Hey JadeRareCoin. The controversy is PCGS and Contursi, NOT YOU. But yeah, bring it on! The 9 millionth PCGS was Contursi's ALSO. hmmm
Wow, I know how to score BIG...I should give Conmantursi my MS66 FH 1916 SLQ's for him to regrade at PCGS. I'd probably get 67 or 68's back! Better yet, maybe hand in one of my 67RD indian cents, and get the first MS70 RED!!! What a great idea! And offer to split profits from suckers that buy them. Where's Contursi's number???
You're right! I didn't say anything bad. There's no way I would get banned. In fact, I am submitting several coins to PCGS today. There's just no way that I can get banned right in the middle of a post. Right? Sheeesh. You had me scared for a minute. I don't wan't to get ba
I just realized something. I have the only 1921 Chapman PR CAMEO on the planet. A cameo would have to be the first struck from the dies. Why did'nt Benchmark Ventures, ( Contursi ) who sold the coin, have my coin hyped as the first struck ??? Sorry I took a little leeway there. I said the first struck when I should have said one of the first struck.
I'm a little bit confused here, but aren't we sort of mixing two issues?
One issue I see is the frequent use of hyperbole in a sales environment. Some like it, some don't. And, it varies by threshold level. Ok, I get that.
Another issue I see here is the blatant dislike for a specific number of people, like Steve Contursi. Like him or not, that's up to you. Personally, I have no opinion of him I care to share. (I barely know him.) If you're going to diss Contursi, at least do it without the thin cover of dissing sales hype as a practice!
Personally, I think dissing sales hype is making way too much ado of nothing.
Congratulations !!! EVP, you are the first person to ever stand up for Contursi. I was wondering after all the Benchmark threads and this thread, why nobody has ever defended him. By the way. What do you think about a coin dealer selling a coin that actually does not exist??? Would you be worried about ever seeing that $50,000 again , and feel extremely relieved three or four weeks later that you got that money back ??? Hype, lies, whatever, you want to call it, has me pi$$ed off, especially since some people support and encourage misleading hype.
A notice to Benchmark Ventures. DO NOT SEND ME ANY MORE letters, E-MAILS, AND ESPECIALLY DO NOT CALL ME ANYMORE. I have repeatedly told you not to do so, but you continue to and everytime I see or hear BENCHMARK VENTURES, it brings up past unsavory business, that I would like to forget. I obviously never, ever, will do any business with a coin dealer, that is partly owned by Steve Contursi and Christian Briggs. PAUL TAYLOR
"All of the 1794 dollars are recorded as have been struck all on one day -- October 15, 1794."
Wait a minute. Is one to believe that nearly 2000 silver dollars were struck on a single die in one day??? Remember, these were produced by the light of an oil lamp on a screw press and not on one of those new faingled steam presses they had later on.
On a different note, while I agree that we cannot know for certain if the coin really was the first one struck, isn't it just possilbe that the first coin minted would be given to somebody of Thomas Jefferson's stature? The guy drafted the Declaration of Independence, was U.S. Embassador to France, had served as Secretary of State under George Washington, was the acting Vice President in 1794, and was just two years from becoming the third President of our country.
Remember, these were produced by the light of an oil lamp on a screw press
Shamika, you are correct. According to my research, the US Mint did not install florescent lighting until July 20, 1796, far later than the day the 1794 dollars were struck. In fact, electricity was not even available for consumer use until 1794. Although it is possible that they used a battery powered OTT lamp on that historic day in 1794.
Andy, When was the proof/specimen copper piece in the Smithsonian struck?
How far back can the Carter coin be traced?
I never knew before today that 2000 coins had actually been struck with 242 of those being melted.
Maybe the 242 coins that were melted, were the first 242 struck and melted because of certain imperfections? Maybe the Carter coin was one of the first that actually looked good. Remember this was 1794. This was the first Dollar they had made. Does it seem odd that the first one off the press turned out perfectly?
With 93.50% of the 1794 Dollars being unaccounted for and no paper trail or historical data to track this particular coin, I think it is hard to make any serious conclusion as to whether this is the first coin struck or not.
To do so is pure Fantasy.
With only a little over 6% of the total population being known, can we be certain there was only one die?
<< <i>"All of the 1794 dollars are recorded as have been struck all on one day -- October 15, 1794."
Wait a minute. Is one to believe that nearly 2000 silver dollars were struck on a single die in one day??? Remember, these were produced by the light of an oil lamp on a screw press and not on one of those new faingled steam presses they had later on. >>
Although they claimed to be able to strike as many as 60 coins per minute on the screw press they would not be able to do that for long. A more reasonable figure would be 30 coins per minute and even at that rate the men operating the press would only work for 15 to 20 minutes and then have to take a break. At that rate (30/min) it would take about a hour and a half to strike the 2,000 coins.
Although 242 coins were rejected they weren't all melted and in fact possibly none of them were melted. Supposedly they were rejected because of poor striking quality and they were later used as planchets for 1795 dollars. At least one 1795 dollar is known struck over a 1794 dollar.
30 coins per minute? You gotta be kidding me. That's two seconds per coin - including removing the struck coin and replacing with a fresh planchet .... and turning the screw down. No way!
Believe it or not, the early U.S. Mint actually had automatic planchet feeding and ejection equipment, as designed by Adam Eckfeldt in 1793. It gets a bit vague, however, as to whether or not the automatic equipment would have been used to strike the 1794 dollars. From what I can extrapolate from various sources (Taxay, Breen), the automatic equipment was not installed on the press used for coining dollars and medals until mid-1795, or later. I have reason to believe that the earliest dollars were struck on a screw press that was hand loaded and ejected. This would mean that 30 coins per minute would be a bit ambitious, and 60 coins per second would have been impossible. Also, the fact that 2000 1794 dollars were struck in one day assumes that the planchets had been processed and milled prior to that day, which is a likely scenario. My guess is that they were probably averaging about 5 coins per minute that day. Of course all of us are just guessing here, except for those who seem to own a crystal ball.
30 coins per minute? You gotta be kidding me. That's two seconds per coin - including removing the struck coin and replacing with a fresh planchet .... and turning the screw down. No way!
<< <i>30 coins per minute? You gotta be kidding me. That's two seconds per coin - including removing the struck coin and replacing with a fresh planchet .... and turning the screw down. No way >>
Yes way! Three man coining crew, two men swinging the weighted cross arm and one removing the coin and laying on the planchet. Also the distance of travel for the swing arm was only about one quarter revolution. (I don't believe the 60 coin figure either unless it was with the use of the automatic planchet placing device.
<< <i>The shortening of the hair curls is undeniably due to the state of the die, having been re-lapped prior to the striking of Die State III coins. >>
On the note of minting all 2000 coins in just one day,
How long would it take to remove the die and regrind (re-lap) it?
While I would think that none of the three guys running the press were die makers, I would expect the die maker to be on hand during this minting. It would be a big deal, unlike today" I would also expect the die making tools and grinding equipment to have been in a different room.
<< <i>The die clash found on many specimens would suggest the use of a mechanical planchet feeder. >>
Why would a die clash suggest the use of a mechanical feeder? Couldn't a clash occur with manually fed planchets? In fact I would expect them to be even more frequent with hand fed planchets. Or are you suggesting that the presence of only the single set of clash marks implies the use of a mechanical feeder that seldom failed?
<< <i>How long would it take to remove the die and regrind (re-lap) it? >>
Good question. I doubt it would be very difficult to remove the die, and the lapping process should not have taken long either. I doubt if it would have taken more than an hour or so from the time they decided to lap the dies to when they would be ready to resume production.
What I was thinking is that if a team of mint employees is co-ordinating feeding planchets into the press by hand and then striking the coins, they would know if there was a misfeed before they struck the dies together, so they would avoid clashes. I was merely speculating that f they were using some sort of a mechanical feeder, even if it were being monitored by a mint employee, it would increase the liklihood of the dies being struck together without the press operating realizing that a planchet was not in position.
<< <i><< The die clash found on many specimens would suggest the use of a mechanical planchet feeder. >>
Why would a die clash suggest the use of a mechanical feeder? Couldn't a clash occur with manually fed planchets? In fact I would expect them to be even more frequent with hand fed planchets. Or are you suggesting that the presence of only the single set of clash marks implies the use of a mechanical feeder that seldom failed? >>
a manual feed implies the finished product (coin) is also REMOVED manually. therefore, the likelihood that the minter knows there's no planchet on the die is higher w/ a hand-fed system. in other words, unless the person manually feeding the coins has a mental meltdown, he knows whether there's a planchet in there to be struck or not. an mechanized system in 1794 would not have had such feedback capabilty. so the likelihood of a mechanically fed system experiencing a die-clash should be higher.
ie. if your mechanically feeding coins at a high rate of speed, & something goes berserk, & the blank planchets end up on the floor while the die is still hammering away, a lot more planchet-less strikings are going to occur before someone realizes the problem & shuts down the system. if manually fed, the feedback to the human occurs much more quickly.
<< <i>What I was thinking is that if a team of mint employees is co-ordinating feeding planchets into the press by hand and then striking the coins, they would know if there was a misfeed before they struck the dies together, so they would avoid clashes. >>
The two men swinging the weighted arm would be working at coordinating their actions and in getting into a regular constant pace with the swing. They would not be waiting for a "go ahead" from the planchet setter. The setter on the other hand is concentrating on and depending on the constant cyling of the press for his timing to get his hands in and out again before the press comes back down again. Even if he drops a planchet and hollers at the other two they are not likely to be able to check the swing of that weighted arm.
Conder, CalGold, DorkKarl and others: you raise good points/questions regarding the striking setup used to strike 1794 Dollars. Isn't this what makes early American coinage so damn intersting??? Nobody will ever know, but it sure is fun to ponder.
My theory is that they planchets were manually loaded and ejected. As far a lapping dies, remember that they did not have a General Electic Turbo 6000 Die Lapper in 1794. The dies were manually lapped. I would guess that the coins were struck over a several month period. Flame away baby!
....just received an email from a past client who also lurks on the PCGS forum. Here's his email in unedited form:
Hi Dennis,
I've been enjoying the thread you started. First, how did you get back on the board? Second, if you would, ask this question of the experts.
Why do the slab mills insist on abusing the term "specimen" and "proof" on early coinage. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there was any real proof or specimen coinage prior to 1832 that I am aware of. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Just because a coin has mirrored surfaces means NOTHING as far as Proof or Specimen status. The fact that the grading mills and auction houses have been calling things proof doesn't mean that any of it was ever correct.
The good folks at Gallery Mint have shown that freshly lapped dies will impart very deep mirrors to the first 25 or coins struck from those dies before the heat and friction wear off the mirrored surfaces. There are very late state coins known with incredible deep mirrors. That doesn't mean anything except that the dies were lapped.
Granted, the S$ in question is an early die state; that is incontrovertible. But the specious claim that is the first should be a cause of embarrassment to the shameless self promoters who make that claim. The fact that it is called a specimen strike should be an embarrassment to PCGS, whose graders should have seen numerous examples of coins with mirrored surfaces that clearly aren't specimen strikes. Also, why might the mint officials have picked such an ugly planchet for this purpose? Bad lighting?
<< <i>I would guess that the coins were struck over a several month period. >>
Striking of dollars began Oct 15 1794. In a letter from Rittenhouse to the Sec of State (at the time the mint was part of the State Dept, not the Treasury.) dated Oct 28th he reports that they had a large quantity of dollar blanks on hand and that they were waiting for the new more powerful to be completed before striking them. That press wasn't completed until May of 1795. While it is possible that they may have struck some additional 1794 dollars in May of 1795, the 1,758 coins in the records for 1794 dollars were struck, if not in one day, then in the 13 day period between the 15th and the 28th of Oct 1794.
<< <i>did not have a General Electic Turbo 6000 Die Lapper in 1794. The dies were manually lapped. >>
But manually lapping does not have to mean hand lapping. It would definitly be possible for the lap to be treadle powered like a pottery wheel or grinding wheel was. In that case the lapping would proceed very quickly.
As for your clients letter, he is quite correct and anyone who knows about PL Morgan dollars should agree. PL's are the natural result of a freashly polished die (Assuming the use of a fine grit.) and the first strikes would all be PL until the surfaces of the die degrade. A subsequent polishing would restore the PL fields. That is why several of us have questioned the Specimen of first coin status because of the condition of the planchet. We DON'T agree that it is a specimen strike.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
Was just reading Cardinal's wonderful book ... and the curl details on his coin STILL look more pronounced than those on the Carter coin. I wonder if he ever had a chance to look again?
What a cool thread! I had often wondered about the lack of definitive evidence when people were calling this coin the first ever silver dollar for the US...... I'm glad to hear that I wasn't alone with my doubts!
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
<< <i>``Until someone walks up to me with a coin in an earlier state that looks better, I'd consider it the first,'' said John Dannreuther, co-founder of Professional Coin Grading Service >>
So is this coin slabbed by PCGS? If so, did they put their patented " First Strike" designation on it?
judging from this old thread that's been resurrected to page one the coin has been researched by experts in the series and deemed most probably the first struck. thast makes this thread and the opinion rendered quite interesting but possibly meaningless.
a good read all the same. my hunch is that the newspaper article is just a quickly assembled story of the highlights while the Cardinal book and the accompanying reesearchers opinion bear the weight of the proof the AP writer merely referred to.
@Zerbe said:
There is a link below to some of the letters sent to my great, great , great grandfather, John Taylor by Thomas Jefferson. It is listed by names alphabetically. I bet most of you thought I made the story up.
I value my 1794 silver dollar, most likely the first struck, more than my PCGS MS 68 1908-s $5, which is also unique.
link
Hello, I just discovered this very old thread, and I am incredibly interested in these letters you referred to. I am a historian currently writing a dissertation on this John Taylor "of Caroline," who is your ancestor. Unfortunately, the link to the letters that you posted in 2004 no longer works. Is it possible that you still possess these letters? The February 1795 letter that you referred to does not appear to be known to historians, and I know that many scholars of Thomas Jefferson would be glad to learn of such a letter's existence.
I would be very interested to learn of any other historical documents related to John Taylor you might possess. He was a fascinating character in the Early American Republic.
I think that I can help and will send you a PM in a minute. In the meantime, you might consider asking forum members to send you PMs (private messages via the envelope in the upper right of this page), rather than posting your email.
Wow. Great old thread. The quality of the discussion and thoughtfulness of those who posted is really something. This stands in stark contrast to today’s parking lot find and CAC loving/bashing threads. Forum and message boards were really in their peak at that time.
It’s especially interesting to read what @tradedollarnut had to say about it many years before his record breaking acquisition.
Comments
Oh boy. Here we go. Can you guys at least let me hit 100 posts before you get me whacked again??
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
I don't think anyone has been banned recently so the quota might be coming soon.
Wow, I know how to score BIG...I should give Conmantursi my MS66 FH 1916 SLQ's for him to regrade at PCGS. I'd probably get 67 or 68's back! Better yet, maybe hand in one of my 67RD indian cents, and get the first MS70 RED!!! What a great idea! And offer to split profits from suckers that buy them. Where's Contursi's number???
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
on the planet. A cameo would have to be the first struck from the dies. Why did'nt Benchmark Ventures, ( Contursi ) who sold the coin, have my coin hyped as the first struck ??? Sorry I took a little leeway there. I said the first struck when I should have said one of the first struck.
One issue I see is the frequent use of hyperbole in a sales environment. Some like it, some don't. And, it varies by threshold level. Ok, I get that.
Another issue I see here is the blatant dislike for a specific number of people, like Steve Contursi. Like him or not, that's up to you. Personally, I have no opinion of him I care to share. (I barely know him.) If you're going to diss Contursi, at least do it without the thin cover of dissing sales hype as a practice!
Personally, I think dissing sales hype is making way too much ado of nothing.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
By the way. What do you think about a coin dealer selling a coin that actually does not exist??? Would you be worried about ever seeing that $50,000 again , and feel extremely relieved three or four weeks later that you got that money back ??? Hype, lies, whatever, you want to call it, has me pi$$ed off, especially since some people support and encourage misleading hype.
A notice to Benchmark Ventures.
DO NOT SEND ME ANY MORE letters, E-MAILS, AND ESPECIALLY DO NOT CALL ME ANYMORE. I have repeatedly told you not to do so, but you continue to and everytime I see or hear BENCHMARK VENTURES,
it brings up past unsavory business, that I would like to forget.
I obviously never, ever, will do any business with a coin dealer, that is partly owned by Steve Contursi and Christian Briggs.
PAUL TAYLOR
Note, EVP, I apologize, but you hit a raw nerve.
Wait a minute. Is one to believe that nearly 2000 silver dollars were struck on a single die in one day??? Remember, these were produced by the light of an oil lamp on a screw press and not on one of those new faingled steam presses they had later on.
On a different note, while I agree that we cannot know for certain if the coin really was the first one struck, isn't it just possilbe that the first coin minted would be given to somebody of Thomas Jefferson's stature? The guy drafted the Declaration of Independence, was U.S. Embassador to France, had served as Secretary of State under George Washington, was the acting Vice President in 1794, and was just two years from becoming the third President of our country.
Shamika, you are correct. According to my research, the US Mint did not install florescent lighting until July 20, 1796, far later than the day the 1794 dollars were struck. In fact, electricity was not even available for consumer use until 1794. Although it is possible that they used a battery powered OTT lamp on that historic day in 1794.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Andy, When was the proof/specimen copper piece in the Smithsonian struck?
How far back can the Carter coin be traced?
I never knew before today that 2000 coins had actually been struck with 242 of those being melted.
Maybe the 242 coins that were melted, were the first 242 struck and melted because of certain imperfections?
Maybe the Carter coin was one of the first that actually looked good.
Remember this was 1794. This was the first Dollar they had made. Does it seem odd that the first one off the press turned out perfectly?
With 93.50% of the 1794 Dollars being unaccounted for and no paper trail or historical data to track this particular coin, I think it is hard to make any serious conclusion as to whether this is the first coin struck or not.
To do so is pure Fantasy.
With only a little over 6% of the total population being known, can we be certain there was only one die?
<< <i>"All of the 1794 dollars are recorded as have been struck all on one day -- October 15, 1794."
Wait a minute. Is one to believe that nearly 2000 silver dollars were struck on a single die in one day??? Remember, these were produced by the light of an oil lamp on a screw press and not on one of those new faingled steam presses they had later on. >>
Although they claimed to be able to strike as many as 60 coins per minute on the screw press they would not be able to do that for long. A more reasonable figure would be 30 coins per minute and even at that rate the men operating the press would only work for 15 to 20 minutes and then have to take a break. At that rate (30/min) it would take about a hour and a half to strike the 2,000 coins.
Although 242 coins were rejected they weren't all melted and in fact possibly none of them were melted. Supposedly they were rejected because of poor striking quality and they were later used as planchets for 1795 dollars. At least one 1795 dollar is known struck over a 1794 dollar.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
only thing quicker than that is PCGS grading
<< <i>30 coins per minute? You gotta be kidding me. That's two seconds per coin - including removing the struck coin and replacing with a fresh planchet .... and turning the screw down. No way >>
Yes way! Three man coining crew, two men swinging the weighted cross arm and one removing the coin and laying on the planchet. Also the distance of travel for the swing arm was only about one quarter revolution. (I don't believe the 60 coin figure either unless it was with the use of the automatic planchet placing device.
CG
<< <i>The shortening of the hair curls is undeniably due to the state of the die, having been re-lapped prior to the striking of Die State III coins. >>
On the note of minting all 2000 coins in just one day,
How long would it take to remove the die and regrind (re-lap) it?
While I would think that none of the three guys running the press were die makers, I would expect the die maker to be on hand during this minting. It would be a big deal, unlike today" I would also expect the die making tools and grinding equipment to have been in a different room.
<< <i>The die clash found on many specimens would suggest the use of a mechanical planchet feeder. >>
Why would a die clash suggest the use of a mechanical feeder? Couldn't a clash occur with manually fed planchets? In fact I would expect them to be even more frequent with hand fed planchets. Or are you suggesting that the presence of only the single set of clash marks implies the use of a mechanical feeder that seldom failed?
<< <i>How long would it take to remove the die and regrind (re-lap) it? >>
Good question. I doubt it would be very difficult to remove the die, and the lapping process should not have taken long either. I doubt if it would have taken more than an hour or so from the time they decided to lap the dies to when they would be ready to resume production.
What I was thinking is that if a team of mint employees is co-ordinating feeding planchets into the press by hand and then striking the coins, they would know if there was a misfeed before they struck the dies together, so they would avoid clashes. I was merely speculating that f they were using some sort of a mechanical feeder, even if it were being monitored by a mint employee, it would increase the liklihood of the dies being struck together without the press operating realizing that a planchet was not in position.
CG
Russ, NCNE
<< <i><< The die clash found on many specimens would suggest the use of a mechanical planchet feeder. >>
Why would a die clash suggest the use of a mechanical feeder? Couldn't a clash occur with manually fed planchets? In fact I would expect them to be even more frequent with hand fed planchets. Or are you suggesting that the presence of only the single set of clash marks implies the use of a mechanical feeder that seldom failed? >>
a manual feed implies the finished product (coin) is also REMOVED manually. therefore, the likelihood that the minter knows there's no planchet on the die is higher w/ a hand-fed system. in other words, unless the person manually feeding the coins has a mental meltdown, he knows whether there's a planchet in there to be struck or not. an mechanized system in 1794 would not have had such feedback capabilty. so the likelihood of a mechanically fed system experiencing a die-clash should be higher.
ie. if your mechanically feeding coins at a high rate of speed, & something goes berserk, & the blank planchets end up on the floor while the die is still hammering away, a lot more planchet-less strikings are going to occur before someone realizes the problem & shuts down the system. if manually fed, the feedback to the human occurs much more quickly.
K S
K S
<< <i>What I was thinking is that if a team of mint employees is co-ordinating feeding planchets into the press by hand and then striking the coins, they would know if there was a misfeed before they struck the dies together, so they would avoid clashes. >>
The two men swinging the weighted arm would be working at coordinating their actions and in getting into a regular constant pace with the swing. They would not be waiting for a "go ahead" from the planchet setter. The setter on the other hand is concentrating on and depending on the constant cyling of the press for his timing to get his hands in and out again before the press comes back down again. Even if he drops a planchet and hollers at the other two they are not likely to be able to check the swing of that weighted arm.
My theory is that they planchets were manually loaded and ejected. As far a lapping dies, remember that they did not have a General Electic Turbo 6000 Die Lapper in 1794. The dies were manually lapped. I would guess that the coins were struck over a several month period. Flame away baby!
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
....just received an email from a past client who also lurks on the PCGS forum. Here's his email in unedited form:
Hi Dennis,
I've been enjoying the thread you started. First, how did you get back on the board? Second, if you would, ask this question of the experts.
Why do the slab mills insist on abusing the term "specimen" and "proof" on early coinage. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there was any real proof or specimen coinage prior to 1832 that I am aware of. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Just because a coin has mirrored surfaces means NOTHING as far as Proof or Specimen status. The fact that the grading mills and auction houses have been calling things proof doesn't mean that any of it was ever correct.
The good folks at Gallery Mint have shown that freshly lapped dies will impart very deep mirrors to the first 25 or coins struck from those dies before the heat and friction wear off the mirrored surfaces. There are very late state coins known with incredible deep mirrors. That doesn't mean anything except that the dies were lapped.
Granted, the S$ in question is an early die state; that is incontrovertible. But the specious claim that is the first should be a cause of embarrassment to the shameless self promoters who make that claim. The fact that it is called a specimen strike should be an embarrassment to PCGS, whose graders should have seen numerous examples of coins with mirrored surfaces that clearly aren't specimen strikes. Also, why might the mint officials have picked such an ugly planchet for this purpose? Bad lighting?
Curious in Chicago
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
<< <i>I would guess that the coins were struck over a several month period. >>
Striking of dollars began Oct 15 1794. In a letter from Rittenhouse to the Sec of State (at the time the mint was part of the State Dept, not the Treasury.) dated Oct 28th he reports that they had a large quantity of dollar blanks on hand and that they were waiting for the new more powerful to be completed before striking them. That press wasn't completed until May of 1795. While it is possible that they may have struck some additional 1794 dollars in May of 1795, the 1,758 coins in the records for 1794 dollars were struck, if not in one day, then in the 13 day period between the 15th and the 28th of Oct 1794.
<< <i>did not have a General Electic Turbo 6000 Die Lapper in 1794. The dies were manually lapped. >>
But manually lapping does not have to mean hand lapping. It would definitly be possible for the lap to be treadle powered like a pottery wheel or grinding wheel was. In that case the lapping would proceed very quickly.
As for your clients letter, he is quite correct and anyone who knows about PL Morgan dollars should agree. PL's are the natural result of a freashly polished die (Assuming the use of a fine grit.) and the first strikes would all be PL until the surfaces of the die degrade. A subsequent polishing would restore the PL fields. That is why several of us have questioned the Specimen of first coin status because of the condition of the planchet. We DON'T agree that it is a specimen strike.
No flames from me. I've seriously questioned the idea of minting all of these coins in one day the first time I heard it.
And yes! This is what makes early American coinage so damn interesting.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
<< <i>``Until someone walks up to me with a coin in an earlier state that looks better, I'd consider it the first,'' said John Dannreuther, co-founder of Professional Coin Grading Service >>
So is this coin slabbed by PCGS? If so, did they put their patented " First Strike" designation on it?
a good read all the same. my hunch is that the newspaper article is just a quickly assembled story of the highlights while the Cardinal book and the accompanying reesearchers opinion bear the weight of the proof the AP writer merely referred to.
Hello, I just discovered this very old thread, and I am incredibly interested in these letters you referred to. I am a historian currently writing a dissertation on this John Taylor "of Caroline," who is your ancestor. Unfortunately, the link to the letters that you posted in 2004 no longer works. Is it possible that you still possess these letters? The February 1795 letter that you referred to does not appear to be known to historians, and I know that many scholars of Thomas Jefferson would be glad to learn of such a letter's existence.
I would be very interested to learn of any other historical documents related to John Taylor you might possess. He was a fascinating character in the Early American Republic.
Thank you,
James A. Cornelius
Hello Mr. Cornelius. Welcome to the PCGS forum.
I think that I can help and will send you a PM in a minute. In the meantime, you might consider asking forum members to send you PMs (private messages via the envelope in the upper right of this page), rather than posting your email.
@ammonc06 please check your inbox (upper right)
@ammonc06
I also recommend removing your email.
We have scammers on here.
Also, until you are made a full member by the modulators, you will not be able to send PMs (private messages) it could take a week or more.
I note @Zerbe was last active on March 18
.
.
I did not know this, so thank you for posting this important fact. Email sent.
Oh, thank you for this advice. I am completely new to these kinds of forums, so I was unaware that private messages were an option.
Wow. Great old thread. The quality of the discussion and thoughtfulness of those who posted is really something. This stands in stark contrast to today’s parking lot find and CAC loving/bashing threads. Forum and message boards were really in their peak at that time.
It’s especially interesting to read what @tradedollarnut had to say about it many years before his record breaking acquisition.