Hey Gang! I recently acquired this piece. I am familiar with adjustment marks in early American coinage. These are marks that result from the mint workers adjusting the weights of the planchets by filing a little metal off. The resulting marks would show up on the struck coins. If I was a betting man I would bet that these marks on this Charlotte $2.5 were adjustment marks. Or is it just damaged? Question... Has anyone ever seen adjustment marks this late in American coinage? Being a branch mint I wouldn't put adjusting planchets out of the realm of possibilities. I just wanted to get some thoughts from anyone more familiar with Charlotte gold.
These are more than likely from post mint damage. Adjustment marks are not typically found on pieces after 1840-45. If they were adjustment marks, they should not be this clearly defined. Adj. marks are usually only this visible on larger denominations/sizes of coinage gold/silver. Smaller coins came out better, with fewer remaining adjustment marks, because not as much force was needed to ensure that the metal flowed completely against the die surfaces during stirking. Gold coins came out better because gold is a softer metal than silver, so the striking force didn't need to be as strong to obliterate the file marks. These marks are parallel and none are bisecting. edit to add: It's still a coin I' be proud to own.
My reasoning behind thinking adjustment marks is the lack of metal displacement inside the markings. A normal scratch as we all know pushes the metal out of it's way as it digs into the coin... leaving a mark with high edges... I didn't really see that here and as I get some time this afternoon I'll get some more pics and show you what I'm seeing. It very well could be post mint damage the marks just look very strange to me.
I'd go even furhter than CPD and say that adjustment marks are not found, ever, on US coins after 1840. And you will find very dang few of them on coins of that date even. Most are found on coins dated 1821 or earlir. By 1840 the practice had been done away with. Any planchets found to be out of weight were simply sent back for melting and re-fabrication. And adjustment marks on gold, especially small gold, is extremely unusual because striking would wipe out any adjustment marks due to gold being softer than all other coinage metals and thus flowing better. And the smaller the coin, the less likely it is. Regarding the 1851-C - it is very seldom found without these heavy striations. The date is known for looking like it came in 8th in an axe fight. edit - that said there are less than 100 of these known. So any example is a find.
Ok, here is a much better picture of the marks... to me these don't look like normal scratches. The striations you refer to Doug, do we know the cause? Because to me at least these are strange marks.
My understanding is that adjustments are done to the planchet BEFORE striking. Therefore I would expect the striations to be in the fields, not across the devices. I'm on the post-Mint damage side. But, yep, certainly strange looking.
This topic was discussed not too long ago on the NGC boards - I highly recommend checking this thread out. A veritable pantheon of numismatic experts weigh in on the subject: http://boards.collectors-society.co...ie+adjustment&topic=0&Search=true#Post3645430
By now you should have read the thread on the NGC forum as well which confirms what was said here. But to answer your question more directly - no we do not know the specific cause. But if you were to read the books by Doug Winter on the C & D mints, you will see confirmed what I have already said about the striations. What we do know is this - -adjustments were not being done during this time period - the smaller the coin, then the more likely it is that any adjustment marks on the planchet will be wiped out by striking - because gold is softer than other metals, and thus flows better during the strike, adjustment marks were rarely found on gold coins Given those three things, whatever the cause of the striations was, they were not due to adjustment marks.
I would say they are not adjustment marks, but I would also say that they were in the planchet before striking. They are not post mint. (In the early years adjustments were made by file across the face of the planchets but in the later years when planchets manufacturing resulted in planchet weights being closer to tolerance, adjustment were normally just done as touch ups on the edge of the planchet.) Actually the adjustment marks show up more strongly on the devices. Since the fields are the highest parts of the die they make contact with the adjustment marks first and then crush and flatten them as the fields are pressed into the planchet. The marks in the area of the devices are subjected to less pressure, and in some cases the die cavities do not even fill completely so the adjustment marks in those areas may receive NO flattening and show strongly. In fact ne way to tell if marks were in the planchet or if it is post mint damage is to look and see if the marks run all the way down the devices to the field and whether they are visible in a crushed form running across the field in protected areas. On post mint damage the marks typically do not go all the way to the edge of the devices and field. The marks stop and jump across the protected field area to the device on the other side and does not touch the junction of field and device there either.
Not that my opinion should count for much, but everything conder says both makes sense and jives with what I know and see on this coin.
You would think so - except for these 2 things. - the smaller the coin, then the more likely it is that any adjustment marks on the planchet will be wiped out by striking - because gold is softer than other metals, and thus flows better during the strike, adjustment marks were rarely found on gold coins No matter what caused them, the likelihood of the marks being in the planchet is diminished by the above. And since the striations are well known to be on the majority of C mint coins in all denominations, I think it more likely that they were caused by some kind of post mint damage. No idea what though, and there is nothing in any book that I know of that explains it. But the books do consider them to be post mint damage.
Doug - the important fact which diminishes the importance of your points, especially point number 1, is the fact that C and D gold is notorious for being crudely struck. Weak strikes, incomplete strikes, and crudely made dies are the rule for these coins - not the exception. Thus, it is completely plausible that the strike would not have erased pre-striking marks - especially marks as deep as the ones on the coin shown.
I can only report what is written in the books which were written by people who know far more about it than any of us.
