It's clear to me that none of a gap in dates, a change in composition, a relatively minor design change, a change in intent to circulate, or a perceived change in "commemorative" status is enough to terminate a series. The only thing that can terminate a series is a replacement of the same denomination. Since the Morgan dollar has been replaced by the Peace, Ike, SBA, Sacagawea, and the unholy mess of Presidential/Native American/Innovation dollars we've mostly been ignoring since 2007, the series was clearly terminated. Similarly, save one step, was the Peace. Therefore these coins, and any further coins struck with these approximate designs, are not a prt of the Morgan or Peace series.
But boy howdy does that leave a ton of grey area.
Following the conclusion of the seated dollar in 1873, the only silver dollar coin the US mint produced for half a decade was the trade dollar. The mint would strike over 30 million trade dollars before the introduction of the Morgan in 1878. In that last year of production, the mint produced 4,259,900 trade dollars in addition to over 20 million Morgan dollars.
Yet even after concluding the business strike trade dollar and the introduction of the Morgan, the US Mint continued to produce thousands of collector-only trade dollars. Not just for one or two years during implementation and distribution of the Morgan. The US Mint released these collector-only, not intended for circulation dollars for a full seven years after the introduction of the Morgan.
Are the 1879 through 1885 trade dollars considered "commemoratives"? Are they not "real" trade dollars?
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
It's clear to me that none of a gap in dates, a change in composition, a relatively minor design change, a change in intent to circulate, or a perceived change in "commemorative" status is enough to terminate a series. The only thing that can terminate a series is a replacement of the same denomination. Since the Morgan dollar has been replaced by the Peace, Ike, SBA, Sacagawea, and the unholy mess of Presidential/Native American/Innovation dollars we've mostly been ignoring since 2007, the series was clearly terminated. Similarly, save one step, was the Peace. Therefore these coins, and any further coins struck with these approximate designs, are not a prt of the Morgan or Peace series.
But boy howdy does that leave a ton of grey area.
Following the conclusion of the seated dollar in 1873, the only silver dollar coin the US mint produced for half a decade was the trade dollar. The mint would strike over 30 million trade dollars before the introduction of the Morgan in 1878. In that last year of production, the mint produced 4,259,900 trade dollars in addition to over 20 million Morgan dollars.
Yet even after concluding the business strike trade dollar and the introduction of the Morgan, the US Mint continued to produce thousands of collector-only trade dollars. Not just for one or two years during implementation and distribution of the Morgan. The US Mint released these collector-only, not intended for circulation dollars for a full seven years after the introduction of the Morgan.
Are the 1879 through 1885 trade dollars considered "commemoratives"? Are they not "real" trade dollars?
Why do you care so much whether others agree with you?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@GRANDAM said:
You say potato,,,,,,,,,, I say potahto
I say Tomato ,,,,,,,,,, you say Tomahto,,,,
Why oh WHY can’t we all get along?
The in-humanity of it all,,,,,,, if we don’t solve this question the world will surely explode and it all will be a mute point!!!!!
BTW,,,,,, I agree that they ARE Morgan Dollars and they ARE Peace Dollars,,,,,,, I also agree that they ARE Commemoratives,,,,,, not that anyone cares what I think but that is what I think.
Why do you care so much whether others agree with you?
Why can't anyone provide a valid numismatic argument for why these solid silver, George T. Morgan designed, United States dollar denominated, United States Mint produced Morgan dollars are somehow not Morgan dollars.
Other than "Because I said so". Because that argument is neither valid nor numismatic.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
Why do you care so much whether others agree with you?
Why can't anyone provide a valid numismatic argument for why these solid silver, George T. Morgan designed, United States dollar denominated, United States Mint produced Morgan dollars are somehow not Morgan dollars.
Other than "Because I said so". Because that argument is neither valid nor numismatic.
It’s not fair to answer a question with a question.
My guess is that a number of posters who disagree with you, feel that they’ve presented viewpoints which are just as valid as yours. Your characterization of the opposing arguments as “Because I said so”, makes me think you’re not reading with an open mind and that you’re far from objective on this subject. Sorry.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It’s not fair to answer a question with a question.
My guess is that a number of posters who disagree with you, feel that they’ve presented viewpoints which are just as valid as yours. Your characterization of the opposing arguments as “Because I said so”, makes me think you’re not reading with an open mind and that you’re far from objective on this subject. Sorry.
They haven't, and I'm not.
It's not about "opinions" or "viewpoints" or even having an "open mind".
It's about valid numismatic arguments. And as with any scientific or academic pursuit: facts are facts.
I've maintained from the beginning that Morgan dollar collectors are welcome to collect what they want. Put these in your collection, don't put them in your collection. That is entirely up to the individual collector based on whatever criteria they wish to pursue.
Let me be crystal clear here: I'm not trying to pick a fight. And I'm not trying to convince anyone. I have no delusions about my ability to argue a point or to convince people on an online forum.
What I'm asking for is for someone to convince me that these Morgan dollars are somehow not Morgan dollars based on objective numismatic principles.
And so far, I've seen exactly one argument that approaches convincing. My post about trade dollars above blew holes through that position.
Present a valid numismatic argument for why the 2021 Morgan dollars are not Morgan dollars and I will willingly and publicly change my position. I welcome the opportunity.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
@BillJones said:
It should not be included in the Morgan Dollar because it is a commemorative. But I am sure that it will because it will boost sales and prices.
As was the Bicentennial quarter and the original 1932 Washington Quarter for that matter. The Lincoln cent was designed in 1909 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth.
If the argument is these were merely made to resemble a circulating coin and weren’t meant to circulate what about 1884/1885 Trade Dollars, 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, and any other PF only issue?
@BryceM said:
Now, if they used original hubs and changed only the date with 90/10 planchets, I'd vote yes.
I believe the 1921 Morgans did not use original hubs either.
True, but the overall feel of the coin was pretty close. Not exact, but close enough for government work. I have a notion the "new" Peace and Morgan dollars will be qualitatively very different than the originals. We'll see.
Define “close.” The obverse design details of many circulating issues has changed markedly over the years. Look at the hairlines in the bust of Washington quarter for instance.
It’s not fair to answer a question with a question.
My guess is that a number of posters who disagree with you, feel that they’ve presented viewpoints which are just as valid as yours. Your characterization of the opposing arguments as “Because I said so”, makes me think you’re not reading with an open mind and that you’re far from objective on this subject. Sorry.
They haven't, and I'm not.
It's not about "opinions" or "viewpoints" or even having an "open mind".
It's about valid numismatic arguments. And as with any scientific or academic pursuit: facts are facts.
I've maintained from the beginning that Morgan dollar collectors are welcome to collect what they want. Put these in your collection, don't put them in your collection. That is entirely up to the individual collector based on whatever criteria they wish to pursue.
Let me be crystal clear here: I'm not trying to pick a fight. And I'm not trying to convince anyone. I have no delusions about my ability to argue a point or to convince people on an online forum.
What I'm asking for is for someone to convince me that these Morgan dollars are somehow not Morgan dollars based on objective numismatic principles.
And so far, I've seen exactly one argument that approaches convincing. My post about trade dollars above blew holes through that position.
Present a valid numismatic argument for why the 2021 Morgan dollars are not Morgan dollars and I will willingly and publicly change my position. I welcome the opportunity.
I’m not going to read through this thread again and quote other posters. But there are a number of posts which I and others felt did present valid numismatic arguments, which countered yours. You just don’t happen to see them that way.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think one reason for this debate is a larger mentality in the hobby where "real" US coinage is seen as having ended with 1964 issues. Therefore the American collecting public can't accept 2021 Morgan and Peace dollars as "real" coins just like how the American collecting public can't accept clad coins and other coins made during the clad era as "real" coins. Coin collectors can be a cantankerous bunch at times, I'm sure future generations of collectors that aren't boomers or gen x will be looking at these threads and laughing at these debates.
Look at some of the criteria in determining whether these are a part of the series or a commemorative, as an example an original series has ended once a design has been replaced; mint officials were looking at issuing 1964 Morgan Dollars instead of 1964 Peace Dollars. What if the mint actually went through with 1964 Morgan Dollars? Would 1964 Morgan Dollars be a part of the Morgan Dollar series? Clearly because of the collecting boom then, they probably wouldn't widely circulate.
@olympicsos The cantankerous cant see very far. I wonder if the collectors of the late 1800's thought this way? And history is simply repeating itself.
If the mint makes a coronet large cent next year, or a capped bust half, or a three cent nickel, those won’t be a part of those series either in my collections. These modern re-releases/ contrivances are not circulating coins, they’re beanie babies.
@DNADave said:
If the mint makes a coronet large cent next year, or a capped bust half, or a three cent nickel, those won’t be a part of those series either in my collections. These modern re-releases/ contrivances are not circulating coins, they’re beanie babies.
I see your point.
Has the mint just run out of new ideas or have the collectors just dug in their heels.
Strange, since these are considered collectibles yet some collectors may disagree. Sure they’re not part of the original Morgan Series but no doubt a part of the Morgan series.
Or has the great @jmlanzaf simply asked a rhetorical question because he was bored and wanted to part The Red Sea but knowing that he could not this was the next best thing.
BTW, has @ColonelJessup weighed in yet because I know he could clear this sh_t up real quick.
They probably have someone who reads the posts here. Everybody seems to want restrikes of old designs, and they're just giving people what they ask for.
They probably have someone who reads the posts here. Everybody seems to want restrikes of old designs, and they're just giving people what they ask for.
They could kill three birds with one stone by going back to copper on the cent except it would be the new Nickel or possibly three cent piece.
This covers the cost of copper, eliminates the cent, and creates a non clad/zinc coin that collectors could appreciate.
Wasn’t it the introduction of clad that got everybody up in arms and created the so-called non-collectible era?
While you’re at it go ahead and make the new quarter or half dollar 90% silver but the size slightly larger than a dime. And again you can eliminate, the dime while creating a new design with a precious metal that creates Luster :-)
It's clear to me that none of a gap in dates, a change in composition, a relatively minor design change, a change in intent to circulate, or a perceived change in "commemorative" status is enough to terminate a series. The only thing that can terminate a series is a replacement of the same denomination. Since the Morgan dollar has been replaced by the Peace, Ike, SBA, Sacagawea, and the unholy mess of Presidential/Native American/Innovation dollars we've mostly been ignoring since 2007, the series was clearly terminated. Similarly, save one step, was the Peace. Therefore these coins, and any further coins struck with these approximate designs, are not a prt of the Morgan or Peace series.
But boy howdy does that leave a ton of grey area.
Following the conclusion of the seated dollar in 1873, the only silver dollar coin the US mint produced for half a decade was the trade dollar. The mint would strike over 30 million trade dollars before the introduction of the Morgan in 1878. In that last year of production, the mint produced 4,259,900 trade dollars in addition to over 20 million Morgan dollars.
Yet even after concluding the business strike trade dollar and the introduction of the Morgan, the US Mint continued to produce thousands of collector-only trade dollars. Not just for one or two years during implementation and distribution of the Morgan. The US Mint released these collector-only, not intended for circulation dollars for a full seven years after the introduction of the Morgan.
Are the 1879 through 1885 trade dollars considered "commemoratives"? Are they not "real" trade dollars?
I'm assuming when you say "collector-only" Trade Dollars that there was legislation authorizing the striking of these collector-only coins. Is that the case? Were these coins minted using dies that were used to strike the business strike coins or special dies created to strike these collector-only coins?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
It's clear to me that none of a gap in dates, a change in composition, a relatively minor design change, a change in intent to circulate, or a perceived change in "commemorative" status is enough to terminate a series. The only thing that can terminate a series is a replacement of the same denomination. Since the Morgan dollar has been replaced by the Peace, Ike, SBA, Sacagawea, and the unholy mess of Presidential/Native American/Innovation dollars we've mostly been ignoring since 2007, the series was clearly terminated. Similarly, save one step, was the Peace. Therefore these coins, and any further coins struck with these approximate designs, are not a prt of the Morgan or Peace series.
But boy howdy does that leave a ton of grey area.
Following the conclusion of the seated dollar in 1873, the only silver dollar coin the US mint produced for half a decade was the trade dollar. The mint would strike over 30 million trade dollars before the introduction of the Morgan in 1878. In that last year of production, the mint produced 4,259,900 trade dollars in addition to over 20 million Morgan dollars.
Yet even after concluding the business strike trade dollar and the introduction of the Morgan, the US Mint continued to produce thousands of collector-only trade dollars. Not just for one or two years during implementation and distribution of the Morgan. The US Mint released these collector-only, not intended for circulation dollars for a full seven years after the introduction of the Morgan.
Are the 1879 through 1885 trade dollars considered "commemoratives"? Are they not "real" trade dollars?
I'm assuming when you say "collector-only" Trade Dollars that there was legislation authorizing the striking of these collector-only coins. Is that the case? Were these coins minted using dies that were used to strike the business strike coins or special dies created to strike these collector-only coins?
I’m not seeing anything remotely close to an on-point analogy. The production of Proof Trade dollars continued, uninterrupted, for several years, after the Morgan dollar series was introduced. The new Morgan coins were introduced 100 years after the Morgan dollar series ended and none of them were intended for commerce.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's clear to me that none of a gap in dates, a change in composition, a relatively minor design change, a change in intent to circulate, or a perceived change in "commemorative" status is enough to terminate a series. The only thing that can terminate a series is a replacement of the same denomination. Since the Morgan dollar has been replaced by the Peace, Ike, SBA, Sacagawea, and the unholy mess of Presidential/Native American/Innovation dollars we've mostly been ignoring since 2007, the series was clearly terminated. Similarly, save one step, was the Peace. Therefore these coins, and any further coins struck with these approximate designs, are not a prt of the Morgan or Peace series.
But boy howdy does that leave a ton of grey area.
Following the conclusion of the seated dollar in 1873, the only silver dollar coin the US mint produced for half a decade was the trade dollar. The mint would strike over 30 million trade dollars before the introduction of the Morgan in 1878. In that last year of production, the mint produced 4,259,900 trade dollars in addition to over 20 million Morgan dollars.
Yet even after concluding the business strike trade dollar and the introduction of the Morgan, the US Mint continued to produce thousands of collector-only trade dollars. Not just for one or two years during implementation and distribution of the Morgan. The US Mint released these collector-only, not intended for circulation dollars for a full seven years after the introduction of the Morgan.
Are the 1879 through 1885 trade dollars considered "commemoratives"? Are they not "real" trade dollars?
I'm assuming when you say "collector-only" Trade Dollars that there was legislation authorizing the striking of these collector-only coins. Is that the case? Were these coins minted using dies that were used to strike the business strike coins or special dies created to strike these collector-only coins?
I’m not seeing anything remotely close to an on-point analogy. The production of Proof Trade dollars continued, uninterrupted, for several years, after the Morgan dollar series was introduced. The new Morgan coins were introduced 100 years after the Morgan dollar series ended and none of them were intended for commerce.
Hi Mark, I know next to nothing about Trade Dollars and trying to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. As for these new Morgan Dollars, based on what I know I would not consider them continuation of the Morgan series.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
It's clear to me that none of a gap in dates, a change in composition, a relatively minor design change, a change in intent to circulate, or a perceived change in "commemorative" status is enough to terminate a series. The only thing that can terminate a series is a replacement of the same denomination. Since the Morgan dollar has been replaced by the Peace, Ike, SBA, Sacagawea, and the unholy mess of Presidential/Native American/Innovation dollars we've mostly been ignoring since 2007, the series was clearly terminated. Similarly, save one step, was the Peace. Therefore these coins, and any further coins struck with these approximate designs, are not a prt of the Morgan or Peace series.
But boy howdy does that leave a ton of grey area.
Following the conclusion of the seated dollar in 1873, the only silver dollar coin the US mint produced for half a decade was the trade dollar. The mint would strike over 30 million trade dollars before the introduction of the Morgan in 1878. In that last year of production, the mint produced 4,259,900 trade dollars in addition to over 20 million Morgan dollars.
Yet even after concluding the business strike trade dollar and the introduction of the Morgan, the US Mint continued to produce thousands of collector-only trade dollars. Not just for one or two years during implementation and distribution of the Morgan. The US Mint released these collector-only, not intended for circulation dollars for a full seven years after the introduction of the Morgan.
Are the 1879 through 1885 trade dollars considered "commemoratives"? Are they not "real" trade dollars?
I'm assuming when you say "collector-only" Trade Dollars that there was legislation authorizing the striking of these collector-only coins. Is that the case? Were these coins minted using dies that were used to strike the business strike coins or special dies created to strike these collector-only coins?
I’m not seeing anything remotely close to an on-point analogy. The production of Proof Trade dollars continued, uninterrupted, for several years, after the Morgan dollar series was introduced. The new Morgan coins were introduced 100 years after the Morgan dollar series ended and none of them were intended for commerce.
Hi Mark, I know next to nothing about Trade Dollars and trying to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. As for these new Morgan Dollars, based on what I know I would not consider them continuation of the Morgan series.
In that case, we have nothing to debate. And as a result, this thread will be several dozen posts shorter than it otherwise would.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I didn't say I killed the argument, I just said I shot holes in it.
But in a death cage match, you have to pick one.
In the red corner:
Same size
Same weight
Same material
Same designer
Same design
Same producer
Monitized
Denominated
And named by act of congress and the US Mint
It's A MORGAN DOLLAR!!!!
And in the blue corner:
Something different came out in the interim
It's Not A MORGAN DOLLAR!!!!
Winner by knockout is:
It's a Morgan Dollar.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
@Weiss said:
I didn't say I killed the argument, I just said I shot holes in it.
But in a death cage match, you have to pick one.
In the red corner:
Same size
Same weight
Same material
Same designer
Same design
Same producer
Monitized
Denominated
And named by act of congress and the US Mint
It's A MORGAN DOLLAR!!!!
And in the blue corner:
Something different came out in the interim
It's Not A MORGAN DOLLAR!!!!
Winner by knockout is:
It's a Morgan Dollar.
Please remind me, for what purpose were the new Morgans produced? 😉
I think that in one or more posts, you argued that certain Proof coins (like Morgan dollars) weren’t intended for commerce, either. Yet, they’re considered to be part of the Morgan dollar series. But what you failed to mention was that they were produced in addition to and at the same time as business strikes, that were meant to circulate. That’s clearly not the case with the 1921 commemorative coins.
Sorry, your pronouncements of the winner and of a knockout were both in error.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But what you failed to mention was that they were produced in addition to and at the same time as business strikes, that were meant to circulate. That’s clearly not the case with the 1921 commemorative coins.
So what you're saying is that something different came out in the interim?
Fair enough. We'll add that to the blue corner:
And in the blue corner:
Something different came out in the interim
And Something different came out in the interim
Better? Guess who still wins in a knockout?
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
But what you failed to mention was that they were produced in addition to and at the same time as business strikes, that were meant to circulate. That’s clearly not the case with the 1921 commemorative coins.
So what you're saying is that something different came out in the interim?
Fair enough. We'll add that to the blue corner:
And in the blue corner:
Something different came out in the interim
And Something different came out in the interim
Better? Guess who still wins in a knockout?
No, not better. You keep ignoring the fact that they aren’t intended for commerce and they weren’t produced alongside other examples intended for that purpose.
I do give you credit for your stamina. Now I’m going back to my corner, where I’ll remain.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Jzyskowski1 said:
The run stopped in 1904. The 1921 is a commemorative. The 2021 are commemoratives.
But someone mentioned the 2023 redbook but not how they decided 😎
If the 1921 Morgan is a Commemorative I vote we start a petition to have it removed from all Morgan Dollar sets and put it in the Classic Commemorative sets,,,,
Just kidding,,,,, I don’t care what they call them,,, I just like them.
GRANDAM. I was stirring the kettle. The gap in years sez not ,the fact they circulated sez maybe. Hundred years sez commemorative. 😉. The real battle comes with proof next year and greater war zone ahead with reverse proofs? Can’t wait to hear about how if the people at the mint had the technology they might have 😂.
No lack of material 👍🏼
@Weiss said:
I didn't say I killed the argument, I just said I shot holes in it.
But in a death cage match, you have to pick one.
In the red corner:
Same size
Same weight
Same material
Same designer
Same design
Same producer
Monitized
Denominated
And named by act of congress and the US Mint
It's A MORGAN DOLLAR!!!!
And in the blue corner:
Something different came out in the interim
It's Not A MORGAN DOLLAR!!!!
Winner by knockout is:
It's a Morgan Dollar.
Congressional authorization says they are commemoratives. They are not the same material. The original Morgans are 90% silver, 10% copper. The new ones are 99.9% silver. They are not the same weight (1921 = 0.943oz, 2021 = 0.858oz). The finish on the coins is totally different. They are separated in production by 100 years.
Winner by submission = not part of the series.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Congressional authorization says they are commemoratives. They are not the same material. The original Morgans are 90% silver, 10% copper. The new ones are 99.9% silver. They are not the same weight (1921 = 0.943oz, 2021 = 0.858oz). The finish on the coins is totally different. They are separated in production by 100 years.
There is a counter-point for every point,,,,,,,, that said,
Winner by submission = not part of the series.
So by this logic every coins series that has changed material composition are not part on the original series,,,,
This would include all post 1964 coins that are no longer 90% silver,,,,,,, all Lincoln Cents that changed from copper to zinc,,,,,, the War Nickels that were not nickel but were silver.
A lot of sets need to be changed to reflect this issue.
Congressional authorization says they are commemoratives. They are not the same material. The original Morgans are 90% silver, 10% copper. The new ones are 99.9% silver. They are not the same weight (1921 = 0.943oz, 2021 = 0.858oz). The finish on the coins is totally different. They are separated in production by 100 years.
Winner by submission = not part of the series.
Sigh.
We've been through this.
Same material = silver. Or would you argue a 40% or clad Kennedy is not a Kennedy?
They are virtually the same weight. They are much, much closer in weight than a clad Washington or Ike is to a silver Washington or Ike. Or a copper Lincoln is to a zinc Lincoln. Would you argue those are not real Washingtons, Ikes, or Lincolns?
The finish on a matte Jefferson, matte Kennedy, or proof_ anything_ is also totally different. Are those not real Jeffersons, Kennedys, or...anythings?
The 1921 Morgans had a separation of 17 years. The king of American coins, the 1804 dollar, had a 3-decade long production separation.
Evidence against?
Something different came out in the interim.
Still a unanimous decision for It's a Morgan Dollar.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
Congressional authorization says they are commemoratives. They are not the same material. The original Morgans are 90% silver, 10% copper. The new ones are 99.9% silver. They are not the same weight (1921 = 0.943oz, 2021 = 0.858oz). The finish on the coins is totally different. They are separated in production by 100 years.
Winner by submission = not part of the series.
Sigh.
We've been through this.
Same material = silver. Or would you argue a 40% or clad Kennedy is not a Kennedy?
They are virtually the same weight. They are much, much closer in weight than a clad Washington or Ike is to a silver Washington or Ike. Or a copper Lincoln is to a zinc Lincoln. Would you argue those are not real Washingtons, Ikes, or Lincolns?
The finish on a matte Jefferson, matte Kennedy, or proof_ anything_ is also totally different. Are those not real Jeffersons, Kennedys, or...anythings?
The 1921 Morgans had a separation of 17 years. The king of American coins, the 1804 dollar, had a 3-decade long production separation.
Evidence against?
Something different came out in the interim.
Still a unanimous decision for It's a Morgan Dollar.
“Unanimous”? It should be clear - even to you - that many others have voted differently.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that it isn’t a Morgan Dollar. It has virtually the same design (by George Morgan) and it is denominated as one dollar. That’s pretty much airtight.
However, what you are not even close to proving is that the new coins should be considered part of the original series. In that case, while still obviously subjective, I believe the bulk of the evidence would indicate that they should not. Please refer to my series of questions earlier as to what distinctions might lead one to lean one way or the other.
@david3142 said:
I don’t think anyone is arguing that it isn’t a Morgan Dollar. It has virtually the same design (by George Morgan) and it is denominated as one dollar. That’s pretty much airtight.
However, what you are not even close to proving is that the new coins should be considered part of the original series. In that case, while still obviously subjective, I believe the bulk of the evidence would indicate that they should not. Please refer to my series of questions earlier as to what distinctions might lead one to lean one way or the other.
Copied for@Weiss:
“It isn’t any one thing or a bright divider that would determine whether it’s generally accepted to be part of the same series. I think you could ask any of the following (or more):
Same design obverse?
Same basic design obverse?
Same design reverse?
Same basic design reverse?
Same composition?
Same size?
Years between production?
Any intervening designs?
Similar mintage numbers?
Same minting facilities?
Same finish?
Same distribution?
Same price?
Does the production run continue in subsequent years?
If there were changes and the production continued, do subsequent years continue with the changes or revert back?
Any changes in legislation or mint language regarding production or distribution?
You can come up with examples for most of the above where one might reasonably draw a line on one side of the other. For example, the satin finish special issue nickels in 2004 and 2005. Special Kennedys in 2014. Even bicentennial coinage of 1976. Maybe the 1995-W Silver Eagle.
Also, what does it mean to be part of the same series? One could ask if a registry set would be complete without certain coins. I think it’s reasonable to consider a mint state set complete but others include proofs and/or SMS examples.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@david3142 has hit the nail on the head. The correct question is not "is it a Morgan dollar" but rather "is it part of the original Morgan series". It is a commemorative Morgan dollar, but beyond commemoration has little to do with the original series.
The observation by @DNADave is pretty convincing as well. Surely if the mint decides to a make flowing hair dollar next year, no early dollar collector will consider an essential part of their collection!
I don't find the gap from 1904 to 1921 an issue. Having witnessed the SBA gap from 1981 to 1999 as an adult, I can attest to the fact that it's a pretty brief period! 100 years does not take us remotely back to antiquity, but it's starting to become a sizeable chunk of time.
Comments
Following the conclusion of the seated dollar in 1873, the only silver dollar coin the US mint produced for half a decade was the trade dollar. The mint would strike over 30 million trade dollars before the introduction of the Morgan in 1878. In that last year of production, the mint produced 4,259,900 trade dollars in addition to over 20 million Morgan dollars.
Yet even after concluding the business strike trade dollar and the introduction of the Morgan, the US Mint continued to produce thousands of collector-only trade dollars. Not just for one or two years during implementation and distribution of the Morgan. The US Mint released these collector-only, not intended for circulation dollars for a full seven years after the introduction of the Morgan.
Are the 1879 through 1885 trade dollars considered "commemoratives"? Are they not "real" trade dollars?
--Severian the Lame
Why do you care so much whether others agree with you?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No.
I say Tomato ,,,,,,,,,, you say Tomahto,,,,
Why oh WHY can’t we all get along?
The in-humanity of it all,,,,,,, if we don’t solve this question the world will surely explode and it all will be a mute point!!!!!
BTW,,,,,, I agree that they ARE Morgan Dollars and they ARE Peace Dollars,,,,,,, I also agree that they ARE Commemoratives,,,,,, not that anyone cares what I think but that is what I think.
Why can't anyone provide a valid numismatic argument for why these solid silver, George T. Morgan designed, United States dollar denominated, United States Mint produced Morgan dollars are somehow not Morgan dollars.
Other than "Because I said so". Because that argument is neither valid nor numismatic.
--Severian the Lame
It’s not fair to answer a question with a question.
My guess is that a number of posters who disagree with you, feel that they’ve presented viewpoints which are just as valid as yours. Your characterization of the opposing arguments as “Because I said so”, makes me think you’re not reading with an open mind and that you’re far from objective on this subject. Sorry.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
They haven't, and I'm not.
It's not about "opinions" or "viewpoints" or even having an "open mind".
It's about valid numismatic arguments. And as with any scientific or academic pursuit: facts are facts.
I've maintained from the beginning that Morgan dollar collectors are welcome to collect what they want. Put these in your collection, don't put them in your collection. That is entirely up to the individual collector based on whatever criteria they wish to pursue.
Let me be crystal clear here: I'm not trying to pick a fight. And I'm not trying to convince anyone. I have no delusions about my ability to argue a point or to convince people on an online forum.
What I'm asking for is for someone to convince me that these Morgan dollars are somehow not Morgan dollars based on objective numismatic principles.
And so far, I've seen exactly one argument that approaches convincing. My post about trade dollars above blew holes through that position.
Present a valid numismatic argument for why the 2021 Morgan dollars are not Morgan dollars and I will willingly and publicly change my position. I welcome the opportunity.
--Severian the Lame
As was the Bicentennial quarter and the original 1932 Washington Quarter for that matter. The Lincoln cent was designed in 1909 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth.
If the argument is these were merely made to resemble a circulating coin and weren’t meant to circulate what about 1884/1885 Trade Dollars, 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, and any other PF only issue?
Define “close.” The obverse design details of many circulating issues has changed markedly over the years. Look at the hairlines in the bust of Washington quarter for instance.
I’m not going to read through this thread again and quote other posters. But there are a number of posts which I and others felt did present valid numismatic arguments, which countered yours. You just don’t happen to see them that way.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think one reason for this debate is a larger mentality in the hobby where "real" US coinage is seen as having ended with 1964 issues. Therefore the American collecting public can't accept 2021 Morgan and Peace dollars as "real" coins just like how the American collecting public can't accept clad coins and other coins made during the clad era as "real" coins. Coin collectors can be a cantankerous bunch at times, I'm sure future generations of collectors that aren't boomers or gen x will be looking at these threads and laughing at these debates.
Look at some of the criteria in determining whether these are a part of the series or a commemorative, as an example an original series has ended once a design has been replaced; mint officials were looking at issuing 1964 Morgan Dollars instead of 1964 Peace Dollars. What if the mint actually went through with 1964 Morgan Dollars? Would 1964 Morgan Dollars be a part of the Morgan Dollar series? Clearly because of the collecting boom then, they probably wouldn't widely circulate.
If a non-collector read the question only, it seems common else that the "Morgan Dollar" would be considered part of the "Morgan dollar series".
Should the 2021 Morgan Dollar be considered part of the Morgan dollar series?
For those thinking it should be separate, should the title be different? Say:
Should the 2021 Morgan Dollar Commemorative be considered part of the Morgan dollar series?
There is a 2022 Morgan on the mints scheduled release next year.
If it says Morgan then it's probably a Morgan.
@olympicsos The cantankerous cant see very far. I wonder if the collectors of the late 1800's thought this way? And history is simply repeating itself.
No... I just don't see it.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
If it looks like a duck,,,,, walks like a duck,,,,, and quacks like a duck,,,,,,
it is probably a duck.
If the mint makes a coronet large cent next year, or a capped bust half, or a three cent nickel, those won’t be a part of those series either in my collections. These modern re-releases/ contrivances are not circulating coins, they’re beanie babies.
If the 2021 Morgan Dollar is considered part of the Morgan dollar series, won't it be listed as such in a future Red Book edition?
This is the most logical statement so far,,,,, let the Red Book decide.
Dansco might have something to say about that...
I see your point.
Has the mint just run out of new ideas or have the collectors just dug in their heels.
Strange, since these are considered collectibles yet some collectors may disagree. Sure they’re not part of the original Morgan Series but no doubt a part of the Morgan series.
Or has the great @jmlanzaf simply asked a rhetorical question because he was bored and wanted to part The Red Sea but knowing that he could not this was the next best thing.
BTW, has @ColonelJessup weighed in yet because I know he could clear this sh_t up real quick.
They probably have someone who reads the posts here. Everybody seems to want restrikes of old designs, and they're just giving people what they ask for.
Yes sir I am waiting on the restrikes of those original reverse proof Morgan’s and Peace Dollar 😂😳
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
They could kill three birds with one stone by going back to copper on the cent except it would be the new Nickel or possibly three cent piece.
This covers the cost of copper, eliminates the cent, and creates a non clad/zinc coin that collectors could appreciate.
Wasn’t it the introduction of clad that got everybody up in arms and created the so-called non-collectible era?
While you’re at it go ahead and make the new quarter or half dollar 90% silver but the size slightly larger than a dime. And again you can eliminate, the dime while creating a new design with a precious metal that creates Luster :-)
What does PCGS say it is?
Hoard the keys.
They made a decision, I believe it will be in the 2023 red book.
And what did they decide?
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
Do you know what the decision is?
I'm assuming when you say "collector-only" Trade Dollars that there was legislation authorizing the striking of these collector-only coins. Is that the case? Were these coins minted using dies that were used to strike the business strike coins or special dies created to strike these collector-only coins?
I’m not seeing anything remotely close to an on-point analogy. The production of Proof Trade dollars continued, uninterrupted, for several years, after the Morgan dollar series was introduced. The new Morgan coins were introduced 100 years after the Morgan dollar series ended and none of them were intended for commerce.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Hi Mark, I know next to nothing about Trade Dollars and trying to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. As for these new Morgan Dollars, based on what I know I would not consider them continuation of the Morgan series.
In that case, we have nothing to debate. And as a result, this thread will be several dozen posts shorter than it otherwise would.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I didn't say I killed the argument, I just said I shot holes in it.
But in a death cage match, you have to pick one.
In the red corner:
Same size
Same weight
Same material
Same designer
Same design
Same producer
Monitized
Denominated
And named by act of congress and the US Mint
It's A MORGAN DOLLAR!!!!
And in the blue corner:
Something different came out in the interim
It's Not A MORGAN DOLLAR!!!!
Winner by knockout is:
It's a Morgan Dollar.
--Severian the Lame
If you want it to be, it's part of the set.
If you don't want it to be, it's not part of the set.
The only people this won't work for are the ones who insist that other people must agree with their preferences.
Please remind me, for what purpose were the new Morgans produced? 😉
I think that in one or more posts, you argued that certain Proof coins (like Morgan dollars) weren’t intended for commerce, either. Yet, they’re considered to be part of the Morgan dollar series. But what you failed to mention was that they were produced in addition to and at the same time as business strikes, that were meant to circulate. That’s clearly not the case with the 1921 commemorative coins.
Sorry, your pronouncements of the winner and of a knockout were both in error.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But what you failed to mention was that they were produced in addition to and at the same time as business strikes, that were meant to circulate. That’s clearly not the case with the 1921 commemorative coins.
So what you're saying is that something different came out in the interim?
Fair enough. We'll add that to the blue corner:
And in the blue corner:
Something different came out in the interim
And
Something different came out in the interim
Better? Guess who still wins in a knockout?
--Severian the Lame
The run stopped in 1904. The 1921 is a commemorative. The 2021 are commemoratives.
But someone mentioned the 2023 redbook but not how they decided 😎
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
No, not better. You keep ignoring the fact that they aren’t intended for commerce and they weren’t produced alongside other examples intended for that purpose.
I do give you credit for your stamina. Now I’m going back to my corner, where I’ll remain.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If the 1921 Morgan is a Commemorative I vote we start a petition to have it removed from all Morgan Dollar sets and put it in the Classic Commemorative sets,,,,
Just kidding,,,,, I don’t care what they call them,,, I just like them.
GRANDAM. I was stirring the kettle. The gap in years sez not ,the fact they circulated sez maybe. Hundred years sez commemorative. 😉. The real battle comes with proof next year and greater war zone ahead with reverse proofs? Can’t wait to hear about how if the people at the mint had the technology they might have 😂.
No lack of material 👍🏼
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
Congressional authorization says they are commemoratives. They are not the same material. The original Morgans are 90% silver, 10% copper. The new ones are 99.9% silver. They are not the same weight (1921 = 0.943oz, 2021 = 0.858oz). The finish on the coins is totally different. They are separated in production by 100 years.
Winner by submission = not part of the series.
...............................................................................................
There is a counter-point for every point,,,,,,,, that said,
Winner by submission = not part of the series.
So by this logic every coins series that has changed material composition are not part on the original series,,,,
This would include all post 1964 coins that are no longer 90% silver,,,,,,, all Lincoln Cents that changed from copper to zinc,,,,,, the War Nickels that were not nickel but were silver.
A lot of sets need to be changed to reflect this issue.
Sigh.
We've been through this.
Same material = silver. Or would you argue a 40% or clad Kennedy is not a Kennedy?
They are virtually the same weight. They are much, much closer in weight than a clad Washington or Ike is to a silver Washington or Ike. Or a copper Lincoln is to a zinc Lincoln. Would you argue those are not real Washingtons, Ikes, or Lincolns?
The finish on a matte Jefferson, matte Kennedy, or proof_ anything_ is also totally different. Are those not real Jeffersons, Kennedys, or...anythings?
The 1921 Morgans had a separation of 17 years. The king of American coins, the 1804 dollar, had a 3-decade long production separation.
Evidence against?
Something different came out in the interim.
Still a unanimous decision for It's a Morgan Dollar.
--Severian the Lame
“Unanimous”? It should be clear - even to you - that many others have voted differently.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that it isn’t a Morgan Dollar. It has virtually the same design (by George Morgan) and it is denominated as one dollar. That’s pretty much airtight.
However, what you are not even close to proving is that the new coins should be considered part of the original series. In that case, while still obviously subjective, I believe the bulk of the evidence would indicate that they should not. Please refer to my series of questions earlier as to what distinctions might lead one to lean one way or the other.
Copied for@Weiss:
“It isn’t any one thing or a bright divider that would determine whether it’s generally accepted to be part of the same series. I think you could ask any of the following (or more):
Same design obverse?
Same basic design obverse?
Same design reverse?
Same basic design reverse?
Same composition?
Same size?
Years between production?
Any intervening designs?
Similar mintage numbers?
Same minting facilities?
Same finish?
Same distribution?
Same price?
Does the production run continue in subsequent years?
If there were changes and the production continued, do subsequent years continue with the changes or revert back?
Any changes in legislation or mint language regarding production or distribution?
You can come up with examples for most of the above where one might reasonably draw a line on one side of the other. For example, the satin finish special issue nickels in 2004 and 2005. Special Kennedys in 2014. Even bicentennial coinage of 1976. Maybe the 1995-W Silver Eagle.
Also, what does it mean to be part of the same series? One could ask if a registry set would be complete without certain coins. I think it’s reasonable to consider a mint state set complete but others include proofs and/or SMS examples.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@david3142 has hit the nail on the head. The correct question is not "is it a Morgan dollar" but rather "is it part of the original Morgan series". It is a commemorative Morgan dollar, but beyond commemoration has little to do with the original series.
The observation by @DNADave is pretty convincing as well. Surely if the mint decides to a make flowing hair dollar next year, no early dollar collector will consider an essential part of their collection!
I don't find the gap from 1904 to 1921 an issue. Having witnessed the SBA gap from 1981 to 1999 as an adult, I can attest to the fact that it's a pretty brief period! 100 years does not take us remotely back to antiquity, but it's starting to become a sizeable chunk of time.
I'm wondering how a coin that contains no copper can be said to be made of the same material as one that is 10% copper.
Well, is a Lincoln Memorial cent still a Lincoln Memorial Cent if it has no zinc?