From the Cassel mint. Many of these Horngroschens from Saxony and Heese were poorly made. Almost as if they left the minters hammer as fine-very fine,.
Thanks for the great info. I can see your point, that the gold coins were kept as collectibles. I know, had I lived in that era, I probably would have collected them. You would have seen me at the mint eagerly awaiting newly struck coins My fav. one is the 1487 Holland AV Real!
I was just commenting on the color as it looks like lead coins from 400 years or so later. Low-grade silver looks about the same. The 3¢ pictures are the same coin, thanks to my lack of any photography skills. It is/was probably a proof. I think some were holed for bracelets and other jewelry pieces since they were so small and attractive to the ladies. Now, a copper-nickel one.
The date on I-101a is at 11 o'clock on the left image. The "6's" are "fat" and almost look like "0's".
The 1870 Three Cent silver could very well have been made as a proof. If your conjecture is correct and it was worn as a charm, it seems odd that the obv. would show more wear than the rev. Either way a truly rare piece.
The 1886 Three Cent nickel is a stunning piece. Proof only at that. Maybe another charm piece. As you said before, if we could only make these pieces talk!!
I was referring to 3¢ pieces over-all. Almost all coins were equal in those days as there were very few collectors. The 1870 has very little wear either side. Remember, my photo skills are practically non-existent. Not all of my coins are nice to look at. The only one I have seen, so it had to be mine.
Don't let "hiding" dates hinder you from collecting these coins. Just add the ones that suit your collecting style. For as long as the date is readable then I am OK with the coin. If the coin is like the 1466 I-101a then I'll buy it with hopes to upgrade later. Trying to obtain as many different coins per Bob's book is the OCD in me. I have passed on many where the date was barely and I mean barely readable. Even if it was a rare date.