I've been looking at trade dollars. I have found that those that are designated as chop mark tend to sell a little cheaper? Well I had been looking in the xf range 250-300. However I saw one that's an au with chop marks. So my question is would an au chopped be roughly the same price as an xf non chop?
It used to be MUCH more severe than that. Chopmarks are by definition PMD, just like a hole, improper cleaning, whizzing, etc. I think two things are going on. One, a chopmarked coin is worth much less for a numismatically collectible trade dollar, OTOH some people like collecting the chops. They are basically paying for the chopmarks, and the trade dollar is irrelevant. So you really have two different markets going on, and any pricing correlation would be accidental. I do not care which of the two coins you wish to collect sir, I just think you should be aware they are two completely different things. One is a collectible coin, the other collectible countermarks.
Hmm that's an interesting way to look at it. I would agree with you except for the fact that the chop mark is part of the history, chinese use it to authenticate a coin. I've always stayed away from damaged, cleaned, graffiti, detailed coins because like most I feel they ruin the original view of the coin like in most antiques when you clean them. However the chop mark is written into the history of the trade dollar as a series so wether I find one chopped or not, if it appeals to me I might get it cause again it's part of the history and not really "damage" IMO.
I agree, but so are love tokens, right? By definition the chops are PMD sir, that is all I am trying to say. Therefor, if you wish to buy one, just recognize that to a straight US silver dollar collector, they are PMD. To someone who likes chopmarks, though, they are a neat coin. I never said I didn't like them either, just differentiating the two very different markets who buy each.
I completely understand where you're coming from. From a definition stand point they are PMD, I'm just saying they are a little different from a detail grade.
I think I answered a question just like this a week or two ago about Trade dollars, but will do so again. In today's market, a Trade dollar with a chop mark, or multiple marks, typically sells for a shade less than an otherwise problem-free coin. That shade less can be quite a bit less if the coin is mutilated or +/- a percentage to a problem-free coin if the chop(s) is/are neat or in non-obvious places. I do not agree that an AU Trade dollar with a chop mark should automatically be worth a problem-free EF. This is a coin-by-coin basis evaluation. The other discussion about PMD with Trade dollars is also interesting. I agree that chop marks are PMD, but not the same as love tokens. The key distinction between the two is that Trade dollars were specifically produced to gain a percentage of the Asian market and the Asian market had a history of placing chop marks on coins. Additionally, the Trade dollar later became the only US coinage to be demonetized after the Asian market largely rejected the pieces and they came back to the US (or never even left the US). Based on the intended use of the Trade dollar and the customs of those it was produced for, the chop mark does not necessarily fit other forms of PMD. Lastly, Trade dollars with chop marks are much more accepted today, in my opinion, because PCGS and NGC will certify them in problem-free holders. If these coins were placed into details holders or were otherwise considered as damaged by PCGS and NGC then they would sell for less in the market.
I didn't know they would place them in problem free holders. That is a huge error IMHO. Not unless they plan on placing ALL COINS with countermarks in problem free holders. We had a long history in this country of countermarking large cents. Are those in problem free holders as well? I also do not agree its an "asian thing". It was a Hong Kong and a few other areas of China thing to place chopmarks on coins, but it was not universal. In most areas of Asia countermarked coins were done officially to retariff a coin locally, but not by individual merchants en masse. I do like chopmarked coins, I also like countermarked coins. However, unless you treat ALL the same, I just feel its a huge error to treat just one issue differently. Btw, why WOULD is be different than a half dime love token? They were used a LOT to make them, we had a culture of making them on half dimes. I would wager a pretty good percentage of half dimes were treated this way. What is the difference?
I didn't think it would be a large issue to write "Asian market" since Hong Kong and China are considered parts of Asia. It is simply how I wrote it and of course not everyone who might be included in any descriptive market name would treat all coins in the same manner. I'm not here to necessarily defend the decisions of PCGS and NGC, so I won't do that. However, I think we typically see the advent of love tokens with Seated Liberty coinage, yet the US Mint produced FH, DB, CB and RE coin designs prior to Seated Liberty coins. Therefore, it could be that the US Mint was producing coinage a bit before the general time frame of the mass production of love tokens. This sequence of events would be the opposite as seen with Trade dollars since coins were subjected to chop marks in various portions of the Asian market prior to the production of Trade dollars and, as such, a contemporary familiar with those markets might have reasonably expected a certain percentage of Trade dollars to be treated in a manner consistent with prior coinage. It's a subtle difference, but quite profound.
Sorry if you thought I took offense sir. I did not. I simply wished to say that trade dollars circulated in many parts of asia chopmark free. Just three years ago I could have bought an authentic trade dollar in SE Asia grading VG or so chopmark free. So circulating in Asia did not guarantee chopmarks, they were POSSIBLE, but lacking a chopmark does not mean a trade dollar didn't circulate in Asia fulfilling its purpose. I agree about the love tokens being primarily SL series. I do have three from the capped bust series I own. However, I do agree probably 99% are found on SL half dimes versus earlier series. What about merchant countermarks on large cents? Those seem pretty common, and go back to at least liberty cap what I have seen. You do not have to answer, I am just showing its a very fine line between the two, a line I do not believe should have been crossed, unless crossed for all series. But I know that was not your decision.
Merchant countermarks on large cents or silver can be problematic. I guess a point could be made that certain chops might have been performed after a test of weight in order to confirm value whereas countermarks might be thought of as purely advertising tokens. It is definitely a case of where they draw the line.
PCGS have certified over 100 in chop mark trade dollars in regular holders http://coins.ha.com/c/search-result...=40&N=51+790+231+381+4294967160&Ntt=chop+mark
Chop marks on a trade dollar are in a unique position. Trade dollars were specifically created to export American silver to China rather than use the coinage of other countries. As such, the chop mark furthers the original intent of the coinage. Love tokens, advertising marks and all other counter marks, serve secondary functions. Chop Marks are the only alterations that specifically further the original intent of the coinage. Perhaps it can be viewed as a crude and damaging authentication used prior to NCGS green slabs. It therefor seems totally appropriate for PCGS and NCG to certify them as problem free. As I see it Proofs are a bigger divergence of purpose than chop marks. Proofs accentuate the artistic value of a coin but at the expense of it's trade function. I put chop marks in the same class as steel pennies, silver in war nickels, and the clad coinage forced on us because of the devaluation of our money. Each of these is historically important precisely because it is an adaptation to the realities of the times and is an attempt to extend the usefulness of coinage as a medium of trade. In this sense, chop marks increase the numismatic importance of the coin at the expense of it's artistic qualities. Just another point of view, my two cents so to speak. Interesting topic. I am looking forward to other perspectives from this thoughtful group of informed people.
