One tenth silver cent

Hi Onehawk33,

Which image are you referring to? The one I was asking as to whether it looked cu-ni is dated 1850, Variety 127 is from 1851, but it doesn't carry a date ( see post 7).

It might be of interest that Judd mentions a letter from the Director of the mint to Sec. of treasury in 1854 saying the the reason the "ring cent" was not adopted was that the cost of 1. retrieving the silver from the billon would be greater than the billon, and 2. the difficulty in stamping and ejecting coins from the dies, so that most of the value of a formed cent would be in the cost of the striking. ( paraphrased for brevity)

Jim

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

no reply?

 

I spoke with the dealer at the coin show today. He paid for express serviece with NGC, which advertises 48 hour turnarounds. I understand that sometimes it may take a bit longer. They had the coin for 12 days before deciding it was not genuine. This seems a bit curious to me. If it truly is not genuine, it was manufactured many years ago. It is not in mint state condition, more like xf. Why would someone make a copy of such on odd pattern? Considering the length of time they possessed the coin, is NGC uncertain? Other long-time collectors commented "if XYZ had sent the coin in, they would have slabbed it." Any thoughts?

 

it might be one of thoe old copies what were sold openly from original dies?

Ruben