> > > A little known fact is that when the government redeemed the Trade dollars,
> > > they refused any with chopmarks, leaving literally millions of coins in the
> > > lurch. So, to find buyers the sellers created the myth that chopmarks added to
> > > the collector value of the coins. If you like chopmarks, fine, but don't pay a
> > > premium for them. Nobody can guarantee that your chops are "genuine."
> > > Alan Herbert
> > Well, sure, chops can't be guaranteed, but that story doesn't make sense
> > to me. Why would somebody take a perfectly fine trade dollar and add
> > chops, thereby decreasing it's value?
> Recall, what timeframe Alan is indicating here. Back then a trade dollar was just
> another dollar, albeit 4 grains heavier. If a trade dollar arrived aboard a
> merchant ship with a chopmark and a bank refused it, how would you get rid of it?
I wouldn't start running around town crying "Look here! Rare chopmarked
dollars! Only a $1.25!" Not worth the effort. Not likely to find a
buyer. If there is some published account that there was some kinda
market premium for chopmarked dollars in those days, then I'll beleive
it. Most likely people sold or traded them for their bullion value,
whatever that may have been, and took a loss.
> Typically the merchants in the orient were more interested in silver by weight and
> suspicious of new designs. The trade dollar met with limited success. Perhaps an
> interesting couple of chops to say "lucky" or "good fortune" would make them
> interesting as a novelty.
To whom? The merchants in the orient? Fine, but that would still have
been a contemporary chop. Or did you mean to collectors in the US? Okay,
but there was an already abundant supply of chopped dollars to serve as
novelties. Why the need to create more? And if it was common knowledge a
chopped coin couldn't be redeemed at a bank, why take a redeemable
dollar and chop it, in a risky attempt to get $2 for it, when it's
unlikely there would be any takers? Alan seemed to be implying that
chops were added later to make coins worth more. I don't disbelieve that
people may have said chopped coins were worth more, but that would have
been for their already chopped coins. Obviously, those people were aware
that wasn't true and that they were better off leaving any unchopped
coins in their possession to remain that way.
> > . I think
> > people concerned with getting rid of their chopped dollars would've been
> > content just getting their bullion value from someone.
> Assuming the price of silver wasn't less than face.
But they weren't going to get a dollar from the government anyway,
people would've taken anything close to a dollar. Just seems to me if it
was common knowledge the things weren't worth face, that there would be
very few buyers of them at a premium.
Sent via Deja.com