Read all about the Grand Numismatic Alliance
Started by Quant.Geek, December 11, 2012, 03:05:35 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Figleaf on March 13, 2013, 06:41:57 PMI understand the fussiness over the hairlines. However, this is a coin with clear and sharp details. It will do very well for any kind of research and it will satisfy the curiosity of your non-numismatic visitor, who will not even notice the hairlines.What more do you want?The culture of "harsh cleaning" dictates that this coin is lost forever etc. That is highly exaggerated, to say the least and completely and utterly irrelevant if you are not going to sell it. We accept wear, which does a lot more damage, with equanimity, but start shrieking over similar, but less intrusive damage because it was done by a collector? How rational is that? Why shouldn't we enjoy a coin like this for what it is: a beautiful specimen of an interesting type someone cleaned in the past.Peter
Quote from: alglasser on March 14, 2013, 11:03:56 PMHello Quant.Geek. I hope you have feverishly returned to collecting!!!
Quote from: alglasser on March 14, 2013, 11:03:56 PMI did a bit of research on the term "Trime" and apparently, it did apply slightly to the 3 cent silver pieces mentioned in an earlier post, but interestingly, not the 3 cent "nickel" pieces. The silver 3 cent coins were issued in large numbers to replace the then currently circulated Mexican Cuartillas (1/4 real=3 1/8 cents) and for reals and medio reales (equal roughly to 2 and 4 of the silver 3 cent pieces). Although the silver 3 cent pieces circulated heavily (thus most are very well worn) they became unpopular as they were discolored and filthy and were easily lost because for their small and thin size. They obtained the nickname of "fish scales". Then Mint Director Ross Snowden coined the term "trime" (pardon the pun) but the term was pretty much limited to coin collecting circles. The nickname did not carry over to the 3 cent nickel pieces. (Thanks to Walter Breen and "Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins".)
Quote from: Buffalosoldat on March 16, 2013, 02:59:10 AMI heartily agree. I'm even taking the view that less common coins that happen to have been holed in the distant past are not total write-offs. I'm in NZ, and when you think about people making a weeks-long ocean voyage, putting a hole in their coins to put them on a string would not be unreasonable. Yes, the hole sucks, but now it's part of the coin's story.