the first thing to do when questions of attribution arise is to check pop reports. if you see a coin number, and pops, they attribute them. (99.5% of the time. there are other coins that require further determination)
if you ever send something like this out, i would make it a point to note on the submission form that you think it may be XXXX but if not to go ahead and grade/attribute as XXXXX.
with a coin like this, a potential monster, the less time spent traveling around the country in an envelope or event registered box, the better. when in doubt, always consult a professional or come here. we're experts on everything, just ask us.
don't know where you live or how much you travel to shows but you can also keep a coin like this to submit directly at shows or perhaps even their offices (pcgs in cali) if they are still doing that.
to some extent, even if an expert here says your coin is XXXXX, at the end of the day it is the TPG call. so encouragement to properly package, seal and insure your item and sending it out is the best course sometimes, which you did. it is a very tough coin to verify, the peace proofs, so i appreciate anacs' course here.
BUT you still have work and expense ahead of you. anacs has my confidence, so if they say something like that, it is best to heed their advice but prepare yourself for any outcome.
the first thing to do when questions of attribution arise is to check pop reports. if you see a coin number, and pops, they attribute them. (99.5% of the time. there are other coins that require further determination)
if you ever send something like this out, i would make it a point to note on the submission form that you think it may be XXXX but if not to go ahead and grade/attribute as XXXXX.
with a coin like this, a potential monster, the less time spent traveling around the country in an envelope or event registered box, the better. when in doubt, always consult a professional or come here. we're experts on everything, just ask us.
don't know where you live or how much you travel to shows but you can also keep a coin like this to submit directly at shows or perhaps even their offices (pcgs in cali) if they are still doing that.
to some extent, even if an expert here says your coin is XXXXX, at the end of the day it is the TPG call. so encouragement to properly package, seal and insure your item and sending it out is the best course sometimes, which you did. it is a very tough coin to verify, the peace proofs, so i appreciate anacs' course here.
BUT you still have work and expense ahead of you. anacs has my confidence, so if they say something like that, it is best to heed their advice but prepare yourself for any outcome.
@LanceNewmanOCC-Many thanks!! Obviously I'm a bit green on these things and really appreciate your feedback!
FWIW I have two VAM-1H 1921's at PCGS now that they missed the attributions on previously. Their VAM master list is a mess, it only has 28 of the Elite 30 listed, it is missing VAM1H and 1F for some reason, both of which have PCGS coin numbers. https://www.pcgs.com/vamvarieties
On a coin like yours, the strike far outweighs the VAM attribution IMO. I would pay well above price guide for one struck like that.
@MrEureka said:
My opinion is that it's an early strike, and that no actual proofs were ever struck. Until somewhat recently, I would have said it was really just a guess, based on the fact that the dies remained in use for an apparently long production run. Today, based on studying the 1922 "Medium Relief" Peace Dollars auctioned by Stacks Bowers at the 2014 ANA, I'm more confident of my opinion.
The two pieces below are the first and the last (3200th) coins from the dies. The first is "hammered", has lots of die polish lines, and (although not obvious in the pics) is as satiny PL/PR as any Peace Dollar anyone has ever seen. The 3200th coin, the last struck before the dies were retired (or failed) looks completely ordinary. Now, one could argue that maybe the first piece was struck as a proof and the last piece was not, but I think that's highly unlikely. Mostly, because this was an experimental production run, with the purpose of testing things like the striking pressue and die longevity. Striking a true proof from these dies would have jeopardized the integrity of the experiment.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If they were experimenting with striking pressure, and adjusted it high enough to strike a coin that looks as hammered as a proof, it seems reasonable that they may have intentionally struck a few proofs. When such a coin with an exceptional strike is "as satiny PL/PR as any Peace Dollar anyone has ever seen", that also seems to suggest a proof strike.
The experiment was the entire production run. A slightly modified design and, presumably, a distinct die pressure setting. The purpose was to get coins that were better struck than with the 1921, and to increase die longevity. (As can be seen from the two pieces I posted, the experiment was an utter failure.) So, to answer your question, striking proofs from experimental dies before the trial run began would have put the dies under unusually high pressure, which could easily have shortened the life of the dies, and which would therefore invalidate the results of the experiment.
From my experience in minting, if a die is subjected to a high-tonnage striking early in its life, that does not appear to have any shortening effect on the useful life of the die (provided that the die survives the high-tonnage striking without cracking or significant deformation).
Note that my typical die steel (A2) is similar to, but not completely identical to, what the US Mint was using in the early 1920s.
I'm not the only one here who would argue against your point by noting that you're more knowledgeable now than the Mint people were then.
OTOH, Andy may be more knowledgeable about what the Mint people knew, didn't know or, most saliently, thought they knew at the time of manufacture.
My not-atypical dealer preference for useful info on this topic's going to be the guy who's bought and sold the most of these this century. Crazy like a fox, a method to his madness, and he offered me a delightful choice of wines when he served me lunch Sunday.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@MrEureka said:
My opinion is that it's an early strike, and that no actual proofs were ever struck. Until somewhat recently, I would have said it was really just a guess, based on the fact that the dies remained in use for an apparently long production run. Today, based on studying the 1922 "Medium Relief" Peace Dollars auctioned by Stacks Bowers at the 2014 ANA, I'm more confident of my opinion.
The two pieces below are the first and the last (3200th) coins from the dies. The first is "hammered", has lots of die polish lines, and (although not obvious in the pics) is as satiny PL/PR as any Peace Dollar anyone has ever seen. The 3200th coin, the last struck before the dies were retired (or failed) looks completely ordinary. Now, one could argue that maybe the first piece was struck as a proof and the last piece was not, but I think that's highly unlikely. Mostly, because this was an experimental production run, with the purpose of testing things like the striking pressue and die longevity. Striking a true proof from these dies would have jeopardized the integrity of the experiment.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If they were experimenting with striking pressure, and adjusted it high enough to strike a coin that looks as hammered as a proof, it seems reasonable that they may have intentionally struck a few proofs. When such a coin with an exceptional strike is "as satiny PL/PR as any Peace Dollar anyone has ever seen", that also seems to suggest a proof strike.
The experiment was the entire production run. A slightly modified design and, presumably, a distinct die pressure setting. The purpose was to get coins that were better struck than with the 1921, and to increase die longevity. (As can be seen from the two pieces I posted, the experiment was an utter failure.) So, to answer your question, striking proofs from experimental dies before the trial run began would have put the dies under unusually high pressure, which could easily have shortened the life of the dies, and which would therefore invalidate the results of the experiment.
From my experience in minting, if a die is subjected to a high-tonnage striking early in its life, that does not appear to have any shortening effect on the useful life of the die (provided that the die survives the high-tonnage striking without cracking or significant deformation).
Note that my typical die steel (A2) is similar to, but not completely identical to, what the US Mint was using in the early 1920s.
I'm not the only one here who would argue against your point by noting that you're more knowledgeable now than the Mint people were then.
OTOH, Andy may be more knowledgeable about what the Mint people knew, didn't know or, most saliently, thought they knew at the time of manufacture.
I acknowledge Andy's theory as a possibility. But he used the word "confident", and I do not see where the confidence comes from. With every assumption one has to make for a theory to fit the available data, that ought to temper one's confidence.
There is a 1922 medium relief Peace dollar that really looks like a satin proof, but we are asked to assume that this is only because it is an early strike. Possible, but not an insignificant assumption to make. This assumption is tied to a second assumption, that the Mint would not have struck proofs in order to preserve the integrity of their experiment. We are then asked to make the final assumption that this specific theory of the 1922 medium relief experimental striking is directly applicable to the striking of 1921 Peace dollars.
On the other hand, maybe we're not hearing the whole story. Maybe he is writing this up formally for publication and does not want to scoop himself here on the forum.
@MrEureka said:
My opinion is that it's an early strike, and that no actual proofs were ever struck. Until somewhat recently, I would have said it was really just a guess, based on the fact that the dies remained in use for an apparently long production run. Today, based on studying the 1922 "Medium Relief" Peace Dollars auctioned by Stacks Bowers at the 2014 ANA, I'm more confident of my opinion.
The two pieces below are the first and the last (3200th) coins from the dies. The first is "hammered", has lots of die polish lines, and (although not obvious in the pics) is as satiny PL/PR as any Peace Dollar anyone has ever seen. The 3200th coin, the last struck before the dies were retired (or failed) looks completely ordinary. Now, one could argue that maybe the first piece was struck as a proof and the last piece was not, but I think that's highly unlikely. Mostly, because this was an experimental production run, with the purpose of testing things like the striking pressue and die longevity. Striking a true proof from these dies would have jeopardized the integrity of the experiment.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If they were experimenting with striking pressure, and adjusted it high enough to strike a coin that looks as hammered as a proof, it seems reasonable that they may have intentionally struck a few proofs. When such a coin with an exceptional strike is "as satiny PL/PR as any Peace Dollar anyone has ever seen", that also seems to suggest a proof strike.
The experiment was the entire production run. A slightly modified design and, presumably, a distinct die pressure setting. The purpose was to get coins that were better struck than with the 1921, and to increase die longevity. (As can be seen from the two pieces I posted, the experiment was an utter failure.) So, to answer your question, striking proofs from experimental dies before the trial run began would have put the dies under unusually high pressure, which could easily have shortened the life of the dies, and which would therefore invalidate the results of the experiment.
From my experience in minting, if a die is subjected to a high-tonnage striking early in its life, that does not appear to have any shortening effect on the useful life of the die (provided that the die survives the high-tonnage striking without cracking or significant deformation).
Note that my typical die steel (A2) is similar to, but not completely identical to, what the US Mint was using in the early 1920s.
I'm not the only one here who would argue against your point by noting that you're more knowledgeable now than the Mint people were then.
OTOH, Andy may be more knowledgeable about what the Mint people knew, didn't know or, most saliently, thought they knew at the time of manufacture.
I acknowledge Andy's theory as a possibility. But he used the word "confident", and I do not see where the confidence comes from. With every assumption one has to make for a theory to fit the available data, that ought to temper one's confidence.
There is a 1922 medium relief Peace dollar that really looks like a satin proof, but we are asked to assume that this is only because it is an early strike. Possible, but not an insignificant assumption to make. This assumption is tied to a second assumption, that the Mint would not have struck proofs in order to preserve the integrity of their experiment. We are then asked to make the final assumption that this specific theory of the 1922 medium relief experimental striking is directly applicable to the striking of 1921 Peace dollars.
On the other hand, maybe we're not hearing the whole story. Maybe he is writing this up formally for publication and does not want to scoop himself here on the forum.
That makes sense, although I do have more info than I've shared so far. Best to refer you to RWB's book and the 2014 S-B lot descriptions if you want the whole story.
BTW, I've handled (and in some cases, owned) most of the things we're discussing and I've studied them closely, which helps. Still, I can't (and didn't) say that I'm 100% certain that none of the J-2020's are true proofs.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka said:
My opinion is that it's an early strike, and that no actual proofs were ever struck. Until somewhat recently, I would have said it was really just a guess, based on the fact that the dies remained in use for an apparently long production run. Today, based on studying the 1922 "Medium Relief" Peace Dollars auctioned by Stacks Bowers at the 2014 ANA, I'm more confident of my opinion.
The two pieces below are the first and the last (3200th) coins from the dies. The first is "hammered", has lots of die polish lines, and (although not obvious in the pics) is as satiny PL/PR as any Peace Dollar anyone has ever seen. The 3200th coin, the last struck before the dies were retired (or failed) looks completely ordinary. Now, one could argue that maybe the first piece was struck as a proof and the last piece was not, but I think that's highly unlikely. Mostly, because this was an experimental production run, with the purpose of testing things like the striking pressue and die longevity. Striking a true proof from these dies would have jeopardized the integrity of the experiment.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If they were experimenting with striking pressure, and adjusted it high enough to strike a coin that looks as hammered as a proof, it seems reasonable that they may have intentionally struck a few proofs. When such a coin with an exceptional strike is "as satiny PL/PR as any Peace Dollar anyone has ever seen", that also seems to suggest a proof strike.
The experiment was the entire production run. A slightly modified design and, presumably, a distinct die pressure setting. The purpose was to get coins that were better struck than with the 1921, and to increase die longevity. (As can be seen from the two pieces I posted, the experiment was an utter failure.) So, to answer your question, striking proofs from experimental dies before the trial run began would have put the dies under unusually high pressure, which could easily have shortened the life of the dies, and which would therefore invalidate the results of the experiment.
From my experience in minting, if a die is subjected to a high-tonnage striking early in its life, that does not appear to have any shortening effect on the useful life of the die (provided that the die survives the high-tonnage striking without cracking or significant deformation).
Note that my typical die steel (A2) is similar to, but not completely identical to, what the US Mint was using in the early 1920s.
I'm not the only one here who would argue against your point by noting that you're more knowledgeable now than the Mint people were then.
OTOH, Andy may be more knowledgeable about what the Mint people knew, didn't know or, most saliently, thought they knew at the time of manufacture.
** I acknowledge Andy's theory as a possibility.** But he used the word "confident", and I do not see where the confidence comes from. With every assumption one has to make for a theory to fit the available data, that ought to temper one's confidence.
There is a 1922 medium relief Peace dollar that really looks like a satin proof, but we are asked to assume that this is only because it is an early strike. Possible, but not an insignificant assumption to make. This assumption is tied to a second assumption, that the Mint would not have struck proofs in order to preserve the integrity of their experiment. We are then asked to make the final assumption that this specific theory of the 1922 medium relief experimental striking is directly applicable to the striking of 1921 Peace dollars.
On the other hand, maybe we're not hearing the whole story. Maybe he is writing this up formally for publication and does not want to scoop himself here on the forum.
I myself acknowledge the possibility of a balanced budget. @BigMoose, whose EAC and medical knowledge I value, acknowledges your potential for a clinical study on recto-craniotomies.
I applaud your ability to couch such powerful arguments on so scant the few anecdotes of what one might read somewhere.
Maybe your unctuously smarmy references to formal publication show your ignorance of my distinguished colleague's bona fides. Your own curriculum vitae should be useful in framing a response. The ability to converse can be taught to an automaton with a academic vocabulary and quasi-dispassionate phrasing.
Not the forum's rules, merely an occasionally patrolled boundary of mine. The ability to manifest what we non-academics call "chops" is a sine qua non for admission to our elitist cabal. Numerous additions are made on what might be called a "Circle of Trust" basis. That's a good-faith track record.
Andy, Fred Weinberg, John Dannreuther, Dave McCarthy, Jeff Garrett and Rick Sear (@CJ's Clark Kent) are a little lost on whether or not this 80-P $1 is a business strike or a proof. In order to hear our opinions today, you have to identify which four of the six of us bought a 1917 T2 Buffalo 5c proof out of a Bowers and Ruddy auction $600 large lot and resold it in good conscience for about 8K.
You weren't directly addressing me, and for all I know we'd all kiss your ring if we knew your a non-virtual identity, "Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished".
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
If I've given offence to @MrEureka, then I offer him my sincere apology.
Thanks, but no offense was taken. You were correct that I hadn’t made a strong enough case, and you explained it well. Although I’m “confident” that I can do a better job if I take a second shot at it! 😎.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@ColonelJessup said:
I'm not crazy about the imaging. In some imagined angles it's too bright or too dark(ish).
The coming question is purely rhetorical. There are no good numismatic answers, only psychological and spiritual reasons.
Cogitate, perseverate, meditate, reflect. If you only have two perspectives, rinse and repeat. Based on any number of threads expressing a concern for values, consider:
What potential, putative or fantasizable value could be assigned if one agreed with PCGS MS64 CAC?
Rhetorical!!!!
@cnncoins made a '21 Peace in PCGS MS67 maybe 10 years ago. I sold it right away to a Forum member. It didn't CAC because of a couple of borderline ticks. It made the grade (after IIRC 4 submissions over 18 months) because of its strike. While that image is no longer available in CoinFacts, the OP's example makes it look like a pancake.
I was going for a(n unevoked) Johnny Cochran chorus. As in "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit".
"If it's not a spoof, it's a gol-danged proof"
Here's the TV's I have of '21s in 67. Pick your poison. I'm presuming the first one since you mentioned strike and that appears to be the nicest of the group.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I wouldn't sell it without first taking it to the ANA show and showing it around and getting qualified opinions on the coin and proof Peace dollars. Start with John Dannreuther and see who else he directs you to. If you were to be able to sell the coin as is for 2x MS64 retail because of the strike, you have a $4500 coin. If you can get buy-in at PCGS or NGC that it's a proof, you can add a zero. I don't know how realistic either those two scenarios are, but if there's any hope, JD will point you in the right direction.
@ColonelJessup said:
I'm not crazy about the imaging. In some imagined angles it's too bright or too dark(ish).
The coming question is purely rhetorical. There are no good numismatic answers, only psychological and spiritual reasons.
Cogitate, perseverate, meditate, reflect. If you only have two perspectives, rinse and repeat. Based on any number of threads expressing a concern for values, consider:
What potential, putative or fantasizable value could be assigned if one agreed with PCGS MS64 CAC?
Rhetorical!!!!
@cnncoins made a '21 Peace in PCGS MS67 maybe 10 years ago. I sold it right away to a Forum member. It didn't CAC because of a couple of borderline ticks. It made the grade (after IIRC 4 submissions over 18 months) because of its strike. While that image is no longer available in CoinFacts, the OP's example makes it look like a pancake.
I was going for a(n unevoked) Johnny Cochran chorus. As in "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit".
"If it's not a spoof, it's a gol-danged proof"
Here's the TV's I have of '21s in 67. Pick your poison. I'm presuming the first one since you mentioned strike and that appears to be the nicest of the group.
.
.
.
.
Which of the duplicates would you buy from the picture? Are you smarter than a fifth-grader?
I just won the lottery and I'm going with neither
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@ColonelJessup said:
I'm not crazy about the imaging. In some imagined angles it's too bright or too dark(ish).
The coming question is purely rhetorical. There are no good numismatic answers, only psychological and spiritual reasons.
Cogitate, perseverate, meditate, reflect. If you only have two perspectives, rinse and repeat. Based on any number of threads expressing a concern for values, consider:
What potential, putative or fantasizable value could be assigned if one agreed with PCGS MS64 CAC?
Rhetorical!!!!
@cnncoins made a '21 Peace in PCGS MS67 maybe 10 years ago. I sold it right away to a Forum member. It didn't CAC because of a couple of borderline ticks. It made the grade (after IIRC 4 submissions over 18 months) because of its strike. While that image is no longer available in CoinFacts, the OP's example makes it look like a pancake.
I was going for a(n unevoked) Johnny Cochran chorus. As in "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit".
"If it's not a spoof, it's a gol-danged proof"
Here's the TV's I have of '21s in 67. Pick your poison. I'm presuming the first one since you mentioned strike and that appears to be the nicest of the group.
.
.
.
.
Which of the duplicates would you buy from the picture? Are you smarter than a fifth-grader?
I just won the lottery and I'm going with neither
What duplicate?
And to answer your other question, I believe 5th grade me was smarter than present day me, so I'm definitely not smarter than a fifth-grader.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@ColonelJessup said:
I'm not crazy about the imaging. In some imagined angles it's too bright or too dark(ish).
The coming question is purely rhetorical. There are no good numismatic answers, only psychological and spiritual reasons.
Cogitate, perseverate, meditate, reflect. If you only have two perspectives, rinse and repeat. Based on any number of threads expressing a concern for values, consider:
What potential, putative or fantasizable value could be assigned if one agreed with PCGS MS64 CAC?
Rhetorical!!!!
@cnncoins made a '21 Peace in PCGS MS67 maybe 10 years ago. I sold it right away to a Forum member. It didn't CAC because of a couple of borderline ticks. It made the grade (after IIRC 4 submissions over 18 months) because of its strike. While that image is no longer available in CoinFacts, the OP's example makes it look like a pancake.
I was going for a(n unevoked) Johnny Cochran chorus. As in "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit".
"If it's not a spoof, it's a gol-danged proof"
Here's the TV's I have of '21s in 67. Pick your poison. I'm presuming the first one since you mentioned strike and that appears to be the nicest of the group.
.
.
.
.
Which of the duplicates would you buy from the picture? Are you smarter than a fifth-grader?
I just won the lottery and I'm going with neither
What duplicate?
And to answer your other question, I believe 5th grade me was smarter than present day me, so I'm definitely not smarter than a fifth-grader.
Duplicate? Damned if I know where I got that from.
Maybe an overly casual glance at the reverse toning on the first two and an assumption the second coin imaged could not conceivably grade 67 with such a dark and dull obverse. So, just dumping only on the middle coin, imagine you won the lottery. Then you show it to Mrs. @DisneyFan. And even though she' a Dead fan, she doesn't think naming the coin "Dark Star" is a good selling point. Do you expect a response as positive as "Get off my lawn" ?
Young, sassy and precociously obnoxious, I lorded it over the other kids in my 5th grade reading group that I was able to spell both cannabinoid and cannabidiol when they were still having trouble with "THC". I think I mark the peak of my intelligence as taking place on April 19th of that year.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
First I've seen or heard of in a PCGS holder. WOW!
Based on explanations many have received, I'm curious as to what newly (what year???) emergent data informed the reversal of a position on authorizing such a groundbreaking designation and coin number? I am even more mystified by the use of a "Matte" designation on a coin with satiny surfaces and attendant brightness. I hope there were some spirited arguments in the grading room.
Am I imagining a fully-defined sheer 90 degree drop from the inner edge of the wide flat rims on both sides to the start of the field. A bit tricky because the field is concave. And after the first thousand fantasies of coins as pictured, who's doing more than guessing from what's not in-hand., From those images, analysis is G-I-G-O. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The center strike does not impress, but that's already discounted as a diagnostic. I'd love to hear JA's rationale for the sticker, though a conversation we had had about PCGS changing the designation of 1792 Copper Dismes from MS to SP suggests a possible answer.
This is totally a dinosaur's lament, but ancient Druidic bards will echo my complaint. There's a Jack Lee NGC PF66 Satin Finish out there and its image IIRC is on HA. Just knowing how knowledgeable and thorough Jack was, I find it inconceivable that Jack's coin would NOT have been submitted to PCGS. That sucking haptic phenomenon you are experiencing is the sound of my saurian numismatic body of supposed knowledge being drawn ever deeper into the depths of the La Brea Tar Pits.
The Matte Proof post, for me, along with the first, is the most impactful post on this very illuminative thread
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@ColonelJessup said:
First I've seen or heard of in a PCGS holder. WOW!
Based on explanations many have received, I'm curious as to what newly (what year???) emergent data informed the reversal of a position on authorizing such a groundbreaking designation and coin number? I am even more mystified by the use of a "Matte" designation on a coin with satiny surfaces and attendant brightness. I hope there were some spirited arguments in the grading room.
Am I imagining a fully-defined sheer 90 degree drop from the inner edge of the rim to the start of the field. A bit tricky because the field is concave. But what's visible that's coin and what's gasket? From those images, analysis is G-I-G-O. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The strike does not impress, but that's already discounted as a diagnostic. I'd love to hear JA's rationale for the sticker, though a conversation we had had about PCGS changing the designation of 1792 Copper Disme from MS to SP suggests a possible answer.
This is totally a dinosaur's lament, but ancient Druidic bards will echo my complaint. There's a Jack Lee NGC PF66 Satin Finish out there and its image IIRC is on HA. Just knowing how knowledgeable and Jack was, I find it inconceivable that Jack's coin would NOT have been submitted to PCGS. That sucking haptic phenomenon you are experiencing is the sound of my saurian numismatic body of supposed knowledge being drawn ever deeper into the depths of the La Brea Tar Pits.
The Matte Proof post, for me, along with the first, is the most impactful post on this very illuminative thread
I'm glad to see you posted that, Rick. Because, when I saw the images, I said to myself, "That doesn't look like a Matte Proof to me and I thought they didn't recognize Satin Proofs". However little or much you're confused, I'm confident that I'm outdoing you in that department. I think I might be an ancient Druidic bard.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I just checked the CAC census. They have certified one '21 Satin and no Mattes. I can imagine them "blending" the definitions for statistical purposes. But all my previous questions remain.
I am fascinated. I would pursue these question to the ends of the Earth if it were not for the fact that I'd already ordered a Margherita pizza (which is now late)
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
It is definitely special, and may be considered a specimen. It looks like it may have been a very early strike when they were setting the depth for striking the new dollars.
I’m glad to read I’m not the only one confused by this coin- this coin came up on my radar on my “maybe I want to buy this ?” list about two weeks ago, before this thread started, and I didn’t know quite what to think about it then and still don’t now! Not a bad TV but looks terrible in the holder photo.
I'm the Forums resident gadfly on TVs for coins valued over $20K. I trust none of them.
I'm not attacking any of them. Individually. Right now. Except this one. 30 years ago, I used to have supernatural skills. Sometimes their ghosts confuse me. Deaf, dumb, blind, not good for much more but pinball and dubious feats of memory, I still aver that TV's are not for buyers, but owners.
My unscientific attempt to conciliate my impressions based on an uncertain amalgam of the slab and TV images...
Overly reddish cast to the TV image tilts perception towards a less blotchy toning pattern than is observable on the slabbed image. Minute blurring and over-lighting have created a more fuzzy unnaturally frosty appearance to the surface texture and an glowing invariability than misrepresents somewhat coruscating lustre strongly anticipatable from the die variety's optimum quality and suggested also by the specific slab photo.
The color on the slab coin is "blah", or even "blech".
But It's prettier than any matte proof Hawaiian I've seen in ANY grade.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@1northcoin said:
Adding to my inquiry above. Are any of the above posted True Views identified and so graded by PCGS as Proof 1921 Peace Dollars?
Here’s one- not my coin
PCGS has graded one (this one). CoinFacts shows the mintage as 8. Be interesting to see what they think of the OP's coin.
I’m still trying to fathom how that coin could be designated as a “Matte” Proof.
Its got the green football, they never fumble in the endzone.
Be nice to get the diagnostics clarified.
While I appreciate your post, I hope you didn’t think I was summoning you when I wrote “I can’t fathom...”.😉
Now I’m wondering, if I’d posted “I can’t understand..” if a poster named “Understand” would have replied.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@1northcoin said:
Adding to my inquiry above. Are any of the above posted True Views identified and so graded by PCGS as Proof 1921 Peace Dollars?
Here’s one- not my coin
PCGS has graded one (this one). CoinFacts shows the mintage as 8. Be interesting to see what they think of the OP's coin.
I’m still trying to fathom how that coin could be designated as a “Matte” Proof.
Its got the green football, they never fumble in the endzone.
Be nice to get the diagnostics clarified.
Having handled, fondled and mishandled Satins, I have strong reasons to want more on the diagnostics. If I hadn't, I'd still want all I could get. The total production of 8 comes from what government document???????
The green football has no problem paying the damages when it fumbles in the end-zone. I sat in with KL on the phone with JA sitting across from RLH buying the sticker off a 1908 $5 NGC PF66 CAC for IIRC $4000 after Charlie Browne called JA from a Long Beach show about a hairline on the cheek. The sticker off a 1793 H1c PCGS MS63BN cost $20,000.
Entirely not to the point, but JA's warned you guys he's "slightly over-rated".
Is this a one-off, or has a dam been breeched for previously uncredited or market-discounted examples based on newly emergent info.
Where did the number quasi-population of 8 come from.
With a burger, it's "Where's the beef"
With a "matte", it's "where's the sandblast"
At this point in this thread, and in this evening, devolution has gotten me to "WTF".
Next, a discussion of MCMVII $20 proofs and why PCGS, which at one time designated them, then stopped and rescinded the designation. The linkage being obvious (naked eye to some) and highly distinctive die polishing lines as an artifact of manufacture.
Mike Brownlee sold Jeff Browning the Sotheby's coin that later went NGC PF67 and lastly into Simpson (I think).
Mike would be my ideal choice for explaining and discussing this mint emission.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@LanceNewmanOCC said:
it says a lot that the coin was straight-graded at anacs. i was still on the fence from the images provided.
not sure why it went to anacs (no offense to them) instead of pcgs which has several in their holders.
now it is going to have to be sent out again?
In the past PCGS wouldn't recognize 1921s as proofs. If and when did that change? Thanks.
It would be appreciated if someone could provide photos or links to the "several in their holders" as referenced. Thanks.
@ColonelJessup said:
First I've seen or heard of in a PCGS holder. WOW!
Based on explanations many have received, I'm curious as to what newly (what year???) emergent data informed the reversal of a position on authorizing such a groundbreaking designation and coin number? I am even more mystified by the use of a "Matte" designation on a coin with satiny surfaces and attendant brightness. I hope there were some spirited arguments in the grading room.
Am I imagining a fully-defined sheer 90 degree drop from the inner edge of the wide flat rims on both sides to the start of the field. A bit tricky because the field is concave. And after the first thousand fantasies of coins as pictured, who's doing more than guessing from what's not in-hand., From those images, analysis is G-I-G-O. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The center strike does not impress, but that's already discounted as a diagnostic. I'd love to hear JA's rationale for the sticker, though a conversation we had had about PCGS changing the designation of 1792 Copper Dismes from MS to SP suggests a possible answer.
This is totally a dinosaur's lament, but ancient Druidic bards will echo my complaint. There's a Jack Lee NGC PF66 Satin Finish out there and its image IIRC is on HA. Just knowing how knowledgeable and thorough Jack was, I find it inconceivable that Jack's coin would NOT have been submitted to PCGS. That sucking haptic phenomenon you are experiencing is the sound of my saurian numismatic body of supposed knowledge being drawn ever deeper into the depths of the La Brea Tar Pits.
The Matte Proof post, for me, along with the first, is the most impactful post on this very illuminative thread
OK, now I am almost motivated to go locate that 1921 Peace Dollar that was represented to be a Satin Proof when I purchased it over a decade ago back when PCGS did not recognize such an item to exist.
Here are some photo's from Anacs site-I'll post better HD pictures once in hand-Thank you all for the feedback.
Certification #7251101
ANACS COMMENT: "Unable to verify as a Satin Proof. Definitely worth getting additional opinions on."
@ChrisH821 said:
Thanks for posting. Apparently focusing the camera never crossed their mind before taking the photos.
You didn't have to pay extra for that did you?
Answers
Thanks for the education. How did you get to know so much about coins so quickly?
@AMRC- My Unicorn helped me😂
it says a lot that the coin was straight-graded at anacs. i was still on the fence from the images provided.
not sure why it went to anacs (no offense to them) instead of pcgs which has several in their holders.
now it is going to have to be sent out again?
@LanceNewmanOCC- I thought Anacs was my best chance to get it slabbed with the VAM.
the first thing to do when questions of attribution arise is to check pop reports. if you see a coin number, and pops, they attribute them. (99.5% of the time. there are other coins that require further determination)
if you ever send something like this out, i would make it a point to note on the submission form that you think it may be XXXX but if not to go ahead and grade/attribute as XXXXX.
with a coin like this, a potential monster, the less time spent traveling around the country in an envelope or event registered box, the better. when in doubt, always consult a professional or come here. we're experts on everything, just ask us.
don't know where you live or how much you travel to shows but you can also keep a coin like this to submit directly at shows or perhaps even their offices (pcgs in cali) if they are still doing that.
to some extent, even if an expert here says your coin is XXXXX, at the end of the day it is the TPG call. so encouragement to properly package, seal and insure your item and sending it out is the best course sometimes, which you did. it is a very tough coin to verify, the peace proofs, so i appreciate anacs' course here.
BUT you still have work and expense ahead of you. anacs has my confidence, so if they say something like that, it is best to heed their advice but prepare yourself for any outcome.
@LanceNewmanOCC-Many thanks!! Obviously I'm a bit green on these things and really appreciate your feedback!
.
never send original documents as you may not get them back. send copies.
a letter like that from anacs doesn't come around very often, something to keep no matter what happens.
FWIW I have two VAM-1H 1921's at PCGS now that they missed the attributions on previously. Their VAM master list is a mess, it only has 28 of the Elite 30 listed, it is missing VAM1H and 1F for some reason, both of which have PCGS coin numbers.
https://www.pcgs.com/vamvarieties
On a coin like yours, the strike far outweighs the VAM attribution IMO. I would pay well above price guide for one struck like that.
Collector, occasional seller
@ChrisH821-I will likely part with it Chris.
Struck once or twice?
If great strikes were horses than beggars would rides.> @dcarr said:
I'm not the only one here who would argue against your point by noting that you're more knowledgeable now than the Mint people were then.
OTOH, Andy may be more knowledgeable about what the Mint people knew, didn't know or, most saliently, thought they knew at the time of manufacture.
My not-atypical dealer preference for useful info on this topic's going to be the guy who's bought and sold the most of these this century. Crazy like a fox, a method to his madness, and he offered me a delightful choice of wines when he served me lunch Sunday.
I acknowledge Andy's theory as a possibility. But he used the word "confident", and I do not see where the confidence comes from. With every assumption one has to make for a theory to fit the available data, that ought to temper one's confidence.
There is a 1922 medium relief Peace dollar that really looks like a satin proof, but we are asked to assume that this is only because it is an early strike. Possible, but not an insignificant assumption to make. This assumption is tied to a second assumption, that the Mint would not have struck proofs in order to preserve the integrity of their experiment. We are then asked to make the final assumption that this specific theory of the 1922 medium relief experimental striking is directly applicable to the striking of 1921 Peace dollars.
On the other hand, maybe we're not hearing the whole story. Maybe he is writing this up formally for publication and does not want to scoop himself here on the forum.
That makes sense, although I do have more info than I've shared so far. Best to refer you to RWB's book and the 2014 S-B lot descriptions if you want the whole story.
BTW, I've handled (and in some cases, owned) most of the things we're discussing and I've studied them closely, which helps. Still, I can't (and didn't) say that I'm 100% certain that none of the J-2020's are true proofs.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I myself acknowledge the possibility of a balanced budget.
@BigMoose, whose EAC and medical knowledge I value, acknowledges your potential for a clinical study on recto-craniotomies.
I applaud your ability to couch such powerful arguments on so scant the few anecdotes of what one might read somewhere.
Maybe your unctuously smarmy references to formal publication show your ignorance of my distinguished colleague's bona fides. Your own curriculum vitae should be useful in framing a response. The ability to converse can be taught to an automaton with a academic vocabulary and quasi-dispassionate phrasing.
Not the forum's rules, merely an occasionally patrolled boundary of mine. The ability to manifest what we non-academics call "chops" is a sine qua non for admission to our elitist cabal. Numerous additions are made on what might be called a "Circle of Trust" basis. That's a good-faith track record.
Andy, Fred Weinberg, John Dannreuther, Dave McCarthy, Jeff Garrett and Rick Sear (@CJ's Clark Kent) are a little lost on whether or not this 80-P $1 is a business strike or a proof. In order to hear our opinions today, you have to identify which four of the six of us bought a 1917 T2 Buffalo 5c proof out of a Bowers and Ruddy auction $600 large lot and resold it in good conscience for about 8K.
You weren't directly addressing me, and for all I know we'd all kiss your ring if we knew your a non-virtual identity, "Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished".
I don't think you would; I'm just an interested participant in the conversation. Your applause is not necessary, either.
If I've given offence to @MrEureka, then I offer him my sincere apology.
And Uriah Heep was a very 'umble man
Thanks, but no offense was taken. You were correct that I hadn’t made a strong enough case, and you explained it well. Although I’m “confident” that I can do a better job if I take a second shot at it! 😎.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Would love to see some more pictures once you get it back from anacs!
Collector, occasional seller
I'd love to take pictures of this if the owner brings it to the ANA show.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Here's the TV's I have of '21s in 67. Pick your poison. I'm presuming the first one since you mentioned strike and that appears to be the nicest of the group.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I wouldn't sell it without first taking it to the ANA show and showing it around and getting qualified opinions on the coin and proof Peace dollars. Start with John Dannreuther and see who else he directs you to. If you were to be able to sell the coin as is for 2x MS64 retail because of the strike, you have a $4500 coin. If you can get buy-in at PCGS or NGC that it's a proof, you can add a zero. I don't know how realistic either those two scenarios are, but if there's any hope, JD will point you in the right direction.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
.
.
.
.
Which of the duplicates would you buy from the picture? Are you smarter than a fifth-grader?
I just won the lottery and I'm going with neither
What duplicate?
And to answer your other question, I believe 5th grade me was smarter than present day me, so I'm definitely not smarter than a fifth-grader.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
In the past PCGS wouldn't recognize 1921s as proofs. If and when did that change? Thanks.
It would be appreciated if someone could provide photos or links to the "several in their holders" as referenced. Thanks.
Adding to my inquiry above. Are any of the above posted True Views identified and so graded by PCGS as Proof 1921 Peace Dollars?
.
have you imaged reeds yet? the method with the flashlight reflector or something similar.
Here’s one- not my coin
Duplicate? Damned if I know where I got that from.
Maybe an overly casual glance at the reverse toning on the first two and an assumption the second coin imaged could not conceivably grade 67 with such a dark and dull obverse. So, just dumping only on the middle coin, imagine you won the lottery. Then you show it to Mrs. @DisneyFan. And even though she' a Dead fan, she doesn't think naming the coin "Dark Star" is a good selling point. Do you expect a response as positive as "Get off my lawn" ?
Young, sassy and precociously obnoxious, I lorded it over the other kids in my 5th grade reading group that I was able to spell both cannabinoid and cannabidiol when they were still having trouble with "THC". I think I mark the peak of my intelligence as taking place on April 19th of that year.
PCGS has graded one (this one). CoinFacts shows the mintage as 8. Be interesting to see what they think of the OP's coin.
First I've seen or heard of in a PCGS holder. WOW!
Based on explanations many have received, I'm curious as to what newly (what year???) emergent data informed the reversal of a position on authorizing such a groundbreaking designation and coin number? I am even more mystified by the use of a "Matte" designation on a coin with satiny surfaces and attendant brightness. I hope there were some spirited arguments in the grading room.
Am I imagining a fully-defined sheer 90 degree drop from the inner edge of the wide flat rims on both sides to the start of the field. A bit tricky because the field is concave. And after the first thousand fantasies of coins as pictured, who's doing more than guessing from what's not in-hand., From those images, analysis is G-I-G-O. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The center strike does not impress, but that's already discounted as a diagnostic. I'd love to hear JA's rationale for the sticker, though a conversation we had had about PCGS changing the designation of 1792 Copper Dismes from MS to SP suggests a possible answer.
This is totally a dinosaur's lament, but ancient Druidic bards will echo my complaint. There's a Jack Lee NGC PF66 Satin Finish out there and its image IIRC is on HA. Just knowing how knowledgeable and thorough Jack was, I find it inconceivable that Jack's coin would NOT have been submitted to PCGS. That sucking haptic phenomenon you are experiencing is the sound of my saurian numismatic body of supposed knowledge being drawn ever deeper into the depths of the La Brea Tar Pits.
The Matte Proof post, for me, along with the first, is the most impactful post on this very illuminative thread
I'm glad to see you posted that, Rick. Because, when I saw the images, I said to myself, "That doesn't look like a Matte Proof to me and I thought they didn't recognize Satin Proofs". However little or much you're confused, I'm confident that I'm outdoing you in that department. I think I might be an ancient Druidic bard.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I just checked the CAC census. They have certified one '21 Satin and no Mattes. I can imagine them "blending" the definitions for statistical purposes. But all my previous questions remain.
I am fascinated. I would pursue these question to the ends of the Earth if it were not for the fact that I'd already ordered a Margherita pizza (which is now late)
It is definitely special, and may be considered a specimen. It looks like it may have been a very early strike when they were setting the depth for striking the new dollars.
I’m still trying to fathom how that coin could be designated as a “Matte” Proof.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m glad to read I’m not the only one confused by this coin- this coin came up on my radar on my “maybe I want to buy this ?” list about two weeks ago, before this thread started, and I didn’t know quite what to think about it then and still don’t now! Not a bad TV but looks terrible in the holder photo.
…displaying that coin in ANACS plastic is like serving A5 wagyu in a hotdog bun
This PCGS PR 64 coin is listed on Ebay for $288,800.00....also seems to have the VAM 1-H attributes.
I'm the Forums resident gadfly on TVs for coins valued over $20K. I trust none of them.
I'm not attacking any of them. Individually. Right now. Except this one. 30 years ago, I used to have supernatural skills. Sometimes their ghosts confuse me. Deaf, dumb, blind, not good for much more but pinball and dubious feats of memory, I still aver that TV's are not for buyers, but owners.
My unscientific attempt to conciliate my impressions based on an uncertain amalgam of the slab and TV images...
Overly reddish cast to the TV image tilts perception towards a less blotchy toning pattern than is observable on the slabbed image. Minute blurring and over-lighting have created a more fuzzy unnaturally frosty appearance to the surface texture and an glowing invariability than misrepresents somewhat coruscating lustre strongly anticipatable from the die variety's optimum quality and suggested also by the specific slab photo.
The color on the slab coin is "blah", or even "blech".
But It's prettier than any matte proof Hawaiian I've seen in ANY grade.
Its got the green football, they never fumble in the endzone.
Be nice to get the diagnostics clarified.
While I appreciate your post, I hope you didn’t think I was summoning you when I wrote “I can’t fathom...”.😉
Now I’m wondering, if I’d posted “I can’t understand..” if a poster named “Understand” would have replied.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Having handled, fondled and mishandled Satins, I have strong reasons to want more on the diagnostics. If I hadn't, I'd still want all I could get. The total production of 8 comes from what government document???????
The green football has no problem paying the damages when it fumbles in the end-zone. I sat in with KL on the phone with JA sitting across from RLH buying the sticker off a 1908 $5 NGC PF66 CAC for IIRC $4000 after Charlie Browne called JA from a Long Beach show about a hairline on the cheek. The sticker off a 1793 H1c PCGS MS63BN cost $20,000.
Entirely not to the point, but JA's warned you guys he's "slightly over-rated".
Is this a one-off, or has a dam been breeched for previously uncredited or market-discounted examples based on newly emergent info.
Where did the number quasi-population of 8 come from.
With a burger, it's "Where's the beef"
With a "matte", it's "where's the sandblast"
At this point in this thread, and in this evening, devolution has gotten me to "WTF".
Next, a discussion of MCMVII $20 proofs and why PCGS, which at one time designated them, then stopped and rescinded the designation. The linkage being obvious (naked eye to some) and highly distinctive die polishing lines as an artifact of manufacture.
Mike Brownlee sold Jeff Browning the Sotheby's coin that later went NGC PF67 and lastly into Simpson (I think).
Mike would be my ideal choice for explaining and discussing this mint emission.
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-J410Q/1921-peace-silver-dollar-high-relief-satin-proof-64-ngc-oh-cac
This coin sold as an NGC 64 Satin proof CAC for $69k at the Stacks 2019 ANA auction. Obviously then crossed and quadrupled in asking price!
RCW? Mike Byers? Andy Lustig? By whom?
RCW
rarecoinwholesalersca > @Floridafacelifter said:
Interestingly, their description that accompanies the eBay listing reads like it’s of a Satin, rather than Matte Proof example.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/184639474206?hash=item2afd5eca1e:g:sVoAAOSwYJVgiUP8
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And their website touts it as a Gem Matte Finish
https://www.rarecoinwholesalers.com/1921-peace-1-peace-matte-finish-64-sku-137626
OK, now I am almost motivated to go locate that 1921 Peace Dollar that was represented to be a Satin Proof when I purchased it over a decade ago back when PCGS did not recognize such an item to exist.
Here are some photo's from Anacs site-I'll post better HD pictures once in hand-Thank you all for the feedback.
Certification #7251101
ANACS COMMENT: "Unable to verify as a Satin Proof. Definitely worth getting additional opinions on."
Thanks for posting. Apparently focusing the camera never crossed their mind before taking the photos.
You didn't have to pay extra for that did you?
Collector, occasional seller
Yeah...$3.00 SMH