Liberty Seated Question

tradedollarnut

I notice that PCGS recently added a complete Liberty Seated proof set. My question is whether this should include the trade dollars [and twenty cent pieces] or not.

Reasons for:

The Gobrecht dollars are included
Liberty is seated on the trade dollars
The LSCC considers the trade dollars as part of the series
The trade dollars were legal tender when originally issued and replaced the Seated Liberty dollar

Reasons against:

??

EVillageProwler

Because the TD is a "Liberty Seated" design, albiet not of Gobrecht's or Peale's design, I feel that it should be included in any general "LS" type set.

EVP

SethChandler

NOOOOOO, come on, its a totally different coin.

A trade dollar has nothing to do with a Seated Dollar, but a Gobrecht dollar does.

Apple and oranges, both fruits, mind you, but apples and oranges.

Mix the names around all you want, Liberty Seated, Seated Liberty, well its a Liberty and she's Seated, so whalla, its a Trade Seated Liberty. Sorry fellows, but it doesn't work.

Seth

tradedollarnut

A trade dollar has nothing to do with a Seated Dollar, but a Gobrecht dollar does.

Please elaborate!

Apple and oranges, both fruits, mind you, but apples and oranges

So you're saying a trade dollar is a Seated Liberty dollar, but a Gobrecht is a Liberty Seated dollar, and only Liberty Seated coins count?

edited to add: I can see your thought process, but I guess I'd defer to what the LSCC standards are - which, oh by the way, includes the twenty cent pieces!

SethChandler

A gobrecht dollar is the major step to conceiving the Seated Dollar. Imagine Christian Gobrecht working and working to come up with this design, it took a couple of yrs, correct.....a little modification and boom the Seated Dollar. Same designer, same idea, the preface for the new silver dollar after 33 years, while technically not a Seated Dollar, I feel it much closer than a Trade Dollar is to a SD.

I don't get the association because the Trade Dollar simply REPLACED the SD, that it should be one in the same. Its a totally diff coin, diff design, diff artist, the Trade has a more definative purpose too, all the math on the rev. I don't think the mint wanted to update the SD....they wanted to outright REPLACE it with the TD. Totally diff coin, again.

When in doubt , check the bible, what does the Redbook say?

Seth

Will somebody pls respond to my toilet thread?

SethChandler

Oh, and think about all the dollar patterns they had in the 1870's.....clearly wanted to get rid of the SD.

Just mho

seth

tradedollarnut

No, I don't claim that the trade dollar is a Liberty Seated dollar. All I am suggesting is that the trade dollar and twenty cent pieces might be included in the Liberty Seated complete set. Guess it depends on whether you are looking strictly at the Liberty Seated obverse design, or the more encompassing seated liberty design. The LSCC thinks so - but, of course, the LSCC doesn't run the Registry.


BTW - the twenty cent piece is pretty much the same Liberty Seated design on the obverse. Why would it be excluded? Because of the reverse? But the Gobrecht has a different reverse and it's included......and the half dimes and dimes have different reverses as well.

SethChandler

I guess its just how we interpret Liberty Seated. It's to broad of a name. It should not be a term, but a actual name of a coin. Just what I think.

Seth

DAM

I think the Morgan Dollar should be included too. What you don't see on the obverse is Liberty sitting on the edge of a stool. Therefore it too could be classified as a 'Seated Liberty'.




Sorry TDN, I couldn't resist.

tradedollarnut

Not sure how the twenty cent piece could logically be left out if the Gobrecht is in. The trade dollar could be in or out depending on how you look at it. The LSCC has it in, but the Registry could easily choose not to follow that. JMHO.

RELLA

twenty cent pieces should be out...boring little four year series with a weird reverse design. OK they could be included...but I still don't like 'em and keep 'em out of the complete MS set...enough key dates already thank you.

Gobrecht Dollars have a completely different reverse...plus who cares if they were used in circulation, they are patterns; and since when does CIRCULATING a proof coin prove it was a regular issue? Heck, I don't see any 1916 patterns required in any sets...those were in circulation too after all.

Trade Dollars...who are you kidding?! Completely different design front and back...same general concept is no big deal...until the 1900s the only two obverse coin concepts even invented were a) some broad sitting on a rock and b) someone's severed head (yes I know there are exceptions to this but you know what I'm saying). While we're at it why not throw the British Penny in the mix? Oh I know why not...the LSCC doesn't think it should belong. Probably the only reason they recognize the Trade Dollar anyhow was because at one time a lot of the major movers and shakers had set aside a bunch of them cheap on the sly and figured they could dump the things for a quick buck by feeding a line to the rank and file that now they were also considered "Seated" and were therefore desirable.

So now TDN you want both patterns and also any generic "Seated" design included...if your point is valid then the set should also include quite a few other patterns I think. Any thoughts from you on when and where to draw the line?

So IMO twenty centers are in but I still don't like it....just haven't figured out a good reason to kick 'em out yet. Gobrecht and Trade Dollars shouldn't let the door hit 'em on the way out.

Would love to get some feedback.

RELLA

tradedollarnut

So now TDN you want both patterns and also any generic "Seated" design included

au contraire - I don't want anything in particular included - I'm just curious why the Gobrecht is already included but the 20 cent and trade dollar not. When I think of seated liberty collections, they include them all; when I think of the Liberty Seated series, the Gobrecht doesn't come to mind.

Guess your opinion is clear......but perhaps you should take up your issues on 'patterns' with HRH since he already chose to include the Gobrecht.

Typetone

Who's kidding who here? There are 233 proof coins in this set. Nobody is going to finish it. If you can, you can buy and sell me, TDN, David Hall, and PCGS a couple of times over. If you can finish the set, you already set the rules.

TDN, it's kind of like you and trade dollars. You are the king of that series. Do you really care about PCGS or NGC weights or whatever, or whether they won't cross your NGC coin. When it comes to trade dollars, I care about what you say period.

However, if it were a seated type set, it would be a more interesting question. I consider 20c pieces to clearly be seated pieces and consider them part of my seated liberty type set. I am not sure about Trade Dollars, but they see to me to be more like seated pieces than amything else. It certainly seems that the design was strongly influenced by the seated design at a minimum. So, I would include them.

Greg

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Let's ask Laura as she's the Boss

tradedollarnut

Any thoughts from you on when and where to draw the line?

Well, I see three options:

1) go with what the LSCC accepts
2) go with a very strict interpretation of what the Liberty Seated series entails
3) do whatever the hell they want

I have no intention of doing the Liberty Seated proof series - sorry I even brought it up....

Ronyahski

I would vote #2, not as a "strict interpretation", but as "generally accpeted" by collectors as Liberty Seated . So twenty centers are in (on what basis are they excluded?) and Gobrechts and Trades are out.

RELLA

TDN,

Yeah I guess I did kinda include my opinion in there; but mostly was just having fun with the once-a-month "live" thread over here. I was just picking on you since you started the thread.

RELLA

Nic

I'd vote #2. By the way I believe a complete proof seated set is being formed. A consistent auction "rumor" since 1997. K

tradedollarnut

Sorry, Rella - I apologize for reacting...... you're right - there aren't too many not "for sale" threads over here anymore, are there?

The main reason I brought it up is because I get the Gobrecht Journal and it has the trade dollars included. Also, the Share Collection - a wonderfully inclusive liberty seated collection included them as well. I honestly initially forgot about the twenty cent pieces - those are the ones that really should be included!

EVillageProwler

So twenty centers are in (on what basis are they excluded?) and Gobrechts and Trades are out.

One can make a case for excluding the 20C and TD series while including the Gobs in the LS PF set if the set were about Gobrecht/Peale and not just a lady who's sitting down. Or, if we simply wanted to exclude the 20C and TD series because we recognize how corrupt the Barbers were.

EVP

KoinKollector

I think by allowing the Gobrecht in the series, they should most definetly include the Trade $ and with out question the 20cent should be included as well. I think if they want to leave the trade out, theen they should remove the Gorbrecht as well. The series doesnt look "balanced" as it is. But IMO, the 20cent should be in no matter.

EVillageProwler

Sean! You're alive!

IMO, it does not follow that the 20C should be in no matter what while the Gob and the TD are open to debate. Personally, I think the Gobs are closer to the other Seated denominations than the 20C and TD are.

EVP

fcloud

ttt

Keyrock

ttt - need to push garbage to the bottom