1870S 25C

EVillageProwler

Front page on the latest issue of CW is definitive proof that the SF Mint ordered ONE 25c piece for the building cornerstone.

Interesting, but I can't help wonder how do we know that it is an 1870S quarter dollar? Also included in the record is a citation for a silver dollar for the cornerstone, yet we also have conflicting records indicating that the SF Mint was never delivered any 1870-dated obverse silver dollar dies.

EVP

Julian

After the half dime was discovered, I have always felt that a quarter exists, as well. Just waiting to find it.

Coinosaurus

Great. Another seated quarter they'll put in the Red Book that I can never get

kranky

EVP, I believe that somewhere in the article they mentioned that the list of coins specifically said they were coins of 1870 minted in SF.

The silver dollar remains a mystery, though.

EVillageProwler

Thanks for the responses. I guess if I wanted more, I should have mentioned something about eBay, a crooked dealer or slam someone else's high-priced coin out of either ignorance or jealousy... Funny how in a coin forum we can't seem to talk about real coin issues...

Julian - you're probably correct. But, I don't know exactly what the known records say about the H10C vs the 25C. The known records may be just barely different on these two coins that allow for more supposition.

Coin-beast - I can think of only TWO Seated 25C pieces that you are likely never going to get, minus the more obscure varieties of course. And, of the two, one is affordable compared to my one series stopper and the other is still yet to be proved extant. So, don't think you're 0/2. Rather, you're possibly 0/1 with a shot at becoming 1/1.

Kranky - I know that the article strongly implies that the coins are dated 1870, but I am interested in the incontrovertible proof, citing official records, that each and every coin for the cornerstone MUST BE DATED 1870 WITH AN "S" MM. I know there was this gold coin (G$3?) that had to have the MM applied to the reverse die prior to coining for the cornerstone. How definitive is that, or is it merely circumstantial?

If it is definitive that the MM was required, then I would logically conclude that each date must have been 1870 since it can't be later (because the cornerstone ceremony was in 1870) and it can't be earlier because there was no SF Mint prior to 1870!

EVP

LanLord

<< <i>If it is definitive that the MM was required, then I would logically conclude that each date must have been 1870 since it can't be later (because the cornerstone ceremony was in 1870) and it can't be earlier because there was no SF Mint prior to 1870! EVP >>

EVP, why could it not have come from the first SF mint? This was to go into the cornerstone of the second mint building in SF.

JrGMan2004

Could someone share the story? I've never heard this before...

EVillageProwler

LanLord,

Good point about the 1st SF Mint. I had completely forgotten that very important point... So, then, that certainly raises the question of why a cornerstone piece couldn't be dated, say, 1869?!?

Perhaps it was an 1869S 25C specimen that got placed in the cornerstone?

EVP

EVillageProwler

George,

Read the latest issue of CW. It'll tell you the story better than I can tell it.

EVP