I have been looking at shell sets and I have noticed that half dollar coins that are made smaller to fit in an unexpanded [ don't look right.
To me, the plain portion around the edge of the coin looks totally different.
In some cases that portion has vanished altogether.

It doesn't seem to make a difference to larger coins such as dollars, crowns etc.

Is it just me?

I bought a WL expanded [ and put it with four regular WL halves and everything looks great. The only thing that looks different is the [. Being that it's slightly larger.

I did have a Lassen shell set and everything looked perfect. But, it wasn't a soft set, so I sold it and got the four regular coins and a shell.

This probably doesn't (directly) address you post Tom, but I thought (at least) a different perspective would be food for thought!

Jorey

Are you saying that the "milled" edge on the cut down halves have been shaved off almost smooth? If that's so... then you are correct, the edge won't look right. You can purchase shaved down Kennedy halves where the edges have been remilled (the edge cut back into the coin after shaving) but they are pricey... Lassen would be your best bet for coins of that nature.

While I understand the purpose of unexpanded [s, But I have never quite gotten their popularity in comparison to expanded [s?

To me, "expanded" is better as they fit regular coins. Unexpanded [s only work with a special set of coins, made for them.

I typically use SOH and so this has never been much of an issue for me but its always been in the back of my mind, and I do have an unex Sliding [ with a cut a down coin made for it. It seems to look right enough to me and doubt if anyone would notice anything, but still it only works with that one coin for that one effect. Guess it's just a preference? But regularly these cut down coins made for an unex [ are typically re-milled after being shaved down a bit, that I have seen on all size coins.

Im just sayin'.

I was thinking that Tom's experience mirrored my own, unless I misread my own context into it.

A couple of years ago I had Roy Kueppers make 2 unexpanded shell sets for me. One in Peace dollars, the other in '64 Kennedy halves.

They turned out great, and the coverage along the edge was wonderful. The re-milled edges looked great, too.

However, the halves didn't look "right" when looking at either flat surface (heads or tails). For some reason, when these halves are shaved, it made the coins look as if something were missing, like...well, like they had been shaved! As if they were smaller than they should be, even when not seen next to an un-shaved coin. This made the difference between the coins and their shell even more pronounced - the standard size difference between shell and coin can always be overlooked, but add this difference, as well. For certain effects this is no problem. But if you want to do something where the coins are flat and the specs are in close, this particular oddity would make me change to an expanded shell set.

This was not a problem at all with the Peace Dollars.

My tenuous conclusion (these are the only unexpanded shell sets I have owned) is that shaved/re-milled halves (or maybe just Kennedy halves?) look a bit odd.

Would love to hear others' experiences with this.

Al, it's not the milled edge, it is the face of the coin.
Just before the edge there is a plain line and that has disappeared on shaved coins.
That, to me, is what makes things look wrong.

Ah... that makes more sense... you're right... they won't look right. But they may look fine to a spectator that is not use to handling or inspecting Kennedy halves or other coins that you don't regularly see in circulation.

Looks like I read the OP completely wrong. Sorry Tom!

Me too. But I still feel the same way as to unexpanded vs. expanded. And I agree that for the most part, specs won't notice much if at all, as they don't tend to notice little differences, especially behind the dynamicism of motion.

Been my experience as well (albeit limited), Marion

I don't really think your spectators will ever see a difference though.
Todd

I have a Morgan Dollar [ set and the coins are all remilled for edge grip work. The [ is not expanded and the coins still have the little lip. I had these custom made by Todd Lassen. I actually got a slightly expanded [ and milled down coins. It is in between the two.

In fact the edge on the [ is almost exactly like the one on the coins, they are all remilled though.

Marion,

The reason the expanded [ was invented was mostly so the magi could borrow coins. It was a lot of trouble and came long after un-expanded [ as far as I can tell. Now, that exp-[ has less coverage and worse viewing angles than an unexpanded [. Since these coins are not in circulation, you can't borrow them, and a set of 4 without [ in poor condition or 'soft' as we say, will cost you between $50-$100. You have to go to a specialty shop to get replacements.

At this point in time I think for "silver" coins the benefits of the un-expanded version outweighs the expanded one. You get the good crisp edges, soft coins that slide against each other, great coverage, etc. I agree with your argument until about 1990 maybe 1985, depends on how close to a Black Jack table you are when performing.

Anyway, hope something I said helps!

Thanks Gr8,

I do realize why both coins exist, but just think the expanded [ was a real move forward as I said, it allowed you to use regular coins, which could be borrowed even. The unexpanded [ is a specialty set and there is no further deception created by perhaps borrowing coins to imply that the effect is impromptu and fair. I remember David Roth explaining the history of the expanded shell, even how it was made. Very interesting stuff and he spoke to the giant step forward as to these gaffs.

Actually, nowadays, no one walks around with half dollars or dollar size coins in their pocket to borrow. So I guess the magi has to provide his own coins, and with that I guess it don't matter much whether the set is expanded or unexpanded as the specs will not see much of any difference in them anyway. But you can get an expanded set with nicely milled edges, soft coins, etc., just like you can get an unexpanded set that way. I have everything we're talking about here.

As to what people see regarding the coverage of the [ on a coin, I would think that people wouldn't notice, actually I know they don't notice because I understand what they see when they look at something, when they scan it, especially within the motion of an effect. These little imperfections(?) do not mar the effect as magi's might think at times. The good use of the gaff will work if you use it correctly, many times even if the gaff is a bit inferior. They will only "see" something wrong in most cases if you point it out to them, or use it very badly...Much like a TT.

Marion,

This is slightly off subject but when I contacted Todd about my remilled set I originally asked him for a remilled set with expeanded [. He replied that it wouldn't work because when you remill the coins the edge is shaved off and the coins are made smaller before they are remilled. I don't know if there is a standard procedure for this but I assume each craftsman does it his own way for his own reasons. Of course the [ could be expanded but it would leave a lot of play around the edges of the coin in it I think.

Yeah, I suppose that's a bit more of what it actually is but I was thinking along the lines as to "remilling", simply sharpening up the existing edges on a regular coin, not necessarily doing away with the existing edges and remaking them. You can actually do that ("re-sharpen") yourself with a file and if you got the time (I saw what you did with Kainoa's book, pretty neat). In doing so, the coins remain their regular size with renewed gripping, and an expanded shell fits them as normal.

As to Todd, well, he's pretty much right, I guess you wouldn't want remilled (cut down) coins with an Expanded [, it would be too big. You would need a standard coin to be made into a [ (thus unexpanded), which would then mean any coins to fit it would need to be cut down (remilled). As you know, Expanded [s are made to fit regular size coins, no cut downs necessary.

What you probably should've asked him for (and perhaps he should've recognized better as to your request) is simply an Expanded [ set. The coins that would've come with the [ would've had good edges to them to begin with (also in soft coins if you wanted them that way), as Todd matches up all the coins as best as possible to to match the [ (or vice versa), to sell you a premium set. Probably as soon as you said "remilled" he was thinking something else.

Due to what folks have said, I begin to more understand why unexpanded ['s are used.
I have to say that I am still not a fan though.

Perhaps I am over-thinking this, perhaps it is "magicians guilt" but I would rather use expanded ['s.