Quote: @Specialist said:
"I have seen the Wayne Miller coin and this one. I stand by my comment the Wayne Miller coin should be the FINEST specimen/PL. I do not know where to get the pics. I would conservatively value the WM coin at $250G today. It is currently in the ownership for the real richest man from Utah-Larry Miller jr (the guy whos family owns the Jazz). They have probably one of the greatest unknown coin collections-including an 1804 $1."
The Wayne Miller coin just knocks you off your feet.
@ManifestDestiny said:
You can't drop that bombshell and then not tell us more about it!! What else is in the collection? I didn't know the Miller family was into coins, I knew they loved cars, but not coins.
@specialist said:
I have seen the Wayne Miller coin and this one. I stand by my comment the Wayne Miller coin should be the FINEST specimen/PL. I do not know where to get the pics. I would conservatively value the WM coin at $250G today. It is currently in the ownership for the real richest man from Utah-Larry Miller jr (the guy whos family owns the Jazz). They have probably one of the greatest unknown coin collections-including an 1804 $1.
The Wayne Miller coin just knocks you off your feet.
Just curious, does anyone know if Hansen has employed the services of Legend to acquire his collection of coins? Can we assume that Larry Miller Jr has?
@Insider2 said: @pbj said: "What started my inquiry was the question of whether the imaged coin from the Damon Collection auctioned by Doyle's in 2006, is the same coin that is shown in the press release from PCGS. My contention is that they are NOT the same coin."
Members are leading you to a conclusion but they cannot force you to change your opinion. IMO, sticking to your opinion until you become totally beaten down is a very good trait to have!
Did you look? How would you explain the identical rim nicks? Serendipity?
I guess I should follow up after posting that I had discovered that the specimen graded coin was previously graded by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58. To be honest, I have been researching.
As @StrikeOutXXX stated in a previous post, "I started this thread simply as sharing a news story I saw - I have nothing to gain either way. Since it was fresh in my mind, I did some digging and brought out a few things I posted in the thread, but certainly wasn't to champion them being a Specimen, or the same coin, or prove anything about VAMs. I've learned a lot in this thread, but have no real stake in it."
It's not about having anything to gain or having a stake in something, it's about finding answers and learning. There is no way to know or control what direction the thread will take after you finish your OP.
In evaluating the images of the auctioned Damon coin and the specimen coin, of course I did see the rim marks on each coin that seemed to coincide, but there are also several points of variation between the coins. Would one authenticate that the images are of the same coin based on only one similar artifact, disallowing multiple non-common artifacts?(remember that the auction image is horrible and can only be enlarged to a certain point. If a maximally enlarged cropped image of just that rim mark from each coin were placed side by side, would one be able to stake their reputation that the artifact was on the same coin vs. similar coins?) The scientist in me needed to ask "what else could cause these marks on similar coins", and I hypothesized that a possible collar defect could cause a reproducible rim artifact on coins minted in close succession... and so I wondered if I could find an 1878 S near MS65 state with a defect in the same location. As a result of my search for information, I stumbled upon the Coin Facts image of the same specimen graded coin, shown graded MS65PL.
In an open minded search to find answers to some of the questions related to the announcement that the second Morgan Dollar minted at the San Francisco Mint was just graded SP65, this discovery opened up a whole new line of inquiry.
And now for probably the least interesting piece of information discovered: the Doyle auctioned Damon coin is indeed the SP65 graded coin. The images that accompanied the MS65PL graded coin were far better in allowing a comparison to the Damon coin image. It took about 10 minutes of comparison for me to be 100% positive. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about answering questions in a search for knowledge to allow one to move along a track to tackle the next questions of interest that arise when something amazing requires understanding.
This has really been an amazing thread. Of all the threads I have followed over the past few months, the incredible members of this forum have provided information, opinions, links to relevant information, images, contemporary newspapers articles, book references and raised their own questions to help create what I have found to be a riveting story.
So now for me I wonder... why was there no provenance attached to the Damon coin at auction? If the coin went from the coin press to Governor Low to the Bank in Honolulu to Damon, (a highly experienced collector), why wasn't the coin listed as the second struck Morgan Dollar coin at the SF Mint? One would think that this information would be highly relevant in establishing historical significance and value! So the purchaser of the Damon coin has had it graded (at least) twice, first it came back as MS65PL (when?), then 12 years after purchase he has it graded again, (holdered or cracked out?), and quite a different outcome... Why? Did the owner have any idea of it's significance during any point of his ownership of the coin?
Were the first coins minted at the SF Mint during the April 1878 ceremony VAM 60 or VAM 58, Eisenberg or Damon?
I have really enjoyed the information that I have gained so far in this thread -- for everything provided by all of you, and as a result of the research that it has motivated me to do. I hope the others of you who have similar questions will continue to contribute and keep it interesting. In a search for answers, I personally am never threatened by being incorrect. After developing a hypothesis and testing theories, at some point one must choose the most likely current explanation, but unless positive about the results of the process, one must continue to gather information until they are confident of their current position. Oh... that is unless you are all knowing and infallible; and no one is infallible, not even PCGS, so help fill in the gaps to make the whole story of this coin make sense with defensible information and references.
@MrEureka said: "There is also the possibility that the engraved piece was one of the first ten coins or represented as such at the time, that the coins were distributed at the ceremony, and that one of the recipients had it engraved after the fact."
I agree, and this is most likely what happened. I see no other explanation unless all were engraved and only this one is known.
I remember bidding on an 1876-CC dime in copper that I would call a Proof. This was at a Bowers sale at a Michigan State fall convention somewhere in the early 80's.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Insider2 said: @MrEureka said: "There is also the possibility that the engraved piece was one of the first ten coins or represented as such at the time, that the coins were distributed at the ceremony, and that one of the recipients had it engraved after the fact."
I agree, and this is most likely what happened. I see no other explanation unless all were engraved and only this one is known.
Will someone explain how these two first strikes called "Specimens" (one engraved and one not) could be from different dies.
Probably done earlier but this will help late folk starting the thread near its end. Thanks.
Note that both "Specimens" show roller marks on the obverse.
@CaptHenway said:
I remember bidding on an 1876-CC dime in copper that I would call a Proof. This was at a Bowers sale at a Michigan State fall convention somewhere in the early 80's.
We handled one of the silver coins that PCGS graded SP66 of that issue a couple years ago - I did a die study at the time. As it turned out, the dies were used to strike business strikes, then were heavily lapped and used to strike the striated coins that NGC has certified as SP, then the off-metal coins were struck, then the pair of coins called SP at PCGS.
The progression of 76-CC dimes (especially the off-metal coins) certainly disproves the claim some people like to make that the Branch Mints were not making special coins.
This is the silver PCGS SP66:
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
@CaptHenway said:
I remember bidding on an 1876-CC dime in copper that I would call a Proof. This was at a Bowers sale at a Michigan State fall convention somewhere in the early 80's.
Pretty sure I was the buyer at that sale. If not, at some sale not long after. While I don’t remember thinking that the coin was a proof, the very existence of the coin - and another one in nickel -supported the argument that the Proof and SP 76-CC dimes in silver were accurately described as such. Clearly, someone at the mint was having some fun at the time, for whatever reasons.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@Insider2 said: @MrEureka said: "There is also the possibility that the engraved piece was one of the first ten coins or represented as such at the time, that the coins were distributed at the ceremony, and that one of the recipients had it engraved after the fact."
I agree, and this is most likely what happened. I see no other explanation unless all were engraved and only this one is known.
Will someone explain how these two first strikes called "Specimens" (one engraved and one not) could be from different dies.
Probably done earlier but this will help late folk starting the thread near its end. Thanks.
Note that both "Specimens" show roller marks on the obverse.
They're not the first two strikes. They are both, based on the appearance of the coins, specially produced and/or handled strikings, whether actually ceremonial in nature or just a favor to someone.
@messydesk said: "They're not the first two strikes. They are both, based on the appearance of the coins, specially produced and/or handled strikings, whether actually ceremonial in nature or just a favor to someone."
Sorry!
I was not specific...I read this on one of them: "ONE OF THE FIRST 10..."
@Insider2 said: @messydesk said: "They're not the first two strikes. They are both, based on the appearance of the coins, specially produced and/or handled strikings, whether actually ceremonial in nature or just a favor to someone."
Sorry!
I was not specific...I read this on one of them: "ONE OF THE FIRST 10..."
This may very well be true with respect to the ceremony of 4/17, but they both weren't struck during that ceremony. VAM 60 is near the beginning of the die marriages involving that obverse die. Some VAM 26 were struck earlier, then VAM 60, then VAM 57 and more VAM 26 were struck later before the obverse die was retired. It appears that the early VAM 26 was, in today's terms, a "soft opening" for the ceremonial VAM 60 "grand opening."
@Insider2 said: @messydesk said: "They're not the first two strikes. They are both, based on the appearance of the coins, specially produced and/or handled strikings, whether actually ceremonial in nature or just a favor to someone."
Sorry!
I was not specific...I read this on one of them: "ONE OF THE FIRST 10..."
This may very well be true with respect to the ceremony of 4/17, but they both weren't struck during that ceremony. VAM 60 is near the beginning of the die marriages involving that obverse die. Some VAM 26 were struck earlier, then VAM 60, then VAM 57 and more VAM 26 were struck later before the obverse die was retired. It appears that the early VAM 26 was, in today's terms, a "soft opening" for the ceremonial VAM 60 "grand opening."
Where does VAM 58 play into all this, what are the possibilities of that coin being struck on 4/17 and presented to Low?
The whole post is interesting, but the 1st part has some details that would be great to know sources of:
**_The INITIAL startup of minting at San Fran was done with 10 dies shipped from Philadelphia in April of 1878. At "least" the first 10 coins were engraved.
It is known that those first 10 coins, as well as some others, were given very special treatment -- the planchets were polished and smoothed, the dies were polished and compounded to mirror finishes, and each coin was struck at least twice, or possibly as many as four or five times.
These first runs of coins were intended as gifts for the mint master, engraver/die sinker, a few for the Mint cabinet, and also handed out to dignitaries and VIPs that were in attendance. Leroy Van Allen owned two of the Philly presentation strikes, both later slabbed by ANACS, a 62DMPL and 64DMPL. _**
**_The INITIAL startup of minting at San Fran was done with 10 dies shipped from Philadelphia in April of 1878. At "least" the first 10 coins were engraved.
It is known that those first 10 coins, as well as some others, were given very special treatment -- the planchets were polished and smoothed, the dies were polished and compounded to mirror finishes, and each coin was struck at least twice, or possibly as many as four or five times.
These first runs of coins were intended as gifts for the mint master, engraver/die sinker, a few for the Mint cabinet, and also handed out to dignitaries and VIPs that were in attendance. Leroy Van Allen owned two of the Philly presentation strikes, both later slabbed by ANACS, a 62DMPL and 64DMPL. _**
The first paragraph there reminds me of the sort of authoritative statements that Walter Breen was famous for.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
**_The INITIAL startup of minting at San Fran was done with 10 dies shipped from Philadelphia in April of 1878. At "least" the first 10 coins were engraved.
It is known that those first 10 coins, as well as some others, were given very special treatment -- the planchets were polished and smoothed, the dies were polished and compounded to mirror finishes, and each coin was struck at least twice, or possibly as many as four or five times.
These first runs of coins were intended as gifts for the mint master, engraver/die sinker, a few for the Mint cabinet, and also handed out to dignitaries and VIPs that were in attendance. Leroy Van Allen owned two of the Philly presentation strikes, both later slabbed by ANACS, a 62DMPL and 64DMPL. _**
The first paragraph there reminds me of the sort of authoritative statements that Walter Breen was famous for.
I'll save Roger from having to say "Bologna" but.... I was kind of thinking along those lines. A few posters have wondered about any specially prepared planchets, special production methods, etc - and reading that post at CC made me wonder if there was some documentation somewhere making this stuff facts that most of us here aren't aware of, or if it was... well... Breenism.
**_The INITIAL startup of minting at San Fran was done with 10 dies shipped from Philadelphia in April of 1878. At "least" the first 10 coins were engraved.
It is known that those first 10 coins, as well as some others, were given very special treatment -- the planchets were polished and smoothed, the dies were polished and compounded to mirror finishes, and each coin was struck at least twice, or possibly as many as four or five times.
These first runs of coins were intended as gifts for the mint master, engraver/die sinker, a few for the Mint cabinet, and also handed out to dignitaries and VIPs that were in attendance. Leroy Van Allen owned two of the Philly presentation strikes, both later slabbed by ANACS, a 62DMPL and 64DMPL. _**
The first paragraph there reminds me of the sort of authoritative statements that Walter Breen was famous for.
A few quibbles......
I don't think that anybody at the U.S. Mint used the title "Mint Master," but please correct me if I am wrong.
There were no engravers or die sinkers on staff in San Francisco. Are there inventories of Morgan's and/or Charles Berber's estates?
Are there any in the National Numismatic Collection ex: Mint Cabinet?
If ten were indeed engraved I would expect a higher survival rating than one, a la the 1921-D dollars, but it is always possible that others exist in the family heirlooms of non-numismatists who do not appreciate that they are special. I have told the story many times about the time I helped advise the neighbor of a friend who "had a few coins," and when I tried to get more information about them was told "Well, there's a twenty dollar gold piece, but I don't know the date because it's in Roman Numerals!" A picture of the coin adorns the cover of the first edition Coin World Almanac! The gentleman received a proper holder for the piece and advice about its rarity and value. His descendants still own the coin.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The similarities in the engraving (both in placement and style of lettering) on the 21-D Dollars and the VAM-60 are pretty remarkable, particularly when you consider the 43 year gap between the striking events.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Is anyone here the user on coincommunity going by "Paralyse"? Interesting post about production methods and details some here have asked about:
The whole post is interesting, but the 1st part has some details that would be great to know sources of:
**_The INITIAL startup of minting at San Fran was done with 10 dies shipped from Philadelphia in April of 1878. At "least" the first 10 coins were engraved.
It is known that those first 10 coins, as well as some others, were given very special treatment -- the planchets were polished and smoothed, the dies were polished and compounded to mirror finishes, and each coin was struck at least twice, or possibly as many as four or five times.
These first runs of coins were intended as gifts for the mint master, engraver/die sinker, a few for the Mint cabinet, and also handed out to dignitaries and VIPs that were in attendance. Leroy Van Allen owned two of the Philly presentation strikes, both later slabbed by ANACS, a 62DMPL and 64DMPL. _**
I know who Paralyse is, but I don't know what his source is for that information. What I'd be particularly interested in, and throught of bringing up earlier, was whether or not we can tell if the planchets were polished before striking by looking at the coin. It would be interesting to see the difference between a coin struck using these dies on a normal planchet and one that had been specially prepared.
I know of no accounting of more than the Eliasberg coin being engraved. The correct statement would be, "of the 10 first coins struck for the ceremony on April 17, 1878, the engraved coin is likely one of them."
@Regulated said:
The similarities in the engraving (both in placement and style of lettering) on the 21-D Dollars and the VAM-60 are pretty remarkable, particularly when you consider the 43 year gap between the striking events.
I thought of that, but if you are going to engrave a Morgan where else would you do it? As to the style, that may have been a common jewelers' engraving template. I do not know if this is so.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Regulated said:
The similarities in the engraving (both in placement and style of lettering) on the 21-D Dollars and the VAM-60 are pretty remarkable, particularly when you consider the 43 year gap between the striking events.
A microscopic examination of the engraving should go a long way...
There are a lot of accepted things in numismatics that should probably be left as is...
The letters are all hand-engraved on the 78-S and on the 21-Ds that I've seen in hand. Block letters seem to be more common on engraved coins in the 20th Century than in the 19th Century in my experience, but I'm pretty sure I'm dealing with a sample size from which I can't derive a meaningful amount of information.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
@Regulated said:
The letters are all hand-engraved on the 78-S and on the 21-Ds that I've seen in hand. Block letters seem to be more common on engraved coins in the 20th Century than in the 19th Century in my experience, but I'm pretty sure I'm dealing with a sample size from which I can't derive a meaningful amount of infromation.
The engraving on the 21-D is a bit sloppier, both in terms of style and mistakes. Befitting a 1921 Morgan, now that I think about it. I guess it doesn't seem they were done by the same person at the same time, anyway.
@Regulated said:
The similarities in the engraving (both in placement and style of lettering) on the 21-D Dollars and the VAM-60 are pretty remarkable, particularly when you consider the 43 year gap between the striking events.
It would be suspicious if the coins were ordinary, apparently random pieces. But that’s not the case.
Another possibility: perhaps the engraved pieces were, before they were engraved, given to the same person, members of the same family, or to an organization of some sort. We may never know, but it’s worth a few minutes of thought and research.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Anyone show its existence before 1910 when Wertman had it?
I guess my point of finding how far back it goes was to show it wasn't just thought up once the 1921 Dollars showed up, it predates those engraved coins by at least 11 years.
@StrikeOutXXX said:
I can find the Engraved 1878s as far back as this auction:
Emanuel Wertman Collection by Henry Chapman Auction - November 19, 1910. Lot 672
Anyone show its existence before 1910 when Wertman had it?
I guess my point of finding how far back it goes was to show it wasn't just thought up once the 1921 Dollars showed up, it predates those engraved coins by at least 11 years.
Excellent detective work!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@StrikeOutXXX said:
I can find the Engraved 1878s as far back as this auction:
Emanuel Wertman Collection by Henry Chapman Auction - November 19, 1910. Lot 672
Anyone show its existence before 1910 when Wertman had it?
I guess my point of finding how far back it goes was to show it wasn't just thought up once the 1921 Dollars showed up, it predates those engraved coins by at least 11 years.
$1.10 in both auctions, assuming the red pencil is for the hammer price. Seen as more special than some of the proof Seated dollars in the 1915 sale. Thanks for digging these up!
The spiked eye on the VAM-58 is die doubling (technically tripling in this case) and is how the die was made. Several other obverses paired with Long Nock reverses show spiked eyes, including the VAM-60.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Don't know why the above piece would be given the SP designation, imho it is just PL, like many other seated dimes of the times.
A good argument for not judging a coin just based upon a picture. It's two times as thick as an ordinary dime due to the wire rims that run all the way around both sides. Also, after the copper examples were struck, the dies were pickled in acid to impart cameo, lapped and polished. Only two examples are known with this sort of fabric.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
When I saw the copper piece I would have certified it as a Proof. I understand that the current consensus would be to call it Specimen. Much better than a Proof-Like.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Not every specimen coin is made that way, but when you see rims like that coin has, coupled with its overall fabric, you'd have to be delusional to think that it isn't specially made.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Comments
It was sent in to be slabbed in late December 2008.
Here are some better pics of the engraved piece:
Quote:
@Specialist said:
"I have seen the Wayne Miller coin and this one. I stand by my comment the Wayne Miller coin should be the FINEST specimen/PL. I do not know where to get the pics. I would conservatively value the WM coin at $250G today. It is currently in the ownership for the real richest man from Utah-Larry Miller jr (the guy whos family owns the Jazz). They have probably one of the greatest unknown coin collections-including an 1804 $1."
The Wayne Miller coin just knocks you off your feet.
Just curious, does anyone know if Hansen has employed the services of Legend to acquire his collection of coins? Can we assume that Larry Miller Jr has?
I guess I should follow up after posting that I had discovered that the specimen graded coin was previously graded by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58. To be honest, I have been researching.
As @StrikeOutXXX stated in a previous post, "I started this thread simply as sharing a news story I saw - I have nothing to gain either way. Since it was fresh in my mind, I did some digging and brought out a few things I posted in the thread, but certainly wasn't to champion them being a Specimen, or the same coin, or prove anything about VAMs. I've learned a lot in this thread, but have no real stake in it."
It's not about having anything to gain or having a stake in something, it's about finding answers and learning. There is no way to know or control what direction the thread will take after you finish your OP.
In evaluating the images of the auctioned Damon coin and the specimen coin, of course I did see the rim marks on each coin that seemed to coincide, but there are also several points of variation between the coins. Would one authenticate that the images are of the same coin based on only one similar artifact, disallowing multiple non-common artifacts?(remember that the auction image is horrible and can only be enlarged to a certain point. If a maximally enlarged cropped image of just that rim mark from each coin were placed side by side, would one be able to stake their reputation that the artifact was on the same coin vs. similar coins?) The scientist in me needed to ask "what else could cause these marks on similar coins", and I hypothesized that a possible collar defect could cause a reproducible rim artifact on coins minted in close succession... and so I wondered if I could find an 1878 S near MS65 state with a defect in the same location. As a result of my search for information, I stumbled upon the Coin Facts image of the same specimen graded coin, shown graded MS65PL.
In an open minded search to find answers to some of the questions related to the announcement that the second Morgan Dollar minted at the San Francisco Mint was just graded SP65, this discovery opened up a whole new line of inquiry.
And now for probably the least interesting piece of information discovered: the Doyle auctioned Damon coin is indeed the SP65 graded coin. The images that accompanied the MS65PL graded coin were far better in allowing a comparison to the Damon coin image. It took about 10 minutes of comparison for me to be 100% positive. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about answering questions in a search for knowledge to allow one to move along a track to tackle the next questions of interest that arise when something amazing requires understanding.
This has really been an amazing thread. Of all the threads I have followed over the past few months, the incredible members of this forum have provided information, opinions, links to relevant information, images, contemporary newspapers articles, book references and raised their own questions to help create what I have found to be a riveting story.
So now for me I wonder... why was there no provenance attached to the Damon coin at auction? If the coin went from the coin press to Governor Low to the Bank in Honolulu to Damon, (a highly experienced collector), why wasn't the coin listed as the second struck Morgan Dollar coin at the SF Mint? One would think that this information would be highly relevant in establishing historical significance and value! So the purchaser of the Damon coin has had it graded (at least) twice, first it came back as MS65PL (when?), then 12 years after purchase he has it graded again, (holdered or cracked out?), and quite a different outcome... Why? Did the owner have any idea of it's significance during any point of his ownership of the coin?
Were the first coins minted at the SF Mint during the April 1878 ceremony VAM 60 or VAM 58, Eisenberg or Damon?
I have really enjoyed the information that I have gained so far in this thread -- for everything provided by all of you, and as a result of the research that it has motivated me to do. I hope the others of you who have similar questions will continue to contribute and keep it interesting. In a search for answers, I personally am never threatened by being incorrect. After developing a hypothesis and testing theories, at some point one must choose the most likely current explanation, but unless positive about the results of the process, one must continue to gather information until they are confident of their current position. Oh... that is unless you are all knowing and infallible; and no one is infallible, not even PCGS, so help fill in the gaps to make the whole story of this coin make sense with defensible information and references.
Nice home work pbj grade flation did the coin take a bath at some point the spot on the reverse is gone
@MrEureka said: "There is also the possibility that the engraved piece was one of the first ten coins or represented as such at the time, that the coins were distributed at the ceremony, and that one of the recipients had it engraved after the fact."
I agree, and this is most likely what happened. I see no other explanation unless all were engraved and only this one is known.
I remember bidding on an 1876-CC dime in copper that I would call a Proof. This was at a Bowers sale at a Michigan State fall convention somewhere in the early 80's.
Will someone explain how these two first strikes called "Specimens" (one engraved and one not) could be from different dies.
Probably done earlier but this will help late folk starting the thread near its end. Thanks.
Note that both "Specimens" show roller marks on the obverse.
We handled one of the silver coins that PCGS graded SP66 of that issue a couple years ago - I did a die study at the time. As it turned out, the dies were used to strike business strikes, then were heavily lapped and used to strike the striated coins that NGC has certified as SP, then the off-metal coins were struck, then the pair of coins called SP at PCGS.
The progression of 76-CC dimes (especially the off-metal coins) certainly disproves the claim some people like to make that the Branch Mints were not making special coins.
This is the silver PCGS SP66:
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Pretty sure I was the buyer at that sale. If not, at some sale not long after. While I don’t remember thinking that the coin was a proof, the very existence of the coin - and another one in nickel -supported the argument that the Proof and SP 76-CC dimes in silver were accurately described as such. Clearly, someone at the mint was having some fun at the time, for whatever reasons.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
They're not the first two strikes. They are both, based on the appearance of the coins, specially produced and/or handled strikings, whether actually ceremonial in nature or just a favor to someone.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
@messydesk said: "They're not the first two strikes. They are both, based on the appearance of the coins, specially produced and/or handled strikings, whether actually ceremonial in nature or just a favor to someone."
Sorry!
I was not specific...I read this on one of them: "ONE OF THE FIRST 10..."
This may very well be true with respect to the ceremony of 4/17, but they both weren't struck during that ceremony. VAM 60 is near the beginning of the die marriages involving that obverse die. Some VAM 26 were struck earlier, then VAM 60, then VAM 57 and more VAM 26 were struck later before the obverse die was retired. It appears that the early VAM 26 was, in today's terms, a "soft opening" for the ceremonial VAM 60 "grand opening."
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Where does VAM 58 play into all this, what are the possibilities of that coin being struck on 4/17 and presented to Low?
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
Is anyone here the user on coincommunity going by "Paralyse"? Interesting post about production methods and details some here have asked about:
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=325777&whichpage=2�
The whole post is interesting, but the 1st part has some details that would be great to know sources of:
**_The INITIAL startup of minting at San Fran was done with 10 dies shipped from Philadelphia in April of 1878. At "least" the first 10 coins were engraved.
It is known that those first 10 coins, as well as some others, were given very special treatment -- the planchets were polished and smoothed, the dies were polished and compounded to mirror finishes, and each coin was struck at least twice, or possibly as many as four or five times.
These first runs of coins were intended as gifts for the mint master, engraver/die sinker, a few for the Mint cabinet, and also handed out to dignitaries and VIPs that were in attendance. Leroy Van Allen owned two of the Philly presentation strikes, both later slabbed by ANACS, a 62DMPL and 64DMPL. _**
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
The first paragraph there reminds me of the sort of authoritative statements that Walter Breen was famous for.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I'll save Roger from having to say "Bologna" but.... I was kind of thinking along those lines. A few posters have wondered about any specially prepared planchets, special production methods, etc - and reading that post at CC made me wonder if there was some documentation somewhere making this stuff facts that most of us here aren't aware of, or if it was... well... Breenism.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
A few quibbles......
I don't think that anybody at the U.S. Mint used the title "Mint Master," but please correct me if I am wrong.
There were no engravers or die sinkers on staff in San Francisco. Are there inventories of Morgan's and/or Charles Berber's estates?
Are there any in the National Numismatic Collection ex: Mint Cabinet?
If ten were indeed engraved I would expect a higher survival rating than one, a la the 1921-D dollars, but it is always possible that others exist in the family heirlooms of non-numismatists who do not appreciate that they are special. I have told the story many times about the time I helped advise the neighbor of a friend who "had a few coins," and when I tried to get more information about them was told "Well, there's a twenty dollar gold piece, but I don't know the date because it's in Roman Numerals!" A picture of the coin adorns the cover of the first edition Coin World Almanac! The gentleman received a proper holder for the piece and advice about its rarity and value. His descendants still own the coin.
The similarities in the engraving (both in placement and style of lettering) on the 21-D Dollars and the VAM-60 are pretty remarkable, particularly when you consider the 43 year gap between the striking events.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I know who Paralyse is, but I don't know what his source is for that information. What I'd be particularly interested in, and throught of bringing up earlier, was whether or not we can tell if the planchets were polished before striking by looking at the coin. It would be interesting to see the difference between a coin struck using these dies on a normal planchet and one that had been specially prepared.
I know of no accounting of more than the Eliasberg coin being engraved. The correct statement would be, "of the 10 first coins struck for the ceremony on April 17, 1878, the engraved coin is likely one of them."
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
I thought of that, but if you are going to engrave a Morgan where else would you do it? As to the style, that may have been a common jewelers' engraving template. I do not know if this is so.
A microscopic examination of the engraving should go a long way...
There are a lot of accepted things in numismatics that should probably be left as is...
The letters are all hand-engraved on the 78-S and on the 21-Ds that I've seen in hand. Block letters seem to be more common on engraved coins in the 20th Century than in the 19th Century in my experience, but I'm pretty sure I'm dealing with a sample size from which I can't derive a meaningful amount of information.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Nerves of steel to hand engrave a coin of that importance/significance. "Was that "I" before "E" except after "C" on days ending in "Y"?"
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
The engraving on the 21-D is a bit sloppier, both in terms of style and mistakes. Befitting a 1921 Morgan, now that I think about it. I guess it doesn't seem they were done by the same person at the same time, anyway.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
It would be suspicious if the coins were ordinary, apparently random pieces. But that’s not the case.
Another possibility: perhaps the engraved pieces were, before they were engraved, given to the same person, members of the same family, or to an organization of some sort. We may never know, but it’s worth a few minutes of thought and research.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Are there inventories of Morgan's and/or Charles Berber's estates?
http://uspatterns.com/charbarpatco.html
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I've only seen one of the 21's (image of engraving is somewhere). Makes sense to have different engravers.
Here's the sloppy engraving on the 21-D
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
I can find the Engraved 1878s as far back as this auction:
Emanuel Wertman Collection by Henry Chapman Auction - November 19, 1910. Lot 672
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/auctionlots?AucCoId=20&AuctionId=511089&page=45
(Next appearance appears to be this one)
Lot 624 from Catalog of Coins and Medals of Hon W.A.P. Thompson May 12-14 1915
https://www.archive.org/stream/catalogueofcolle00chap_53#page/38/mode/2up
Anyone show its existence before 1910 when Wertman had it?
I guess my point of finding how far back it goes was to show it wasn't just thought up once the 1921 Dollars showed up, it predates those engraved coins by at least 11 years.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
Excellent detective work!
@Toningintheblood regarding the engraved 1878s, you said:
"The 1878-S Presentation piece is in the collection of one of my clients. He has had it for about 17 years."
In a thread back in January here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/993173/has-anyone-ever-seen-a-super-high-end-example-of-an-engraved-morgan-dollar-and-my-latest-newp-1878
Do you by chance have anything to add to this thread - was there any paperwork, etc with it when your client had purchased it?
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
$1.10 in both auctions, assuming the red pencil is for the hammer price. Seen as more special than some of the proof Seated dollars in the 1915 sale. Thanks for digging these up!
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
what newsfeed? that sounds like something i want to sign up for
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Here's another;
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The spiked eye on the VAM-58 is die doubling (technically tripling in this case) and is how the die was made. Several other obverses paired with Long Nock reverses show spiked eyes, including the VAM-60.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I will check with the owner to see if there is any additional information available on the Regency holdered Presentation Piece.
A good argument for not judging a coin just based upon a picture. It's two times as thick as an ordinary dime due to the wire rims that run all the way around both sides. Also, after the copper examples were struck, the dies were pickled in acid to impart cameo, lapped and polished. Only two examples are known with this sort of fabric.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Rounded rims - not double struck - not proof.
The double struck business is evidently a myth - which coin has rounded rims?
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
When I saw the copper piece I would have certified it as a Proof. I understand that the current consensus would be to call it Specimen. Much better than a Proof-Like.
Not every specimen coin is made that way, but when you see rims like that coin has, coupled with its overall fabric, you'd have to be delusional to think that it isn't specially made.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Different 7's.
I'm not presuming to define SP strikes as a class, merely speaking about a specific coin that I've spent a significant amount of time researching.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I included most of the information is in this auction lot description in 2017:
auctions.kagins.com/_i26659908
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake