Chopmarks vs. Counter-stamp

Thanks for the info, I thought that might be the case. ICG does the same as these types of marks are not considered damage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is similar in concept, but uses paper notes as an example (image below).

If a note during Germany's hyperinflation episode lost its intended value before even being released, and the government/mint decided to stamp it with a higher denomination to keep up with inflation, is that considered damage? Or, is it technically just another step in their "striking" (printing) process?

Now, if it had already been issued, and recalled for whatever duration it was released into circulation, then is it damage and not another step in the striking/printing process for coins/notes?

Similarly, if it's another coin used as a base for counter-stamping, then is the base coin not only a planchet, but also intended to look exactly that way as-is? Whereas, a damaged planchet coin was not intended to look that way when struck; the base coin of a C/S was intended to look that way, otherwise, they would have stamped over the entire coin. So, isn't it the intention of how it should look like when issued that determines if it's a damaged coin? That would mean again that from the perspective of the original base coin, it's damaged; but from the perspective of the counter-stamped coin, it's not damaged (assuming no other damages/Details grade on the coin such as a cleaning/polishing).


Pic from the 'net:

 

yeah, dem there danged feriners autta learn not to mess wit' our here coins

 

As I mentioned before I would say an official issue it moves the goalposts so to speak. As its official damage, I don't see why it would be graded as details for that reason. Like a lot of the West Indian cut, countermarked, plugged and holed coins..

 

IMO, you explained it nicely; however I fear the paper money example may have clouded the waters while trying to cover the bases.

This is the way I think many numismatists look at it: Anytime an "Official" entity such as a government (and as a stretch an organization) defaces an object by ink, stamping, and (you can add something); while SOME can consider it damage, most do not. So, the imprint on the German note, surcharges on stamps, countermarks done by a government on another countries coinage, and even the counter punched Stone Mt. halves are not considered to be damaged items.

 

A little bit of overthinking going on here, I suspect, but what the heck – a good debate to have anyway.

A couple random opinions…

- A German hyperinflationary banknote that has been overprinted or “reissued” as a new note – not damaged but a new issue by means of the (official) overprint. Straight grade. (same for 1923 Costa Rica counterstamped/revalued coins, for example).

- chopmarked trade dollar -”damaged” but displaying some interesting and important history as a result. Collectable in its own right. How to grade? Keep it raw and don’t worry about it, unless you need a “genuine” determination.

I love counterstamped coins, but one critical distinction is whether or not the counterstamp is identifiable as to origin (or at least era) and authenticity. In other words, a prepared punch (all letters, etc. on one punch) vs. the use of individual letters. The issue I have with chop marks is that they seem to be the Chinese equivalent of individual letter punches, and I don’t know how those can definitively be authenticated. If this hurdle can be overcome, then attributing specific marks might one day add great value to these coins.

 

I want to add this one, since it sticks out like a sore thumb: the Australian "holey" dollar. Official Aussie currency, from what I understand, of counter-stamped (counter-punched?) foreign silver coins. I can see how this may have an either love it or hate it following. I, for one, think that it's neat, as I'm thinking that if the counterfactual was to melt them, I'd rather have this instead.

Would you consider this punched out coinage more damage, or equally damaged compared to a typical counter-stamped coin?

Pic from the 'net:

 

I think they just made a "new" coin, not damage.

 

So do we consider the base coin a planchet? It seems to be so technically speaking.

But it's damage in so far as the perspective from the original base coin only, right?

 

Perhaps we can say that while it technically might be called damage by a purist, it really is not? That should make everyone happy.

 

Think of it this way a pure collector of 8 Reales wouldn't buy a Bank of England countermark or overstrike too attain a specific date. Nor would I consider an 8 Reales without one. So in summary official government issued over/count strike is genuine but a chop mark is a metal test and thus damage.

 

But then what if after the counter-stamping, the coin is damaged? For example, if a Mexico City minted 8 Reales coin is counter-stamped by (enter country here), and after it was released, the coin had a significant scratch on the non-counter-stamped portion, is the coin damaged? Or do we ignore that tidbit because there's no way in telling when it was damaged unless the owner did it?

 

But if what? But then what? There are thousands of "But If's." I'll bet we could reach more pages than the: "Should Doug Give Me A Like" thread just writing "But If's."

Perhaps if you were to take a "stab" at your own questions and write your opinion for us to see, the answer to your question might become very clear to you! At the same time you'll be educating others.

 

The premise here is that counter-stamped coins are, absolutely speaking from a technical, factual standpoint, not considered damage in numismatics. Therefore, 'what if' questions are necessarily in order and expected, from the mundane to the obvious. It must be able to withstand scrutiny from the mildest and even wildest inquiries to uphold an absolute numismatic philosophy.

 

But planchet damages aren't considered damage to the coin, per se, right?

So if the base coin is scratched, but the counter-stamping was made over that scratch, then it's not a damaged coin, but a scratched planchet (?).