Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinman1974, post: 842003, member: 12193&quot;]Hello, </p><p><br /></p><p>I have been looking through the only source I have concerning undertyping, and that is Breen&#039;s Encyclopedia of Half Cents. I understand your looking for large cents, but do hope some of my limits research will be of some small help. </p><p><br /></p><p>What my research, from a limited source, tells me is this. These were not common, and where mainly due to tokens being used as coinage. However in the same note, it does appear that not only where tokens used but planchets from different manufactures. The manufacture does seem to have significance in regards to undertyping. Not sure if this is correct but does appear that planchets from Talbot, Allum, and Lee tokens were highly subject to undertyping. Additionally Breen mentions several times low quality control at the mint, when these coins were produced. Just so you know i have not read the book cover to cover, so this could be mentioned in other area&#039;s as well. </p><p><br /></p><p>Below is a page list of what i found on said pages. i do hope some of this is useful. If not i thoroughly enjoyed researching this, as this is my first day back in the hobby after over a year long absence.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><u>1795</u> Pg 140 Breen explains that over struck coins where not counted, due to not given an edge at the mint. They are always over weight, and some have token trace designs. </p><p><br /></p><p><u>1795</u> Pg 156 Talbot Allum, and lee planchets. Almost always show traces of undertyping, mostly ships rigging. </p><p><br /></p><p><u>1797</u> pg 183 Widest Date and Border, Widest Half. Breen states Plainest near date, in reference to undertying. Additionally later mentions &quot;catalogs in the past have tended to pay little to no attention to undertypes&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p><u>1797</u> Pg 186 in regards to ths year Breen stats&quot; Impossible to determine where planchets came from due to wear&quot;. Later he states &quot;Collectors more concerned with Grade and undertyping&quot;. </p><p><br /></p><p><u>1800</u> Pg 199 Briefly states 4 known undertypes</p><p><br /></p><p><u>1802-0</u> Pg 204 In regards to this year Breen states &quot;Undertypes rarely visible, and to date unattributable&quot;. </p><p><br /></p><p><u>1803</u> Pg 211 Breen mentions in regards to undertyping &quot; None found to date&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><u>1804</u> Pg 254-255 Breen mentions &quot; Twoo known with double profile, one with undertyping..&quot;Another mention on Pg 255 states &quot; Don Frederick has reprted one with Double Profile and the border of a cent under struck&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p>Pg 467 Chapter titled Whoops. I read this as i was hoping to find a definition or how rare undertyping was. All i found was Breen mentioning How to grade different half cent errors, and the different scales that have been considered. Nothing really of importance sadly. </p><p><br /></p><p>Pg 481Breen here gives a examples of what understuck coins are, though i am sure you know this already. Breen states &quot; Understuck [eg. off center, brockage, or double struck tokens].</p><p><br /></p><p>Pg 482 Breen again mentions low quality control as to reason for understuck coins. </p><p><br /></p><p>That is all can I find. I do hope it is of some assistance in answering your question. Do know i am not an expert, and hope i have not misquoted Breen in any way. </p><p><br /></p><p>Regards, </p><p>Stan[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in