This is the documentation, which more or less goes with the 1794 coin
the year lines have to have the modifications concerning the distance of the "four" to the bust. This is first of 4, which were made with harryg. When the high-relief is worn down the "four" will tell collectors, which is which!
If everybody checking this are OK with the foreseen changes, I'll make the CR accordingly and then go to the 1795 coin.
This is all great work. However, a major change occured for this type which is currently ignored, namely the reduction in weight from 1795 onwards. The 1794 ½ cents weighed 104 grains (6.74 g, as given on the page) but the 1795-1797 coins weighed only 84 grains (5.44 g). Perhaps now would be an opportune moment to add this important detail to the page? The weight of the 1 cent coin also changed in 1795, from 208 grains (13.48 g) to 168 grains (10.89 g), so this should be added too. This is all described in older editions of KM but may have been omitted from more recent versions.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ceh2019"This is all great work. However, a major change occured for this type which is currently ignored, namely the reduction in weight from 1795 onwards. The 1794 ½ cents weighed 104 grains (6.74 g, as given on the page) but the 1795-1797 coins weighed only 84 grains (5.44 g). Perhaps now would be an opportune moment to add this important detail to the page? The weight of the 1 cent coin also changed in 1795, from 208 grains (13.48 g) to 168 grains (10.89 g), so this should be added too. This is all described in older editions of KM but may have been omitted from more recent versions.
Hi,
it's not completely ignored, since it's well documented in the Red Book.
I have amended the 1794 documentation with this fact, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better in the year lines?
It's all yours to handle now Ole. But make sure you handle ALL of it. I will not work on it anymore with what was once a collaboration and now essentially interference. Good luck with it. You own it now.
Cita: "harryg"It's all yours to handle now Ole. But make sure you handle ALL of it. I will not work on it anymore with what was once a collaboration and now essentially interference. Good luck with it. You own it now.
Sorry it ended like that, good luck to you in the future as well. If I don't handle all of it well enough, please don't feel obliged to do nothing, it's still for all the collectors (and not for me, neither for you). It's numista and I think we count around 160.000 members by now, so you and I are nothing. Just trying to do the best we can.
Cita: "Sjoelund"Hi,
it's not completely ignored, since it's well documented in the Red Book.
I have amended the 1794 documentation with this fact, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better in the year lines?
I would not put the weights on this graphic. First of all, this is a graphic about the 1794 Normal vs. High Relied Head and both of these were 6.74g. Secondly, it's incorrect. 1795 coins were produced with both the 6.74g planchet (lettered edge) and the thin 5.44 g planchet (plain edge). 1796-1797 were all thin 5.44g planchets.
Cita: "rsirian1"I would not put the weights on this graphic. First of all, this is a graphic about the 1794 Normal vs. High Relied Head and both of these were 6.74g. Secondly, it's incorrect. 1795 coins were produced with both the 6.74g planchet (lettered edge) and the thin 5.44 g planchet (plain edge). 1796-1797 were all thin 5.44g planchets.
I would agree that year lines is better. As I mentioned, 1795 is given as the date of change in older editions of KM but if there was overlap in 1795 then we need year lines for both versions. If the weight change is correlated with the removal of the lettering, that should make things easier since the year lines are already there.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "rsirian1"I would not put the weights on this graphic. First of all, this is a graphic about the 1794 Normal vs. High Relied Head and both of these were 6.74g. Secondly, it's incorrect. 1795 coins were produced with both the 6.74g planchet (lettered edge) and the thin 5.44 g planchet (plain edge). 1796-1797 were all thin 5.44g planchets.
I would agree that year lines is better. As I mentioned, 1795 is given as the date of change in older editions of KM but if there was overlap in 1795 then we need year lines for both versions. If the weight change is correlated with the removal of the lettering, that should make things easier since the year lines are already there.
I believe the weight change in 1795 was correlated with the removal of the lettering.
I think I read somewhere, that when the weight was lowered, the thickness went down and the lettering didn't fit on the slimmer edge as on the thicker coins. Unfortunately I can't find that text any more.
So every time we find a lettered edge, then we also have thicker planchet and thus a different weight?
Cita: "Sjoelund"I think I read somewhere, that when the weight was lowered, the thickness went down and the lettering didn't fit on the slimmer edge as on the thicker coins. Unfortunately I can't find that text any more.
So every time we find a lettered edge, then we also have thicker planchet and thus a different weight?
It would make sense that the collars for the thicker coins couldn't be used when the weight was changed (unlike the dies), so new plain ones were prepared. Leter, reeded or "gripped" edges were used.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "Sjoelund"I think I read somewhere, that when the weight was lowered, the thickness went down and the lettering didn't fit on the slimmer edge as on the thicker coins. Unfortunately I can't find that text any more.
So every time we find a lettered edge, then we also have thicker planchet and thus a different weight?
It would make sense that the collars for the thicker coins couldn't be used when the weight was changed (unlike the dies), so new plain ones were prepared. Leter, reeded or "gripped" edges were used.
I think we'll let the planchet thicknesses rest for a later decision?
Can I make the CR for the 1794 coin, or does somebody want to change the documentation?
Cita: "Sjoelund"I think I read somewhere, that when the weight was lowered, the thickness went down and the lettering didn't fit on the slimmer edge as on the thicker coins. Unfortunately I can't find that text any more.
So every time we find a lettered edge, then we also have thicker planchet and thus a different weight?
In 1795 the weight was lowered by using thinner planchets (diameter and composition were the same). At the same time the edge went from lettered to plain. So high weight=lettered and low weight=plain. This makes sense until 1797 when there were gripped edges and lettered edges but the weight (according to the references I cited above) remained the lighter at 5.44 g.
Examples from NGC:
I think, unless we find evidence that says differently, we have to assume all 1797's are 5.44 g.
