Chop Marks vs PMD

[jnesbitt82]

Today PCGS posted a coin on their Facebook page. It was an 1873-S. trade dollar with an AU-53 grade. Now the coin itself defenitly has appeal and to trade dollar collectors, it would be the perfect coin to fill an empty hole in their collection. My issue with this coin is it has several stamped marks on the obverse referred to as "chop marks". Chop marks are symbols that are stamped into coins by merchants to verify the weight. In my personal opinion, even though they serve a purpose, chop marks are nothing more than post mint damage. With that being said, I do not believe PCGS should issue a grade on coins with chop marks. Now I could see the coins being certified, (Genuine with AU Characteristics), similar to how they treat cleaned coins. After all, a cleaned coin is considered PMD is it not? So what do you guys say, do I make a valid point, or am I wrong in my understanding of chop marks and coin grading in general?

Here is a link to the coin in question:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151638613394193&set=a.250704594192.139126.195737404192&type=1&theater

And for more information on chop marks, check out this link:

http://www.pcgsblog.com/?s=Chop

[liveandievarieties]

No different than how they grade flowing hair and capped bust coinage- It was standard practice for coin collectors to clean their coins before the modern era of collecting. As a result, the majority of early silver coinage (and copper for that matter) has been cleaned at one time.

If grading companies held that against a coin (what happened 150 years ago when it circulated) the population of the coin available to the collector would be a fraction of what it is.

Now look at the coin in your second link- it's gorgeous! Quite impressive. Are you saying that this coin should be called uncollectible and rendered nearly worthless as damaged?

To the contrary, I think that the chops add history and intrigue. Cleanings on old Bust coins are the norm. If we get so picky that most coins aren't collectible, this will be an even more expensive hobby.

[Antiquity]

I think that the chops add history and intrigue.

I agree with this statement. I wouldn't mind having a couple in my collection, just haven't come across any yet.

[coppercoins]

The big difference between the chop marks and cleaning and other damage is that the chop marks were a sort of "authentication" mark back in the day, and they were more or less "expected" on coins that went to the orient. They are not damage, rather a form of counterstamp. Cleaning and other stuff is unexpected damage.

[liveandievarieties]

How familiar are you with early bust coinage? I could point out cleanings on well over 50% of Capped Bust halves in PCGS holders. I'm not an expert on the series, but I've talked at length with several members of the John Reich Society, a group that I'd call "nuttier about coins than even LCR members".

My point is that an OLD cleaning isn't held against an early 19th century coin, just like a chop mark isn't- because it was standard practice and is to be expected on the many, many if not the majority of coins.

[jnesbitt82]

History and intrigue is one thing, and I don't mean to suggest that these coins are worthless by any means. But let's be honest, if you have your choice of the coin in the first link with all of the chop marks or an identical coin without the chop marks, would anyone here honestly pick the coin with the damage? And again, I'm not suggesting that these coins are worthless, but they do have damage. I also understand that they are just counter stamped, but if I sent a 1909-S VBD with a counter stamp on it to PCGS, more than likely, I would get it back in a body bag not a graded slab.

[jnesbitt82]

How familiar are you with early bust coinage? I could point out cleanings on well over 50% of Capped Bust halves in PCGS holders. I'm not an expert on the series, but I've talked at length with several members of the John Reich Society, a group that I'd call "nuttier about coins than even LCR members".

My point is that an OLD cleaning isn't held against an early 19th century coin, just like a chop mark isn't- because it was standard practice and is to be expected on the many, many if not the majority of coins.

Perhaps I was wrong to use cleaning to make my point. I was just trying to point out that other coins have been denied a grade due to even less damage than what a chop mark makes.

[Antiquity]

There was a chop marked trade dollar on the show pawn stars I just remembered seeing, it was in a NGC details slab because of the chop.

[jnesbitt82]

There was a chop marked trade dollar on the show pawn stars I just remembered seeing, it was in a NGC details slab because of the chop.

I haven't seen that episode. I just seen PCGS post that coin today with the AU-53 grade and it struck me as odd. I could be wrong in my assumption of chop marks, but this has been an interesting discussion non the less.

[admrose]

Chop marks are unique to Trade Dollars and for that reason I consider them to not be PMD. PCGS treats them as a variety seperate from trades that do not have any. I think they add character to a trade dollar. In fact I consider ones that don't have them to be rather boring as most likely they never made it out of the US.

[coppercoins]

Yes, try to remember that these were minted solely for the purpose of trading overseas. Whatever is normal for their coins should be accepted as normal here in grading them. Chop marks on the coins were a normal part of trade in coins when they were minted, and for many years thereafter.

[liveandievarieties]

In a nutshell, if alteration was standard practice at the time the coin circulated, it's often not counted against the coin, but rather lends to it's authenticity.

Understanding why PCGS doesn't net grade Chop Marks is key to appreciating them. Not everyone appreciates chops, but there's a real reason it doesn't end up in a genuine holder.

[willbrooks]

In a nutshell, if alteration was standard practice at the time the coin circulated, it's often not counted against the coin, but rather lends to it's authenticity.

Understanding why PCGS doesn't net grade Chop Marks is key to appreciating them. Not everyone appreciates chops, but there's a real reason it doesn't end up in a genuine holder.

Similarly, it was standard practice to cut up pieces of 8. Now that's some real damage! Yet, it was part of the gig back then. I agree the chop marks shouldn't hurt the grade, and actually add history and intrigue into the coin.

[admrose]

Similarly, it was standard practice to cut up pieces of 8. Now that's some real damage! Yet, it was part of the gig back then. I agree the chop marks shouldn't hurt the grade, and actually add history and intrigue into the coin.

Funny I was thinking the same thing about the pieces of eight.

[jnesbitt82]

In a nutshell, if alteration was standard practice at the time the coin circulated, it's often not counted against the coin, but rather lends to it's authenticity.

Understanding why PCGS doesn't net grade Chop Marks is key to appreciating them. Not everyone appreciates chops, but there's a real reason it doesn't end up in a genuine holder.

I like this answer.