I ran across .
The 1861 proof has a repunched date RPD -001
Now the description is repunched 1861/186
Repunch first 1 seen above the tip and to the right of the 1
Repunch 8 seen above and the middle and top of the 8.
Repunch 6 seen above the middle and top of 6.
Now here's what is strange......die markers for this is the same.....the exact same clash as your specimen has!
Which leads me to believe the reverse die used to mint your coin was a proof die, used to strike MS coins. I wish I could show you but trying to copy the image in the book won't show you what I'm saying you need to see it from the books image.
Look below at the III the clash the lines of the shield clash. It's exactly the same ......it's like double vision looking at your coin and the book.

 

I don't think so -

First, that clash is known on many different 3cs.
Second, the 8 of the 1861 proof RPD-001 is significantly to the left, such that it looks like a pregnant lady.
Third, that's counter the usual flow where a proof die continues in use to strike business strikes of the same year. What you are suggesting would require polishing out the 0 of a business strike die and then punching in a 1 and then polishing the die up to proof standards.

I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, ghu knows the mint did some strange things back then, but it doesn't seem plausible.

 

I understand your point but, like you said anything is possible . Looking at that coin posted above and the clash compared to the one pictured in this reference it's dead spot on. The odds just seem crazy that the identical clash be on two coins. Again I'm no expert but as for my eyes they are very good on spotting things as such. And to be honest I collected for over 50 years, mpd, clashes, rpms,and rpd ' s are always on my hit list. And I've never seen that clash before.

 

dang thats an awesome coin!

 

Rotten pics of this one. Has good color in hand. Pcgs was a bit hard on it I think at xf 45. I had it at 50-53

 

Honestly Bill, those pics are so bad, I couldn't argue with VF20 on the reverse. Try using a book or a block of wood to at least hold the phone steady.

But hey, you do what you can with what you got. Most of my coins are imaged with my tablet sitting on a block of wood under the kitchen counter lights. It's fast and good enough to be a record of the coin in my files.

Gilbert, I like the '52. Good strike. Lots of wear (which I love). Some kind of damage between the D of UNITED and the S of STATES. The shield isn't completely worn flat into the star. And there's no sign of PIDT (which 52s are notorious for) from dies that were so horribly overused. Over all it's a nice solid example of the type 1.

 

Thank you Burton. What is PIDT?

 

Progressive Indirect Die Transfer.

Basically even through the planchet, the shock waves transfer between the reverse and obverse dies and microscopically soften and work-harden the dies.

In 1852 they made almost 18.7m coins with only 109 obverse and 94 reverse dies. So basically they went thumpa thumpa thumpa as much as 200K times.

Thus it's common to see an 1852 where the reverse clearly shows a ghost of the obverse star. Less common the other way because of the way the design elements overlap.

TPGs often call them bent, but they aren't.

 

I only own one, for type. NGC MS-67* PL CAC