USA: ½ dime 1838, km60, mint mark O and no stars (New Orleans)

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces14853.html



Comments are always welcome and will be taken into account if relevant.

"Not to be confused with the 1838 coin with stars"

It can't be confused with that coin since that coin doesn't exist. There are no 1838 coin with stars with the O mint mark.

Right, the O is there!!!!

Actually now that you removed the reference to the stars the title no longer needs the "and no stars"

Right again

And the coin page and year line changes:

You have it all, well done.

The composition field looks really ugly right now.
Why do you need the 10% copper? The extreme majority of silver coins are silver copper alloys so everybody knows what the rest is.
At least put only the copper in the additional details field not both.

With our current Guidelines...
"The face bearing the name or insignia of the issuer is the obverse"

Obverse and reverse are inverted in this coin.

Cita: "Idolenz"​The composition field looks really ugly right now.
​Why do you need the 10% copper? The extreme majority of silver coins are silver copper alloys so everybody knows what the rest is.
​At least put only the copper in the additional details field not both.

​My counter question would of course be, do we need the truth or just any kind of half truths. Ugliness is a matter of opinion?

Cita: "zegeri"​With our current Guidelines...
​"The face bearing the name or insignia of the issuer is the obverse"
​
​Obverse and reverse are inverted in this coin.

​

So numista is wrong? Please check all of the US coins....

Cita: "Idolenz"​The composition field looks really ugly right now.
​Why do you need the 10% copper? The extreme majority of silver coins are silver copper alloys so everybody knows what the rest is.
​At least put only the copper in the additional details field not both.

​I originally started adding the exact compositions when known to help prevent the "my brass coin looks like bronze" discussions because the "brass" of these coins were actually much lower zinc than typical brasses. I kept doing it because more information is better than less. Even you admit that not all silver coins have copper as the rest. With that said, your point about being ugly is well taken. So....I'll go back and replace the exact composition with "balance copper" since the silver content is already stated. Better?

Cita: "zegeri"​With our current Guidelines...
​"The face bearing the name or insignia of the issuer is the obverse"
​
​Obverse and reverse are inverted in this coin.

​Please see my comment in this post and the replies, reproduced below: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic109017.html

Cita: "rsirian1"​

Cita: "stratocaster"​
​

Cita: "rsirian1"​One statement that I'm having trouble justifying is the statement about obverse/reverse sides. "The conventions used on Numista to determine the obverse and reverse of a coin may differ from other guidelines and may even be in conflict with official mint specifications." It seems to me, if the issuing mint declares which side is obverse and reverse then that should override the Numista guidelines. Otherwise we're left with our description of the side completely at odds with what people find on the mint's own documentation.

​​Thank you, ​rsirian1. Opinions on this topic are divided, and indeed no solution is without flaw. This particular guideline is a synthesis of several forum discussions where there was a relative consensus. In particular:
​​https://en.numista.com/forum/topic99879.html
​​as well as this referee discussion:
​​https://en.numista.com/forum/topic71393.html

​​I understand that compromises have to be made and not everybody will be happy with everything. I'm willing to play by the published rules but it's going to take awhile for me to become comfortable with calling the "heads" of every US standard circulation coin the reverse.

Maybe on new coins following the guidelines makes sense but not on coins that have been in this catalog and all other catalogs with "heads" being heads and "tails" being tails. If the referee wants to swap them that is their right, I guess. I won't.

Cita: "rsirian1"​
So....I'll go back and replace the exact composition with "balance copper" since the silver content is already stated. Better?

As long as you remove the ".900 silver," it will look half decent.
​

Cita: "Idolenz"​

Cita: "rsirian1"​
​So....I'll go back and replace the exact composition with "balance copper" since the silver content is already stated. Better?

​
​As long as you remove the ".900 silver," it will look half decent.
​​

​Just half?
I have to admit I didn't like this when I first saw it but figured if no one complains....

Cita: "zegeri"​With our current Guidelines...
​"The face bearing the name or insignia of the issuer is the obverse"
​
​Obverse and reverse are inverted in this coin.

​The current half dollar features President John F. Kennedy. His portrait has been on the obverse side of the half dollar for many years. Kennedy first appeared on the 50-cent coin in 1964 when the Kennedy half dollar debuted. John F. Kennedy, also known by his initials JFK, was the 35th president of the United States.

I have a feeling the "new" numista definition is going against most old habits. A football game in Euro where you throw the coin "head or tail" to decide which team will play on which side. According to you the "tail" would be the winner.

Citation in graphic form from https://www.usmint.gov/coins/coin-medal-programs/circulating-coins/half-dollar and they ought to know better than some numista members:




Sleep well

Cita: "Idolenz"​

Cita: "rsirian1"​
​So....I'll go back and replace the exact composition with "balance copper" since the silver content is already stated. Better?

​
​As long as you remove the ".900 silver," it will look half decent.
​​

​So you're against a precise composition, why is that? I want to see the silver content of my coins, and also the rest of the alloy, when available. There is nothing "ugly" about the truth, in my opinion.

If you want your "truth" start adding trace amounts of Hg, Au, Sb, Se, Te, Cu, Zn, Fe, and S (that's just for the silver of the alloy) and use ranges of purity.
It is laughable to assume a constant composition of e.g. 89.24% in the 19/20th century. Even today silver bullion has a legal deviation in the low single digits (it's technically possible but in that industry with small profit margins, it would be too expensive).

But petitesses aside the worst thing was the eyesore of double silver purity and that will be changed be rsirian1.

I know it'll be changed. No hard feelings about that.