A Tale of Two Tails, Revisited

August 19, 2009
Posted by John Dale

Our Blogger-in-Chief, Noah Fleisher, is a trifle indisposed today, so he allowed me to fill in for him on the blog, after a good deal of my waving and yelling “Put me in, coach!” (Make sure to leave him a get-well message in the comments section!)

Back in mid-June, I blogged about two-headed and two-tailed coins, covering topics such as the two-tailed Washington quarter and the two-headed (if not identically two-headed) Lewis and Clark commemorative gold dollars, of which we have a few in our upcoming September 2009 Long Beach U.S. Coin Auction.

There’s another fascinating error in the auction, though, a two-tailed coin that comes not from the United States, but across the pond: a one euro cent coin struck with two reverse dies, graded MS63 Red by NGC. It’s an odd little coin, even more mysterious than the average two-headed or two-tailed coin (and that’s saying something).

First of all, nobody knows where exactly it was made or when. Because this is a coin with two reverses, each side shows the “universal” reverse that is common to every coin in the one euro cent denomination, rather than the country-specific obverse. Thus, any country in the Eurozone that struck the denomination could have been its source.

Moreover, because the reverse design was static for a number of years, there is no date either, (though NGC not-so-helpfully suggests a date range from 2000 to 2007, which manages to exclude only a couple of years of coinage for the denomination). There’s just so little information to go on that its place and time of origin likely will never be traced.

The two sides, though identical in design, can be distinguished in a fashion. On the obverse—scratch that, on the side that is aligned with the front side of the coin’s holder—there is a small toning spot on one of the lines below the globe. On the other side, there is no spot in the area. Similarly, the areas of toning found elsewhere do not sync up.

Still, this euro cent error has induced plenty of double-takes, even among veteran numismatists. Whatever happens to it after the auction, whether it goes on to become part of a comprehensive error collection or simply settles down as a fascinating pocket-piece, it will command attention.

To leave a comment (or get-well wishes for Noah), click on the title of this post.

-John Beety

A Half Disme Memory

Aug. 17, 2009
Posted by John Dale

Back in 2001, at the World’s Fair of Money held that year in Atlanta, Georgia, I was the 16-year-old headliner on one of the five teams participating in the year’s World Series of Numismatics, grown-up edition. (There was also a Young Numismatists edition, but I’d signed up for the adult version first, and that was where I stayed.) My goal going in was to not embarrass myself, and at the time, I didn’t; by getting third place out of five teams, at a minimum I acquitted myself.

As for not embarrassing myself now – not so much.

I haven’t gone back to watch the tape (I think it’s somewhere in the ANA video library, though I’m not sure) but if it exists I want to see it, and yet I don’t. I don’t remember how brash, or how snarky, or how… teenager I was, and now part of me never wants to find out. I did pull at least one good memory out of it, though, so here goes!

The moderator asked me a question that I thought was very simple. Doubtless there was far more nuance to the wording than I remember, but the gist of it was: “In what year was the first United States coinage struck?”

Oh, this one is easy, I thought. “1793.”

The moderator told me I was incorrect, and that the answer was 1792. Ahem…did he just say my answer of 1793 was wrong? I went on the counterattack, noting that the Chain cent dated to 1793 and thus my answer was correct.

There was a response from an audience member (I won’t name him since I haven’t asked his permission to do so, but suffice it to say, he knew his stuff and still does!). The half disme of 1792 was the first U.S. coinage, so I was wrong.

"But, but…that shouldn’t count! That’s not a real coin!"

We ended up going back-and-forth until the exasperated moderator tossed out the question and asked me another.

Which of us was right? Should the half disme (pronounce it as deem, think of it as dime) “count”? It depends on whom one asks, and how one puts the question. Were they used as money in practice? The fact that most examples are worn, including the Choice VF one coming up in the September 2009 Long Beach U.S. Coin Auction, suggests that they were indeed used that way.

Were they regular-issue coins? Their inclusion as patterns in the Judd reference suggests no, even though the 10th edition update of Judd states that they “circulated widely as regular issues” and calls the 1792 half disme “most assuredly a coin made for general circulation.” If one believes that a U.S. coin has to be struck at the U.S. Mint, then no, the 1792 half dismes, which were minted on private property, would not count. It all depends on how the question is asked and what the question wants.

There’s little question what collectors want, though – they want 1792 half dismes, regardless of grade. Our April 2006 Central States Signature® Auction bears this out: a holed VG details example brought $14,950 including Buyer’s Premium, while the Specimen 67 representative set a record at $1,322,500. When the Choice VF example on offer at Long Beach comes up for auction, it will fall between those two extremes, but where? Attending the auction, whether on the floor, as a telephone bidder, or via Heritage LIVE!, is the best way to find out!

To leave a comment click on the title of this post.

-John Dale Beety