A beautiful and rare pair of trades

tradedollarnut

JimTyler

How much you bidding ?

TurtleCat

I’ll do $40, around melt price.

Treashunt

I'll go $41.51 to beat out TurtleCat

Jimnight

Wow....Nice coins!!

TurtleCat

@Treashunt said:
I'll go $41.51 to beat out TurtleCat

Bidding war, eh? $42.88

Treashunt

@TurtleCat said:

@Treashunt said:
I'll go $41.51 to beat out TurtleCat

Bidding war, eh? $42.88

Okay, okay, I'll go up one:

$43.89

Unknown

This content has been removed.

DollarAfterDollar

Just beautiful coins. While they seem graded low for proofs, they look great in the photo's provided. Obviously very rare and deserve a good home. Save your pennies!!!

CRH4LIFE

@Treashunt said:

@TurtleCat said:

@Treashunt said:
I'll go $41.51 to beat out TurtleCat

Bidding war, eh? $42.88

Okay, okay, I'll go up one:

$43.89

Im all in at $40.01 and the farm

OGDan

I haven't seen an Amon Carter trade dollar I didn't like. Love that '84.

Nic

@tradedollarnut said:

Saw them in person today. Surprised.

CaptHenway

Not nearly as rare as my 1798-CC Trade!!!!!

Kliao

@CRH4LIFE said:

@Treashunt said:

@TurtleCat said:

@Treashunt said:
I'll go $41.51 to beat out TurtleCat

Bidding war, eh? $42.88

Okay, okay, I'll go up one:

$43.89

Im all in at $40.01 and the farm

$100

Need to be bumped up

WAYNEAS

why is everyone bidding on these? I thought that this was a giveaway contest.
They are among the best of the best.

johnny9434

Nice coins indeed. I bid $43 🤑

TennesseeDave

Beautiful , but why were so few minted?

CaptHenway

@TennesseeDave said:
Beautiful , but why were so few minted?

The series ended in 1883. A few extras were made in 1884 and 1885 for one or more collectors willing to pay a few bucks extra for them.

Boosibri

How do these compare in the condition census?

TennesseeDave

Oh wow. I wish my Great, great grandfather had bought one of each back then to pass down through the family.

topstuf

Well, TDN, I bet you didn't expect the thread to come to what it did.

TurtleCat

The inmates run the asylum today Hey, maybe in honor of this thread I’ll make my next coin acquisition a trade dollar?

DCW

You going to make a run at them, @tradedollarnut?
Or have you already owned examples?

tradedollarnut

@CaptHenway said:

@TennesseeDave said:
Beautiful , but why were so few minted?

The series ended in 1883. A few extras were made in 1884 and 1885 for one or more collectors willing to pay a few bucks extra for them.

I believe the 1884s were duly authorized and minted under normal processes...when the order came to end the sales all but ten were melted. That’s substantially different than your assertion.

tradedollarnut

@DCW said:
You going to make a run at them, @tradedollarnut?
Or have you already owned examples?

I have already owned three 1885s and four 1884s. I’m saving my money for the best 1885.

Treashunt

okay, I'm going all in at $101.51

ricko

Truly beautiful Trade Dollars.... Incredible condition for their age. Cheers, RickO

Icollecteverything

I must really suck at grading proofs because they both look better than 64 in those pictures.

MFeld

@Icollecteverything said:
I must really suck at grading proofs because they both look better than 64 in those pictures.

It’s often all-but-impossible to provide meaningful grade guesses, based on images of Proof coins. Hairlines, which aren’t typically fully evident in images, largely account for the grade on most Proofs.

Lakesammman

Saw them at the FUN show today - the color on the 1884 is stunning!

CaptainBlunt

I remember going to the Long Beach shows along time ago
and stopping by Jay Parrino’s The Mint. He would have an 1885 Trade dollar and a 1913 liberty head nickel and other ultra rarities on display.

1northcoin

@ricko said:
Truly beautiful Trade Dollars.... Incredible condition for their age. Cheers, RickO

+1

Currin

Thanks for sharing Bruce. It would be nice to see this pair go into a third complete registry set. Maybe you guys can find a customer that may want to do that. I am not sure why Driftwood don’t find a 1884 to pair with his 1885. That could be the 4th and final set, unless Bruce can get his dream uncertified in a holder. Only five sets are possible.

Insider2

@tradedollarnut said:

@CaptHenway said:

@TennesseeDave said:
Beautiful , but why were so few minted?

The series ended in 1883. A few extras were made in 1884 and 1885 for one or more collectors willing to pay a few bucks extra for them.

I BELIEVE the 1884s were duly authorized and minted under normal processes...when the order came to end the sales all but ten were melted. That’s substantially different than your assertion.

I don't wish to get in the middle of you two numismatists but all of a sudden I became interested in this thread.

I have seen published information that these two coins were never actually "in" the normal production run. I have never seen anything to confirm your opinion that they were. Perhaps you can cite a source for your belief. Maybe it is was just a hype-thing started by some auction company in the past to make more money at a sale.

jmlanzaf

@Insider2 said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@CaptHenway said:

@TennesseeDave said:
Beautiful , but why were so few minted?

The series ended in 1883. A few extras were made in 1884 and 1885 for one or more collectors willing to pay a few bucks extra for them.

I BELIEVE the 1884s were duly authorized and minted under normal processes...when the order came to end the sales all but ten were melted. That’s substantially different than your assertion.

I don't wish to get in the middle of you two numismatists but all of a sudden I became interested in this thread.

I have seen published information that these two coins were never actually "in" the normal production run. I have never seen anything to confirm your opinion that they were. Perhaps you can cite a source for your belief. Maybe it is was just a hype-thing started by some auction company in the past to make more money at a sale.

https://pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1884-t-1-trade/7064

Insider2

@jmlanzaf said:

@Insider2 said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@CaptHenway said:

@TennesseeDave said:
Beautiful , but why were so few minted?

The series ended in 1883. A few extras were made in 1884 and 1885 for one or more collectors willing to pay a few bucks extra for them.

I BELIEVE the 1884s were duly authorized and minted under normal processes...when the order came to end the sales all but ten were melted. That’s substantially different than your assertion.

I don't wish to get in the middle of you two numismatists but all of a sudden I became interested in this thread.

I have seen published information that these two coins were never actually "in" the normal production run. I have never seen anything to confirm your opinion that they were. Perhaps you can cite a source for your belief. Maybe it is was just a hype-thing started by some auction company in the past to make more money at a sale.

https://pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1884-t-1-trade/7064

Thanks for the effort but versions of your post in various forms have been published "forever."

I'll also note that your post DID NOT address my question to the poster who BELIEVES these coins were duly authorized issues. Perhaps some record exists to correct the traditional record. The Mint says nothing irregular occured - I'm fine with that as they have a history of this sort of thing.

jmlanzaf

@Insider2 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Insider2 said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@CaptHenway said:

@TennesseeDave said:
Beautiful , but why were so few minted?

The series ended in 1883. A few extras were made in 1884 and 1885 for one or more collectors willing to pay a few bucks extra for them.

I BELIEVE the 1884s were duly authorized and minted under normal processes...when the order came to end the sales all but ten were melted. That’s substantially different than your assertion.

I don't wish to get in the middle of you two numismatists but all of a sudden I became interested in this thread.

I have seen published information that these two coins were never actually "in" the normal production run. I have never seen anything to confirm your opinion that they were. Perhaps you can cite a source for your belief. Maybe it is was just a hype-thing started by some auction company in the past to make more money at a sale.

https://pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1884-t-1-trade/7064

Thanks for the effort but versions of your post in various forms have been published "forever."

I'll also note that your post DID NOT address my question to the poster who BELIEVES these coins were duly authorized issues. Perhaps some record exists to correct the traditional record. The Mint says nothing irregular occured - I'm fine with that as they have a history of this sort of thing.

It's just a "factoid", not an argument for anything.

What is interesting is that the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars both appeared in 1913 according to sources. That suggests that they don't have two different sources to me. But, I don't know.

tradedollarnut

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-trade-dollars/1884-t-1-pr63-pcgs/a/1251-5735.s

tradedollarnut

tradedollarnut

Drops microphone...

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Zoins

Here are the Horatio Morgan TrueViews.

Anyone have access to the original ads when these first appeared?

• The 1884 was in Edgar Adams ad in the March 1915 Numismatist issue.
• The 1885 was offered by Max Mehl in th eOlsen sale in 1944.

1884 Proof Trade Dollar - PR64+CAM (Gold Shield)
Amon G. Carter - E. Horatio Morgan Specimen
PCGS Coin #87064 / PCGS Serial #38553561
POP 1/1, Estimate price $825,000

At Proof-64+ Cameo (PCGS), the 1884 ranks as the fourth finest certified of the 10 known examples. It first appeared on the market in an ad placed by dealer Edgar Adams in the March 1915 issue of The Numismatist. It has since resided in several significant cabinets, including those of Waldo C. Newcomer, Colonel E.H.R. Green and Amon G. Carter, Jr. It last was offered at auction as lot 440 in Stack’s January 1984 sale of the Carter Family Collection.

• https://www.numismaticnews.net/article/pieces-from-e-horatio-morgan-collection-displayed-at-fun-show

1885 Proof Trade Dollar - PR64 (Gold Shield)
Fred Olsen - L.R. French - E. Horatio Morgan Specimen
PCGS Coin #7065 / PCGS Serial #38607296
POP 1/0 (1/1 incl CAM), Estimate Price n/a

The 1885 example is certified Proof-64 (PCGS) and ranks as the second finest certified behind only the Eliasberg specimen (Proof-65+ Cameo PCGS). It was first offered at auction in B. Max Mehl’s sale of the Fred Olsen Collection in November 1944 amidst the chaos of World War II. Two decades later it appeared in Stack’s November 1965 sale of the George Ewalt Collection. It most recently appeared at auction as lot 202 in Stack’s sale of the L.R. French Collection in January 1989.

• https://www.numismaticnews.net/article/pieces-from-e-horatio-morgan-collection-displayed-at-fun-show

1northcoin

Stunning!

Zoins

@tradedollarnut said:

@DCW said:
You going to make a run at them, @tradedollarnut?
Or have you already owned examples?

I have already owned three 1885s and four 1884s. I’m saving my money for the best 1885.

To get it again?

CaptHenway

I knew Carl but was not aware of this finding from the die record book. I have been doing a lot of work with the Denver Mint's die record book that included the year 1922, and have found it very enlightening.

Is the Philadelphia Mint's die record book for this era available online?

CaptHenway

This 1885 lot description implies that the 1884 Proofs were struck in 1883, but I don't think that that was what they meant. Probably just sloppy grammar.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-trade-dollars/1885-t-1-pr66-ngc/a/1291-4553.s

Insider2

@jmlanzaf said: "What is interesting is that the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars both appeared in 1913 according to sources. That suggests that they don't have two different sources to me. But, I don't know.

Sure you do, they are both products of the Philadelphia Mint.

Insider2

@tradedollarnut said: "Drops microphone..."

Not at all. Insider keeps the microphone and says to all..."Thank you Mr. Tradedollar, asked and answered! I've never seen/heard this information from Mint records. This is something that may have come from one of Roger's (banned) books which I have not finished or auction research? I shall put it in my files.

What do they say about the 1885?

jmlanzaf

@Insider2 said:
@jmlanzaf said: "What is interesting is that the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars both appeared in 1913 according to sources. That suggests that they don't have two different sources to me. But, I don't know.

Sure you do, they are both products of the Philadelphia Mint.

That's not what I meant. I meant that the idea that the 1884 were made and distributed as part of normal mint operations and that the 1885 were made outside of normal mint operations seems at least slightly suspect since they appeared at the same time. So, seems like they are either both out the front door of the Mint or both out the back door of the Mint. Maybe. Or not.

topstuf

@CaptHenway said:
I knew Carl but was not aware of this finding from the die record book. I have been doing a lot of work with the Denver Mint's die record book that included the year 1922, and have found it very enlightening.

Like "Fifty Shades of Dies?"

tradedollarnut

@jmlanzaf said:

@Insider2 said:
@jmlanzaf said: "What is interesting is that the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars both appeared in 1913 according to sources. That suggests that they don't have two different sources to me. But, I don't know.

Sure you do, they are both products of the Philadelphia Mint.

That's not what I meant. I meant that the idea that the 1884 were made and distributed as part of normal mint operations and that the 1885 were made outside of normal mint operations seems at least slightly suspect since they appeared at the same time. So, seems like they are either both out the front door of the Mint or both out the back door of the Mint. Maybe. Or not.

The 1884s were saved from the melting pot and the 1885s were undoubtedly later created by the same guy that saved the 1884s. They then went to Idler and later his son-in-law Haseltine and were presented to the market at a later date - So no surprise that they came on the market at the same time even though they were created by different avenues