sacagawea Goodacre Presentation Type 1
deciquio
Posts: 44 ✭
Does anyone know why less than 130 out 5,000 Goodacre Sacs coin were not burnished? Why would the U.S. Mint created 5,000 coins specifically for Glenna Goodacre but less than 130 did not get the same minting procedure as the rest of the coin lot?
0
Comments
I was not aware of that. Are the 130 or less certifiable as from the Goodacre distribution?
Yes, they are from the Goodacre distribution. The actual number is 126 coins define as Type 1. I own both Type 1 and Type 2 Goodacre samples and there's a stark contrast between them.
http://www.smalldollars.com/dollar/page24.html
Whose definition is it? Does the "definer" have a profit interest in the definition?
More information regarding this issue would be appreciated. Were these specifically made in a different manner ? Were all given to the artist? Why did they make them differently?? Thanks in advance for the details...Cheers, RickO
Hi RickO!
They were part of the 5,000 coins given to the artists. ICG discovered the difference in 126 coins. They even wrote an article about it back in 2001. The USMint has no comment about it. Like I said before. I own both coins. Both are different from the regular business strike. However, both have a burnished to it. Type 2 has a proof wet like look while Type 1 has a more satin proof look. That said, I want to know what happened at the mint. Was it a test? Or they forgot to burnished after the strike?
They were part of the 5,000 coins given to the artists. ICG discovered the difference in 126 coins. They even wrote an article about it back in 2001. The USMint has no comment about it. Like I said before. I own both coins. Both are different from the regular business strike. However, both have a burnished to it. Type 2 has a proof wet like look while Type 1 has a more satin proof look. That said, I want to know what happened at the mint. Was it a test? Or they forgot to burnished after the strike?
According to the linked article the only difference is that a few pieces were skipped in the post-strike polishing process. That sounds more like a mistake than any kind of intentional operation.
[ If both planchet and die were polished, and above normal pressure was used, then why are these not called "proof?" ]
I've read that it was a mistake that the USmint didnt want to make it known as already paying the artist on 5,000 coins was creating a PR issue. I doubt it was a mistake. I believe the mint was testing different minting methods and thought it would go unnoticed.
As for proof mint, because the striking process was not truly known then they cant be considered proof.
I think some of the coin magazines should do a well researched article on it for the coin's 20th anniversary.
It is known to a few. The last major auction I saw on a Type 1 was 2013 Heritage Auction. It was an SP69 Type 1 and went for over $5k!
Here's the language from the Heritage Auction
Designated on the ICG insert as #28 of 5,000 pieces presented to sculptor Glenna Goodacre on April 5, 2000. Goodacre was the designer of the obverse featuring Sacagawea and her infant Jean Baptiste. Goodacre asked for her payment for the design in Sacagawea dollars, and was surprised when the Mint gave those pieces a special satin finish. A small minority of the Goodacre coins did not receive a post-strike burnishing; these are called Type One, while the "regular" Goodacre coins are Type Two. A well struck and virtually flawless caramel-gold specimen.(Registry values: P1) (NGC ID# 2U4B, PCGS# 99584)
Actually CoinWorld magazine had a story about it in September 2012.
One cannot have "satin" and "burnished" on the same coin.
As for experimentation - what supports that suggestion? Absent objective data and information, the anomalous pieces can only be classified as mistakes, cause unknown.
I agree. I just cannot move on from this being overlooked at the mint. They knew these coins were for a presentation to Goodacre. Why the mistake? How did it happen?
I am not sure if there is a strict definition of "proof" since each county might have their own standards (?). I know that modern/current US proof coins certainly have specific steps that are followed. The question would be, at what point does a polished planchet or die qualify a coin as proof, especially if it is not struck twice.
As for the Goodacre coins, they were as far as I know polished after striking. Quite frankly I am a little surprised they got straight graded at all as the shiny finish is "PSD" ("post strike damage"). Try that on a normal coin and I assume it won't get slabbed. Being polished by the Mint is obviously acceptable (same for the Millennium Sac $).
As for Type 1 and Type 2 I am not sure anyone put that much thought into it. Maybe they intended to make them all shiny and missed a few dozen, or maybe they started polishing them after the first few dozen were made. Who knows.
The accepted definition of a "proof" coin is well established in American numismatics. Other countries have produced coins that fit within this definition and are acknowledged as such. The central point for a proof is "struck a higher than normal pressure in order to bring up the maximum detail in the dies." Mirror-like, sandblast, satin, matte are all surface descriptions which require the above.
Although post-strike treatment is usually called damage, when the US Mint sandblasts a gold or silver coin struck on a medal press (Saint-Gaudens proofs, Peace dollar proofs, commemorative half proofs, etc.), or polishes the Goodacre coins, it gets accepted as an official treatment.
Our US Mint sets are struck on special presses under higher-than-normal pressures, to bring out the details.
I have some foreign proof coins that would certainly be rejected by US MInt standards, and I have seen unc. or special finish coins (esp. pre-proof era Canadian collector coins) that are of impeccable quality. I am just saying that it might not be as clear cut as it seems.
As far as I’ve been able to tell, the Goodacre coins were struck on specially prepared, burnished planchettes. They were then burnished a second time by the mint after striking. There were some that received no post-strike burnishing - those are the “type 1” sacs.