Braddick- I disagree with you on this. I consider a chopmark to be post mint damage. I dont buy the argument that chops are ok because it’s part of their story. If I take a hammer and smash it on a coin or put a coin on the railroad tracks and watch a train run over. That then becomes part of that coins story too. It is equivalent in my opinion. I dont think pcgs should have started to straight graded them and cac should have declined to sticker them. Obviously there will be many who disagree.
I guess I can see how some might get pleasure out of studying them to find out where they have been and what some of them mean. But definitely not something I’d want in my collection. And certainly not something I’d be willing to spend more money then the same coin without chops.
Braddick- I disagree with you on this. I consider a chopmark to be post mint damage. I dont buy the argument that chops are ok because it’s part of their story. If I take a hammer and smash it on a coin or put a coin on the railroad tracks and watch a train run over. That then becomes part of that coins story too. It is equivalent in my opinion. I dont think pcgs should have started to straight graded them and cac should have declined to sticker them. Obviously there will be many who disagree.
I guess I can see how some might get pleasure out of studying them to find out where they have been and what some of them mean. But definitely not something I’d want in my collection. And certainly not something I’d be willing to spend more money then the same coin without chops.
@SeatedNut Apples to oranges with the train tracks analogy. That could be any kid on any tracks for any reason other than commerce since it cost them money for the privilege. Chops on the other hand are a remnant of commerce as intended and proof of a global journey and very much an artifact of trade practices of long past eras in exotic locations. Some are very visually appealing too.
as to should a chop cost more than an unmutilated example that is at the discretion of the market. Bearing in mind that a correlation to history is often a value add in antiquities but so is condition. It is often case by case and most of the time they are not more valuable.
here is a fun account for those who would like to look at some amazing examples such as one of the finest known 1855s half (UNC details chopped), 1870cc Seated dollar chopped and much more. https://instagram.com/chopmarkedcoins?utm_medium=copy_link That’s is an important coin with fascinating history
I realize there are many people that love chops on their coins and the market does a good job of sorting the prices out. Like I said I can see how it might intrigue someone to research the meanings of the chops and any information they can find about them. That being said My opinion stands. Maybe the train analogy was not a god one. The point was that it’s post mint damage.
I’m sure you probably know way more then me about chops and the history of the Trade dollar. Am I assuming wrong that these were intended to be sent overseas for merchants to trade for goods. They were not minted with the intention to be slammed with a hammer or whatever else was used to make the chops. Asian merchants surly intended to chop them to ensure they were real silver but that’s not what the US mint intended… right?
No different then if I own a small shop and I decide to slam an x into pre 1982 pennies to confirm that they are copper and not zinc. Again not the best analogy but you get my point.
Crypto
I realize there are many people that love chops on their coins and the market does a good job of sorting the prices out. Like I said I can see how it might intrigue someone to research the meanings of the chops and any information they can find about them. That being said My opinion stands. Maybe the train analogy was not a god one. The point was that it’s post mint damage.
I’m sure you probably know way more then me about chops and the history of the Trade dollar. Am I assuming wrong that these were intended to be sent overseas for merchants to trade for goods. They were not minted with the intention to be slammed with a hammer or whatever else was used to make the chops. Asian merchants surly intended to chop them to ensure they were real silver but that’s not what the US mint intended… right?
No different then if I own a small shop and I decide to slam an x into pre 1982 pennies to confirm that they are copper and not zinc. Again not the best analogy but you get my point.
There were multiple types of chops to include testing for silver or simply to brand or account for. They were intended to be chopped at their destination or at least acknowledged it would happen as the US gov put into the legislation that once chopped they could not be redeemed back home in any manner.
the practice goes back a long way and didn’t stop until the early 20th cen when it was banned during the Great Leap Forward
Braddick- I disagree with you on this. I consider a chopmark to be post mint damage. I don't buy the argument that chops are ok because it's part of their story. If I take a hammer and smash it on a coin or put a coin on the railroad tracks and watch a train run over. That then becomes part of the story of that coin too. It is equivalent, in my opinion. I don't think pcgs should have started straight-grading them, and CAC should have declined to sticker them. There will be many who disagree.
I guess I can see how some might get pleasure from studying them to find out where they have been and what some mean. But not something I'd want in my collection. And certainly not something I'd be willing to spend more money than the same coin without chops.
Your position is solid, and it isn't easy to discount any of your points. Is there any other type of "damage" done outside the mint that allows a coin to be straight graded outside of chopmarks? I suppose there is not. CAC doesn't sticker mint errors, I believe(?). Perhaps stickering chopmarked coins was an error, and PCGS graded them.
Braddick- I disagree with you on this. I consider a chopmark to be post mint damage. I don't buy the argument that chops are ok because it's part of their story. If I take a hammer and smash it on a coin or put a coin on the railroad tracks and watch a train run over. That then becomes part of the story of that coin too. It is equivalent, in my opinion. I don't think pcgs should have started straight-grading them, and CAC should have declined to sticker them. There will be many who disagree.
I guess I can see how some might get pleasure from studying them to find out where they have been and what some mean. But not something I'd want in my collection. And certainly not something I'd be willing to spend more money than the same coin without chops.
Your position is solid, and it isn't easy to discount any of your points.
Is there any other type of "damage" done outside the mint that allows a coin to be straight graded outside of chopmarks?
I suppose there is not.
CAC doesn't sticker mint errors, I believe(?). Perhaps stickering chopmarked coins was an error, and PCGS graded them.
The 1804 Dexter bust dollar is straight graded. He added the letter D on it. If I put my initials on a coin, I don't think Pcgs would like it. Anyhow, I don't think it has a cac sticker.
Braddick- I disagree with you on this. I consider a chopmark to be post mint damage. I dont buy the argument that chops are ok because it’s part of their story. If I take a hammer and smash it on a coin or put a coin on the railroad tracks and watch a train run over. That then becomes part of that coins story too. It is equivalent in my opinion. I dont think pcgs should have started to straight graded them and cac should have declined to sticker them. Obviously there will be many who disagree.
I guess I can see how some might get pleasure out of studying them to find out where they have been and what some of them mean. But definitely not something I’d want in my collection. And certainly not something I’d be willing to spend more money then the same coin without chops.
@SeatedNut Apples to oranges with the train tracks analogy. That could be any kid on any tracks for any reason other than commerce since it cost them money for the privilege. Chops on the other hand are a remnant of commerce as intended and proof of a global journey and very much an artifact of trade practices of long past eras in exotic locations. Some are very visually appealing too.
as to should a chop cost more than an unmutilated example that is at the discretion of the market. Bearing in mind that a correlation to history is often a value add in antiquities but so is condition. It is often case by case and most of the time they are not more valuable.
here is a fun account for those who would like to look at some amazing examples such as one of the finest known 1855s half (UNC details chopped), 1870cc Seated dollar chopped and much more. https://instagram.com/chopmarkedcoins?utm_medium=copy_link That’s is an important coin with fascinating history
@Crypto makes an interesting point. The marks were acquired from the coins being used as intended in commerce. Should we also then straight grade coins with 'L' stamped on them? Checking weight and rejecting light examples was part of the normal life cycle of a gold coin.
They were not minted with the intention to be slammed with a hammer or whatever else was used to make the chops. Asian merchants surly intended to chop them to ensure they were real silver but that’s not what the US mint intended… right?
Actually, I think that's exactly what the U.S. mint expected/intended. By 1873, large silver coins sent to Asia had been chopmarked for well over 100 years. Trade Dollars were minted to compete with large Mexican silver coins that U.S. merchants, until then, had to purchase in order to trade with Asian merchants. Mexican silver was regularly chopmarked. The mint knew what was going to happen to Trade Dollars once used in the Asian trade; it was no surprise.
To me, It doesn’t matter if the US expected Asians to chop them or not. The coin was damaged at some point after minting.
I understand your feelings about chop marked or as you say damage on U.S. coins being synonymous. And you are absolutely entitled to that opinion and respected for it. I felt exactly the same way. I also felt the same for counterstamped and engraved coinage alike. But I have grown to admire the such so-called damage and enjoy the additional history it presents. And if you would have asked me the question 8 years ago I would have agreed with you, now I emphatically disagree. Change is good!
I like chopmarked coins and coins bearing merchant countermarks and even graffiti (if attractive or interesting). The history/mystery behind such marks can be fascinating. As to whether any of them should be straight graded, I don’t have a problem with it so long as the TPG’s are consistent in their approach. The definition as to what constitutes “damage” to render a coin ungradable appears to be unclear and inconsistent. I think it is harmful to allow some coins to slip by with a straight grade and the “graffiti” qualifier unmentioned (eg the Dexter 1804, which the graders presumably were well aware had a “D” carved into it) than it is to give a coin a numerical grade followed by the “graffiti” qualifier. That way the consumer is provided two relevant pieces of information when making their purchase and the TPG isn’t making a decision as to whether to acknowledge or ignore the graffiti that is unambiguously present. As to whether chopmarked trade dollars should be stickered, I don’t see why not. It’s up to CAC what coins they wish to consider, and if CAC is good with verifying TPG’s on chopmarked trades, then I’m fine with it. I’d certainly be curious to know whether the CAC sticker is purely based on the numerical grade, or whether there is a subjective evaluation of whether the chopmarks are eye appealing?
On a related note, I think it is a good development that PCGS will finally straight grade 1815 and 1825 bust quarters bearing E and L countermarks. The origin and purpose of these marks remains a mystery, but there are actually good arguments that these marks could have potentially been placed on these coins by the mint. The reverse of these coins does not show damage from the counterstamp, which indicates the letters may have been applied to the coins while they were in the hub. Anyways, if PCGS is going to straight grade chopmarked trades, it seems consistent at least that they now straight grade these quarters. I don’t believe CAC is currently willing to review these countermarked quarters, but I think the should strongly consider doing so.
If the coin is rare and therefore expensive in unmolested condition, I don't mind an attractive chopmarked coin if the price is low enough. I purchased this coin (I grade it at VF35) for $399 right after being the underbidder for an EF40 that sold for $1470. Could this coin be straight graded?
I think Chop Marked Trade Dollars are awesome. Finding one CACed would be very welcomed by me. With Chop Marks it’s as if the coin has really fulfilled its purpose in life.
I just checked the CAC database and it appears I have the single lowest graded Trade dollar with chops that CAC has given a green sticker to! I don't know if that is good or bad, but it probably just "is".
I just checked the CAC database and it appears I have the single lowest graded Trade dollar with chops that CAC has given a green sticker to! I don't know if that is good or bad, but it probably just "is".
That actually might be a good thing, value could be more for certain collectors.
Comments
Does anyone disagree? I know some consider a chopmark damage, and CAC doesn't sticker damaged coins.
I guess I can see how some might get pleasure out of studying them to find out where they have been and what some of them mean. But definitely not something I’d want in my collection. And certainly not something I’d be willing to spend more money then the same coin without chops.
Apples to oranges with the train tracks analogy. That could be any kid on any tracks for any reason other than commerce since it cost them money for the privilege. Chops on the other hand are a remnant of commerce as intended and proof of a global journey and very much an artifact of trade practices of long past eras in exotic locations. Some are very visually appealing too.
as to should a chop cost more than an unmutilated example that is at the discretion of the market. Bearing in mind that a correlation to history is often a value add in antiquities but so is condition. It is often case by case and most of the time they are not more valuable.
here is a fun account for those who would like to look at some amazing examples such as one of the finest known 1855s half (UNC details chopped), 1870cc Seated dollar chopped and much more.
https://instagram.com/chopmarkedcoins?utm_medium=copy_link
That’s is an important coin with fascinating history
I realize there are many people that love chops on their coins and the market does a good job of sorting the prices out. Like I said I can see how it might intrigue someone to research the meanings of the chops and any information they can find about them. That being said My opinion stands. Maybe the train analogy was not a god one. The point was that it’s post mint damage.
I’m sure you probably know way more then me about chops and the history of the Trade dollar. Am I assuming wrong that these were intended to be sent overseas for merchants to trade for goods. They were not minted with the intention to be slammed with a hammer or whatever else was used to make the chops. Asian merchants surly intended to chop them to ensure they were real silver but that’s not what the US mint intended… right?
No different then if I own a small shop and I decide to slam an x into pre 1982 pennies to confirm that they are copper and not zinc. Again not the best analogy but you get my point.
the practice goes back a long way and didn’t stop until the early 20th cen when it was banned during the Great Leap Forward
Is there any other type of "damage" done outside the mint that allows a coin to be straight graded outside of chopmarks?
I suppose there is not.
CAC doesn't sticker mint errors, I believe(?). Perhaps stickering chopmarked coins was an error, and PCGS graded them.
Anyhow, I don't think it has a cac sticker.
They were not minted with the intention to be slammed with a hammer or whatever else was used to make the chops. Asian merchants surly intended to chop them to ensure they were real silver but that’s not what the US mint intended… right?
Actually, I think that's exactly what the U.S. mint expected/intended. By 1873, large silver coins sent to Asia had been chopmarked for well over 100 years. Trade Dollars were minted to compete with large Mexican silver coins that U.S. merchants, until then, had to purchase in order to trade with Asian merchants. Mexican silver was regularly chopmarked. The mint knew what was going to happen to Trade Dollars once used in the Asian trade; it was no surprise.
I understand your feelings about chop marked or as you say damage on U.S. coins being synonymous. And you are absolutely entitled to that opinion and respected for it. I felt exactly the same way. I also felt the same for counterstamped and engraved coinage alike. But I have grown to admire the such so-called damage and enjoy the additional history it presents. And if you would have asked me the question 8 years ago I would have agreed with you, now I emphatically disagree. Change is good!
I’m all for CAC beaning Trades with Chops .