I've been looking for the "right" 1864 Small Motto 2 Cent piece for some time now. I have seen several that have the issues I see on this coin which is a NGC AU-58 CAC. This is not my coin. I was hoping someone could provide some insight into this or direct me to a reference that would. If you observe the ST of TRUST it looks like it was struck with a filled die. I have seen several 1864 SM coins with this look. Also, the leftmost leaves of the wreath appear to be extremely poorly struck to go along with some wear. Is this common for this issue? Normally I buy a reference book for anything I'm going to invest in but I have neglected this one so far.
I just ordered the Kevin Flynn book on 2 Cent pieces. Might be in tomorrow. But it may well not address the issues I've raised. Anyone that can offer insight into striking issues on this type would be greatly appreciated.
Seems to me I've seen the same as you, although not many examples with the weakness you reference. When I did see it, I think I attributed it to a rusted die.
I saw another 1864 SM yesterday from a respected dealer with a very weak WE which the dealer attributed to a filled die as the weakness of WE did not correspond at all to the overall level of wear. Maybe, but it seems a bit unlikely that these dies would have rusted as the 1864 SM obverses were the first of the 2 cent dies to be used and were not ever used again. That said, the area does have the look of a rusted die.
Try and tag @PennyGuy Bill Anderson is one of the best sorces for the US two cent piece. His collection has been on display at Whitman show, and placed in the competition. Most probably thoughout Michigan. Im 100% sure Bill can answer any and all questions on the two cent pc.
Rusted or pitted die sounds about right. I say take the time to find another, personally, this would be too distracting for me.
Oh yeah, this is not the right coin for me. The grade and the green bean work for me but not the actual coin. Saw a nice AU55 CAC at FUN but didn't like the price. Gotta keep looking.
I’m not sure when Judd 366 was minted, but my guess is that it pre-dated small motto business strikes by roughly one year. I’ve yet to convince myself they were not both struck with the same obverse die.
I think that would be determined by whether the die was clean at that time. I have a CWT struck with a rusted die. It shows as an added orange peel texture.
Received the Flynn book one day after I ordered it from Amazon, brand new for $28. Here's what Flynn has to say about your suspicion. I have necessarily condensed and paraphrased his commentary in the interest of brevity: A Small Motto master hub was created to make the obverse working die for the Small Motto pattern coins. That same Small Motto master hub was used to make a second working die for Small Motto business strikes. There are no differences between the Judd 366 pattern obverse and the 1864 SM proof obverse showing the same doubling and date position. The 1864 SM business strike obverse is the same design as the pattern/proof and only shows the lack of doubling and a difference in the date position showing that they both came from the same hub. (Dates were hand-struck into working dies of both pattern/proof and business strike dies) This was done before the final design was approved for the coinage. The pattern working die was used to strike proofs to satisfy collector demand so all 1864 Small Motto proof obverses are the same as the patterns. The business strikes of the 1864 SM used the one working die but this design was not the approved design for the coinage so only a few coins were struck from this obverse before the approved Large Motto design was implemented and striking began. Flynn doesn't say anything regarding my original question of strike quality except to say that the SM is usually well-struck. As to rusting of the 1864 SM obverse working die: Judd 366 and other pattern coins struck from the 1864 SM pattern/proof working die were all struck in early 1864. The proofs struck from the pattern die were all struck in early 1864. So, if the 1864 SM business strike obverse die was struck at the same time as the pattern/proof die, then that business strike obverse die would have sat around unused from early 1864 until business striking began in late April, 1864. Could it have rusted in this short time frame? Maybe. But there are plenty of business strikes that don't show any evidence of rusting and there was only one die so I don't think the evidence points to a rusted die. Thanks for eveyone's input. Spurred me on to do some research and buy the book.
Evidence always trumps logical conjecture. Great example that is much more clearly the result of a rusted die.
