By Jack D. Young, Early American Coppers (EAC), and the Dark Side Group ……
How many readers have heard of the term “pickle barrel large cent”? One internet definition is as follows, along with AI’s additional thoughts:
So, on to the star of this edition of Dark Corner: a TPG-certified “mint error” 1853 large cent. And unlike many I document in this series, it may not technically be a counterfeit unless it is attempted to be sold as stated on the label…
Pedigreed from the “Mervis Collection”, a huge collection of US large cents, Heritage Auctions sold this particular coin at its 2014 FUN “Signature Auction,” which included 879 lots with PCGS and NGC certified coins. And the coin description according to Heritage:
So, a difference of opinion between the TPG and the Auction House isn’t unusual. NGC describes the coin as the obverse half of split planchet 1853 large cent- a mint error, while Heritage states it is the resulting reverse half from when the coin split after striking and separated during circulation.
Heritage also cites the weight as 13.48 grams. What, with the holder? 13.48 grams is the original weight of 1793 through 1795 thick planchet cents.
Regardless, they both see it as part of a split planchet; fortunately, NGC recorded the weight as “6.7 grams,” a little more than half of a cent, compared to the standard weight of an 1853 cent, 10.89 grams.
So, what is this article about, not just a disagreement between 2 experts, but remember the pickle? I sent images of this one and posted on several forums inquiring if the split planchet “theory” made sense.
First, a friend and early copper dealer (the one who owned this very coin recently) described the coin this way:
“In reality it’s just a pickled coin; Someone let it sit in vinegar which caused the obverse and part of the reverse to corrode that way.”
Three other early copper experts opined that the coin was either acid etched, dipped in acid, or a pickle jar coin.
Two error expert friends stated that the coin shows no striation signs, which are typically found on a split planchet. They’ve never known of a split-after-strike error that left a coin with radial marks, and the coin looked altered to them.
Finally, I heard back from my go-to early copper friend:
“This looks like a classic example of a “pickle” cent. [It] Sat obverse side down in a barrel of pickles. The vinegar acid etches the down side much more than the top side. The radial lines were created as bubbles that slowly moved from the center of the bottom side (obverse in this case).
Supposedly, copper cents were used this way to create a bright green color on the pickles. This might be bullpucky, but I wasn’t there when people supposedly did this. Any prolonged mild acid bath will have a similar effect on a cent. I have seen dozens over the past 60 years.
Well, that was colorful Bob! But to the point… So, there are others, and I looked to other EAC Members to offer images of others so “processed”.
A friend offered the following image of his:
And his comment:
“I didn’t bother with a photo of reverse, but it’s about the same as obverse. Notice the ridges near the denticles, a sign of acid erosion”.
While researching information for this article, I ran across another apparent example in a forum I frequent.
Notice the clear size difference compared to an 1852 example. AND, the radial lines
emanating from the center!
So, what about an actual “split planchet”? Well, NGC wrote an article about them:
And from a prominent early copper dealer’s listing as a “split planchet”:
And one more off the Bay:
I do NOT see any radial striations on any of these split planchet examples! So, with the subject coin now in hand, I would like to start with the specifications for a “normal” coin as described on PCGS CoinFacts:
And again, 10.89 grams standard weight for the series and a diameter of 27.50 mm.
And the subject coin’s diameter? Well, I think the following image is visually pretty telling:
The subject example scales at approximately 25 mm versus the standard of 27.50. As a friend stated, “shrunk”, NOT split…
I do wonder what the TPG was looking at during certification! Maybe the flip envelope accompanying the coin?
The TPG was notified of my findings on Tuesday, May 13- so far, no change to the online cert by their “error expert.”
Best as always, Jack.
