Stewart, what makes you think the 1958 was not an "inside job"? I don't pretend to have a clue, either way, but am curious as to your thoughts on the subject. Thanks.
Sorry, let me be a little clearer on my statement, during the 80s and early 90s, most of the 'experts' who read Wexler's 1983 Lincoln cent book and saw the 58 DDO in the back, believed, since they could not find one, and had search hundreds of rolls, and as they had not heard anyone else finding one, believed, without facts to suppor their belief, that the coin was created as an inside job at the Mint. After I met the individual, listened to his story, I believed his story, if I did not, I would not have included it in the Lincoln cent book, or would have stated what my research showed in the book.
Kevin - could you please clear up a rumor that you gave that poor old mans name (he's 80 I believe) to stewart in exchange for him letting you photograph his coins for a book your working on? I find it hard to believe, but it comes from a very reliable source.
Paulie - those black and whites by Kevin look pretty good. Maybe I should send it in for a regrade. Whats your professional opinion, I really would like to know.
And to answer your other question, stewart may have lied about the price he paid for his coin. I spoke to Beth D personally and she took stewarts word for it. I believe she will be printing a correction soon. In addition, the letter stewart claims he has was actually for my coin when it was submitted some time ago. Now how could he have confused that one? Since I have the original letter. Possible correction again to the coin world article. And one last fact for all those who really dont care, stewart hasnt been looking for the 58 DDO for 20 years like the article claims. If he was, why would he have passed on it the last 2 times it was offered. In fact stewart always told me that he never cared about ddo's. He also never cared about memorials. And he doesnt care about what he has to do to get a coin. So beware.
<< <i>Kevin - could you please clear up a rumor that you gave that poor old mans name (he's 80 I believe) to stewart in exchange for him letting you photograph his coins for a book your working on? >>
lincolnSence, as far as I know, I don't know you. However, based upon your actions, secrecy, etc., it strikes me as hypocritical of you to be asking someone to provide you with information/answers to questions.
Lincoln sense You are incorrect, I did not give Stewart the individual’s phone number in exchange for Stewart permitting me to photograph his coins. I would without hesitation, state that I fully believe that if asked, Stewart would permit his coins to be photographed for the betterment of the hobby, which photographs could be displayed here, a book, article, or any place where collectors can enjoy and learn from them. I have been writing books (25 to date) for the last 15 years, I have seen and heard a great deal in my research and communicating with others. It takes a lot to impress me. I was very impressed with Stewart’s ability to communicate and complete the transaction with the 58 DDO. I know others have tried for the last 10 years to no avail. I have heard that the individual was completely happy and satisfied with the transaction. On another note, in 1995, the individual did not want to sell his first 58 DDO. I convinced him to sell it and hooked him up with Sam Lukes. Had I not, you would not have the pleasure of your coin.
It is my opinion, based upon reading your comments on this forum, that you would not have been able to accomplish what Stewart did.
On grading of the two coins. I do not believe there is any difference in the striking. If you strike only a few coins, the working die should not wear to any point where you would see a difference. Of course, there could have been a difference in pressure, but this is also doubtful. But it is also possible, that the planchet could have slight variation in metal content, therefore affecting its ability slightly to absorb the striking of the dies. This would not normally be seen on the major or thicker design elements, but on the thinner, such as the EPU on the reverse or the wheat lines. I did not see or expect to see a easily detectable difference in striking of the two coins.
I did however see a difference in the number of bag marks, especially on the reverse. I remember the first specimens had many more bag marks on the top left of the reverse. It is my opinion, that the second specimen was much nicer, that the individual had saved the best coin for himself. To me the bag marks were a clear indication that the coins were not saved directly saved from the coining presses. The individual picked them from a mint sewn bag around 1962. The bag marks are consistent with what you would find from coins from a mint sewn bag. There was absolutely no question in my mind when I saw photographs of the second specimen that it was the nicer coin.
I've been thinking about these coins a lot recently, tell me if you think this is a plausible scenario for their leaving the Mint:
The doubled die is installed and allowed to run for a short time. Early in the run the product is inspected and the doubled die is discovered. A technician takes two coins and brings them to his supervisor to illustrate the problem. At that point the die was removed, and all output from that machine or set of machines was quarantined and destroyed.
BUT.... what if the original technician forgot to return the two QA samples to the bin for destruction? He (or someone who came upon them and didn't closely examine them) could have accidentally tossed them into a bin of good production, which then was bagged and sent out through the usual channels. The only part that seems like a stretch to me is that both coins would eventually wind up in the same bag, but then I've found multiple examples of a single die variety in an original 50pc roll of cents, and the bag contained 5,000 coins.
I recall with Kevin much of the skepticism surrounding the coin after it was included in Wexler's 1983 book. Sol Taylor in particular was especially dismissive of the variety in the edition of 'Standard Guide to Lincoln Cents' I own. However, everything I've heard and read since Flynn's 1995 write-up, including the various threads here, makes me want to take the discoverer on his word.
I'm still hoping to hear more of the story of how Stewart came to obtain the coin. That would be infinitely more interesting to me than some of the other behind-the-scenes dealings being discussed in this thread.
Sean Reynolds
Edited to add: ...and if this thread gets deleted, I'm giving up.
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Your scenario is possible, I am sure we will never know.
What is supposed to occur is that the dies are inspected and put into the coining press, roughly 10-12 coins struck, the coins are inspected. The coins are then inspected every 2000 or so coins. So coins are dumped from the coining press into a local bin, so that they could be isolated if needed and destroyed. As we know this did not happen for the 1955 DDO, as roughly 20000-25000 were released.
One scenario I thought of years ago was 12 are struck and the doubling was discovered. Two were struck in either the bin, ejection mechanism, or just overlooked, and when the die was replaced, the coins were pushed with the next batch of cents
Kevin - thanks for clearing that up for me. But as I said, I only heard it, I did not start it.
Stewart - perhaps you could tell us all then how you came to find out the owners name and contact info if only Sam and Kevin knew who he was and both of them had nothing to do with an introduction. I'm the first one in line to offer you congrats, but please do tell. It sounds like a great story.
<< <i>Kevin - could you please clear up a rumor that you gave that poor old mans name (he's 80 I believe) to stewart in exchange for him letting you photograph his coins for a book your working on? >>
You are incorrect, I did not give Stewart the individual’s phone number in exchange for Stewart permitting me to photograph his coins.
<< <i>Kevin - thanks for clearing that up for me. >>
Technically, I'm not sure the issue IS cleared up - the question pertained to a name and the answer was about a phone number.
Kevin - maybe you could re-clear up something for me. Are you saying that after 20 years of searching for this coin that after stewart talked to you somehow he just happened to get charlies name and number for some unknown source? Or maybe as Coinguy1 suggests above you only gave stewart his name and NOT his NUMBER. Please be clearer in your response. And are you sure that you didnt tell sam to back off and let stewart complete the deal and you were going to get to photograph the coin for a new book? I didnt believe it myself, so again could you please clear this up?
What could be worse than sicking stewart on an 80 year old man for a coin he longed for for 20 years? Please say it aint so.
I owe no obligation to answer any part of your questions.
It is my opinion that you question, not to seek an answer, but to cause problems, controversy, and that for some reason you are unhappy that you have the lower graded coin, where I believe anyone of us would be thrilled to have one of only two coins known.
I will however answer your question in part, if you permit your full obverse/ reverse photographs to be shown on this forum.
<< <i>It is my opinion that you question, not to seek an answer, but to cause problems, controversy, and that for some reason you are unhappy that you have the lower graded coin >>
Kevin, thank you for your many excellent contributions to this thread and others recently. Despite a few detours (and I will take partial responsibility for that) this has been a most interesting and informative thread.
Kevin - you cant kid a kidder can ya? I have agreed to provide my specimen(s) to coin world to provide collectors an opportunity to study the coins. Lets see if stuart will pony up when called. You were not truthful here and you can live with that I hope.
This whole thing started with someone taking advantage when they should not have. In the interim, I have learned alot about many new people and what drives them on this forum. But for me the lessons were in deceit and dishonesty. In scams and greed. When I asked for a little professionalism all I got back was smart ass comments. Mark, I dont know you. Nor do I think I need to. You are an instigator, and you also qualify for my jackass award. Russ, I contacted you years ago and commented how wonderful your pictures were. Would you be interested in shooting my 58DDO? I still have the replies. You declined. You didnt even want to get together to share just looking at various coins from both of our collections. I wanted to show you several Kennedy pieces. I reached out because I was physically located near you. I was new on the boards and thought it would be a good way to meet other collectors. But you were not interested in reaching out to a new collector. So you wonder why I piss on you now. All you have is smart ass comments and cheap jokes.
For those who have read these posts believe me, people were hurt in this transaction. They lost money, were professionally embarrassed, and most of all a lot of trust in others was destroyed. Overall, it was a bad thing. Lets hope for better times.
<< <i>Russ........But you were not interested in reaching out to a new collector. So you wonder why I piss on you now. All you have is smart ass comments and cheap jokes. >>
I see Russ reach out to new collectors frequently on these forums.
<< <i>For those who have read these posts believe me, people were hurt in this transaction. They lost money, were professionally embarrassed, and most of all a lot of trust in others was destroyed. Overall, it was a bad thing >>
It's impossible for us to know that, when you make comments and accusations without backing them up and at the same time being highly secretive yourself.
<< <i>Mark, I dont know you. Nor do I think I need to. You are an instigator, and you also qualify for my jackass award >>
I believe that I raised fair and relevant questions and points in this thread - if that qualifies me for your "jackass award", so be it.
You, on the other hand, asked questions which appeared to be solely for your own benefit, while at the same time offering nothing other than complaints, accusations and apparently extremely rude and crude comments to forum members via PM's. If you can be open minded, you might re-read this thread and see what I'm speaking of.
<< <i>Russ, I contacted you years ago and commented how wonderful your pictures were. Would you be interested in shooting my 58DDO? I still have the replies. You declined. >>
<< <i>See Mark, this is why you are a jackass, just let it die. Or are you the kind of coinguy that has to have the last post? >>
lincolnsence, if you post the replies from Russ that you claim to have, and which he requested you post, you have my word that I will not post to this thread again. Otherwise, you will appear to have lied to all of us.
Date Posted: Nov/21/2002 5:46 PM Russ - great shots of those toned lincolns. I have some lincoln double dies that I would like to get photographed. I do not have any equipment to do so and have thought about trying to get set up at home. Under what if any circumstances would you be willing to get involved to shoot say 10 coins? My only concern would be that it remain confidential between us. Any thoughts? Thanks.
PS - the reason I ask is obviously because of the quality of the pictures you produce, and the fact that you are in Kent I believe. I am in Redmond so the drive would be worth it.
Regards,
Rich
Mark - the followup post was to inquire why he didnt even send a reply. Some excuse about clicking on it and it going into history. Then he mentioned that he couldnt take good close ups. Well, my point is that I reached out, and it wasn't of interest. I still get a cold shiver thinking about it. So I guess this is where Russ will have to pick up the torch? Please dont.
Lincolnsence, I'm still waiting to see the replies from Russ to which you referred:
<< <i>Russ, I contacted you years ago and commented how wonderful your pictures were. Would you be interested in shooting my 58DDO? I still have the replies. >>
Based upon your claim, his denial, his challenge for you to post them and my promise to stop posting to this thread if/when you did so, I would expect that you'd get right to it.
<< <i>Then he mentioned that he couldnt take good close ups. >>
You should have mentioned that the doubled dies you had didn't require any close-ups.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I just looked at my history, and it's there. I must have went clicking through my PMs and responding and forgot yours. They automatically disappear in to history once the button is clicked.
Sorry, but I wouldn't be able to help. The macro function on my camera is not sensitive enough to capture doubling. Another member brought me a couple a while back and no matter what I tried, I couldn't get it to show worth a damn.
Russ
So here is one that I remember. I guess you couldnt capture history eh Russ? I can. And I guess you can't capture doubling that is as broad as on these coins - right. You were trying to be polite, and just get rid of me. Way to reach out to a new collector. My original point.
Actually, that does sound like me so it appears you did contact me. But, let's dissect this. You said:
<< <i>Russ, I contacted you years ago and commented how wonderful your pictures were. Would you be interested in shooting my 58DDO? >>
Your request said nothing about the '58 DDO - only that you had some doubled dies. Most doubled dies require macro well beyond the capability of my camera. VERY few have the doubling of coins like the '55, '58 or die 1 of the '72. I would have jumped on the chance to image coins like these - and have for many forum members.
Thus, since you made no specific mention of WHAT coins you were talking about, this statement is crap:
<< <i>And I guess you can't capture doubling that is as broad as on these coins >>
Tell me, how does a reply like this:
<< <i>Sorry, but I wouldn't be able to help. The macro function on my camera is not sensitive enough to capture doubling. Another member brought me a couple a while back and no matter what I tried, I couldn't get it to show worth a damn >>
Translate in to this:
<< <i>But you were not interested in reaching out to a new collector. >>
What are you, like 10 years old? Are your feelings that delicate? I replied honestly - based on the nebulous information you provided - that my camera lacked the macro capability. This is a fact. It only does macro to 3.5 inches which is not nearly adequate enough to capture any but the most dramatically doubled coins.
Thus, it appears that we did have an exchange about your coin, but you were dishonest about the nature of that exchange.
<< <i>VERY few have the doubling of coins like the '55, '58 or die 1 of the '72. I would have jumped on the chance to image coins like these >>
It's too bad you didn't, I bet the rest of us would still have the pictures to look at if you had.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I am currently working in Renton every day (exit 2a on 405). I invite you to meet me for lunch somewhere close to here (as I do not know the area that well). I will be delighted to bring several of those DDO's - in the spirit of being neighborly (the 58, 72, 70s, 36's) to share and get your thoughts. And I would like it if you could bring several examples of your favorites so I could learn something. I can even bring some of my special Kennedys. You dont have to say yes obviously. But lets stop wasting other peoples time on this thread. Let me know.
If I could make one suggestion, in my opinion, and from what I have read on this thread, I would suggest if you were going to photograph any coins, you have release forms, and or an attorney present. Just my opinion.
On your camera, I know what you mean, I have a digital camera which says it can do macro, but the close ups we need are difficult, especially in getting the right light.
For closeups I use a nikon 2020 mounted on top of a Edmund Scientific 60mm zoom microscope with a halogen lamp, gets great close ups, and the halogen lamp creates a nice light effect without creating a lot of glare.
For full photo I use a nikon 2020 with a 60mm macro lens. Best light for me is natural light from the sun. I sit outside on a sunny day and tilt the coin to reflect the sunlight
One thing I am confused about was the photographs which were taken of your 58 DDO which were on a thread here.
From what I understand, please correct me if I am wrong, the individual used his photographic equipment, which he owned, paid for the film, film development, and you did not pay him to photograph your coins, as which then it might be argued that it was a work for hire.
If this is true, does he not own the copyrights to the photographs he took?
I would gladly quote the copyright laws herein if requested.
If he did own the copyrights based on the law, what basis did you threaten to sue him?
<< <i>I invite you to meet me for lunch somewhere close to here (as I do not know the area that well). I will be delighted to bring several of those DDO's - in the spirit of being neighborly (the 58, 72, 70s, 36's) to share and get your thoughts. >>
Sounds good to me. I'll agree to it if you let me image the '58 DDO and post the images here at the forum.
If I could make one suggestion, in my opinion, and from what I have read on this thread, I would suggest if you were going to photograph any coins, you have release forms, and or an attorney present. Just my opinion.
I agree with Kevin and this is the sad part of this thread. LincolnSence has issues which unfortunately dragged this post down and erased another. The comparison of the two coins could have been the PCGS forum at its best. Now it's just a post about a post, how lame is that?
LincolnSence is a troubled soul. It started with him suggesting I altered Stewart's 1958 DDO to make it look better than it really did. I don't do that. I throw out images rather than PhotoShop them. The funny part is Stewart's coin actually looked better in person. I captured the detail but not the true red color. Those who have seen it in person would agree.
LincolnSence is right about me having a soft spot for Stewart Blay, though his graphic detail was disturbing. I do truly admire Stewart. He's the major small cent collector of our time and he shares images of his coins online, taken by an amateur no less. If you haven't noticed this is a hard crowd to please. Stewart has more to lose here than to gain. Keeping all his coins a mystery would serve him better. I've taken some horrible images of his coins but he appreciates my intentions as much as I appreciate his amazing coins. He's a true collector.
Well if entire threads got deleted just for showing his pictures, we should be grateful only one post got axed when his full name found its way into the discussion.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
It's too bad legal action costs so much. It would almost be worth it for Carol to post the photos since obviously absent a contract and consideration, photos belong to the photograher as do the copyrights; not the coin owner or the subject of the photo . Otherwise all of Camerons 5000++ Olsen Twins photo posts would have to be deleted from this Forum too-- ABSURD --
Richard (lincoln sense) sent me an email in which he states that the agreement was in writing, he stated:
"I had a specific agreement with Tim that he would not, specifically not repost my picture. It was in writing and he agreed to it. "
I guess the obvious question here is clarification, was this a written contract which was signed by both parties before the photographs were taken, in which case if it was specifically spelled out before hand, Richard would have an obvious point here.
Or, is this after the fact, after the individual spent the time and money to photograph the coins.
Or is this just an email after the fact that the photographs should not be posted.
In the second two scenarios, it is my opinion that the individual would own the copyrights and could do as they please.
If the second two scenarios, where it was stated after the photographs taken, in my opinion, at that point, the right thing to do might have been for Richard to offer to buy the photographs from the individual who took them, and compensate him for his time to take the photographs. Just my opnion of course
Richard (lincoln sense) sent me an email in which he states that the agreement was in writing
Casual imaging of coins, at no cost, rarely has written agreements like this. If I were Lakes I'd tell you to pound sand before agreeing to image your coins for free under any sort of written contract. Give me a break.
I fully agree with you, it is not logical to be asked to photograph someone's coins, you use your camera, pay for film, film development, the time to photograph, and not to be able use the photos.
If he did not want it to be reproduced, in my opinion, it should have been a work for hire, whereas the individual was paid for his time, film, film development, and such so that the photographs would have been his.
In this instance, from what I believe and remember, the individual who took the photographs would own the copyrights to the photographs (unless they were explicitely given up), and the individual who paid for the film, film development, time, ...., would own the rights to the photographs.
I still have not heard what kind of writing, before, after, agreed, signed, and so on, which could shed some light on the subject.
From what I have read on this forum, in my opinion, I would doubt it was a signed contract, which is what I believed lincoln sense was attempting to claim to me.
What you add to this hobby with your books goes far beyond any post here, which can be erased in the blink of an eye. I'm one of your admirers and look forward to your next project.
The legality of coin photos is a boring and tedious subject. I have a feeling you know about that. Two facts are obvious in this thread. 1) LincolnSence is a pimple on Stewart Blay's butt when it comes to collecting Lincoln cents. 2) He's trying as hard as he can to make the one coin he still owns influencial.
A predictible end to a post with wonderful possibilites. Such is life on the PCGS forum.
Comments
" All believe the 58 was an inside job "
No
The 1913 nickel was an inside job.And there are 5 of them.
And the finest one was recently purchased by Legend for $4,100,000
There are only two 1958 Doubled Die Obverses.And I feel I got a fair deal for considerably less money.
Stewart
<< <i>Dear lincolnSence,
As per your PM's to me. They are crude and rude and they tempt me to post them here. But I decline. >>
You too Paul? I got a good laugh from the ones he sent me.
Russ, NCNE
of the 'experts' who read Wexler's 1983 Lincoln cent book and saw the 58 DDO in the back,
believed, since they could not find one, and had search hundreds of rolls, and as they had
not heard anyone else finding one, believed, without facts to suppor their belief, that the
coin was created as an inside job at the Mint.
After I met the individual, listened to his story, I believed his story, if I did not, I would not have
included it in the Lincoln cent book, or would have stated what my research showed in the book.
Kevin
Paulie - those black and whites by Kevin look pretty good. Maybe I should send it in for a regrade. Whats your professional opinion, I really would like to know.
And to answer your other question, stewart may have lied about the price he paid for his coin. I spoke to Beth D personally and she took stewarts word for it. I believe she will be printing a correction soon. In addition, the letter stewart claims he has was actually for my coin when it was submitted some time ago. Now how could he have confused that one? Since I have the original letter. Possible correction again to the coin world article. And one last fact for all those who really dont care, stewart hasnt been looking for the 58 DDO for 20 years like the article claims. If he was, why would he have passed on it the last 2 times it was offered. In fact stewart always told me that he never cared about ddo's. He also never cared about memorials. And he doesnt care about what he has to do to get a coin. So beware.
<< <i>Kevin - could you please clear up a rumor that you gave that poor old mans name (he's 80 I believe) to stewart in exchange for him letting you photograph his coins for a book your working on? >>
lincolnSence, as far as I know, I don't know you. However, based upon your actions, secrecy, etc., it strikes me as hypocritical of you to be asking someone to provide you with information/answers to questions.
You are incorrect, I did not give Stewart the individual’s phone number in exchange for Stewart permitting me to photograph his coins.
I would without hesitation, state that I fully believe that if asked, Stewart would permit his coins to be photographed for the betterment of the hobby, which photographs could be displayed here, a book, article, or any place where collectors can enjoy and learn from them.
I have been writing books (25 to date) for the last 15 years, I have seen and heard a great deal in my research and communicating with others. It takes a lot to impress me. I was very impressed with Stewart’s ability to communicate and complete the transaction with the 58 DDO. I know others have tried for the last 10 years to no avail. I have heard that the individual was completely happy and satisfied with the transaction.
On another note, in 1995, the individual did not want to sell his first 58 DDO. I convinced him to sell it and hooked him up with Sam Lukes. Had I not, you would not have the pleasure of your coin.
It is my opinion, based upon reading your comments on this forum, that you would not have been able to accomplish what Stewart did.
On grading of the two coins. I do not believe there is any difference in the striking. If you strike only a few coins, the working die should not wear to any point where you would see a difference. Of course, there could have been a difference in pressure, but this is also doubtful. But it is also possible, that the planchet could have slight variation in metal content, therefore affecting its ability slightly to absorb the striking of the dies.
This would not normally be seen on the major or thicker design elements, but on the thinner, such as the EPU on the reverse or the wheat lines.
I did not see or expect to see a easily detectable difference in striking of the two coins.
I did however see a difference in the number of bag marks, especially on the reverse. I remember the first specimens had many more bag marks on the top left of the reverse. It is my opinion, that the second specimen was much nicer, that the individual had saved the best coin for himself.
To me the bag marks were a clear indication that the coins were not saved directly saved from the coining presses. The individual picked them from a mint sewn bag around 1962. The bag marks are consistent with what you would find from coins from a mint sewn bag.
There was absolutely no question in my mind when I saw photographs of the second specimen that it was the nicer coin.
<< <i>It is my opinion, based upon reading your comments on this forum, that you would not have been able to accomplish what Stewart did. >>
And that, in a nutshell, is the bottom line.
Russ, NCNE
The doubled die is installed and allowed to run for a short time. Early in the run the product is inspected and the doubled die is discovered. A technician takes two coins and brings them to his supervisor to illustrate the problem. At that point the die was removed, and all output from that machine or set of machines was quarantined and destroyed.
BUT.... what if the original technician forgot to return the two QA samples to the bin for destruction? He (or someone who came upon them and didn't closely examine them) could have accidentally tossed them into a bin of good production, which then was bagged and sent out through the usual channels. The only part that seems like a stretch to me is that both coins would eventually wind up in the same bag, but then I've found multiple examples of a single die variety in an original 50pc roll of cents, and the bag contained 5,000 coins.
I recall with Kevin much of the skepticism surrounding the coin after it was included in Wexler's 1983 book. Sol Taylor in particular was especially dismissive of the variety in the edition of 'Standard Guide to Lincoln Cents' I own. However, everything I've heard and read since Flynn's 1995 write-up, including the various threads here, makes me want to take the discoverer on his word.
I'm still hoping to hear more of the story of how Stewart came to obtain the coin. That would be infinitely more interesting to me than some of the other behind-the-scenes dealings being discussed in this thread.
Sean Reynolds
Edited to add: ...and if this thread gets deleted, I'm giving up.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Your scenario is possible, I am sure we will never know.
What is supposed to occur is that the dies are inspected and put into the coining press,
roughly 10-12 coins struck, the coins are inspected. The coins are then inspected every
2000 or so coins.
So coins are dumped from the coining press into a local bin, so that they could be isolated
if needed and destroyed.
As we know this did not happen for the 1955 DDO, as roughly 20000-25000 were released.
One scenario I thought of years ago was 12 are struck and the doubling was discovered.
Two were struck in either the bin, ejection mechanism, or just overlooked, and when the
die was replaced, the coins were pushed with the next batch of cents
Kevin
Stewart - perhaps you could tell us all then how you came to find out the owners name and contact info if only Sam and Kevin knew who he was and both of them had nothing to do with an introduction. I'm the first one in line to offer you congrats, but please do tell. It sounds like a great story.
Uh oh! Do I sense another Grand Jury to see who leaked the name!!
Jack
<< <i>Kevin - could you please clear up a rumor that you gave that poor old mans name (he's 80 I believe) to stewart in exchange for him letting you photograph his coins for a book your working on? >>
You are incorrect, I did not give Stewart the individual’s phone number in exchange for Stewart permitting me to photograph his coins.
<< <i>Kevin - thanks for clearing that up for me. >>
Technically, I'm not sure the issue IS cleared up - the question pertained to a name and the answer was about a phone number.
What could be worse than sicking stewart on an 80 year old man for a coin he longed for for 20 years? Please say it aint so.
I owe no obligation to answer any part of your questions.
It is my opinion that you question, not to seek an answer, but to cause
problems, controversy, and that for some reason you are unhappy that you
have the lower graded coin, where I believe anyone of us would be thrilled
to have one of only two coins known.
I will however answer your question in part, if you permit your full obverse/
reverse photographs to be shown on this forum.
And one last fact for all those who really dont care, stewart hasnt been looking for the 58 DDO for 20 years like the article claims. >>
and
<< <i>What could be worse than sicking stewart on an 80 year old man for a coin he longed for for 20 years? >>
You can't have it both ways.
<< <i>It is my opinion that you question, not to seek an answer, but to cause
problems, controversy, and that for some reason you are unhappy that you
have the lower graded coin >>
You are very perceptive.
Russ, NCNE
This whole thing started with someone taking advantage when they should not have. In the interim, I have learned alot about many new people and what drives them on this forum. But for me the lessons were in deceit and dishonesty. In scams and greed. When I asked for a little professionalism all I got back was smart ass comments. Mark, I dont know you. Nor do I think I need to. You are an instigator, and you also qualify for my jackass award. Russ, I contacted you years ago and commented how wonderful your pictures were. Would you be interested in shooting my 58DDO? I still have the replies. You declined. You didnt even want to get together to share just looking at various coins from both of our collections. I wanted to show you several Kennedy pieces. I reached out because I was physically located near you. I was new on the boards and thought it would be a good way to meet other collectors. But you were not interested in reaching out to a new collector. So you wonder why I piss on you now. All you have is smart ass comments and cheap jokes.
For those who have read these posts believe me, people were hurt in this transaction. They lost money, were professionally embarrassed, and most of all a lot of trust in others was destroyed. Overall, it was a bad thing. Lets hope for better times.
<< <i>Russ........But you were not interested in reaching out to a new collector. So you wonder why I piss on you now. All you have is smart ass comments and cheap jokes. >>
I see Russ reach out to new collectors frequently on these forums.
<< <i>For those who have read these posts believe me, people were hurt in this transaction. They lost money, were professionally embarrassed, and most of all a lot of trust in others was destroyed. Overall, it was a bad thing >>
It's impossible for us to know that, when you make comments and accusations without backing them up and at the same time being highly secretive yourself.
<< <i>Mark, I dont know you. Nor do I think I need to. You are an instigator, and you also qualify for my jackass award >>
I believe that I raised fair and relevant questions and points in this thread - if that qualifies me for your "jackass award", so be it.
You, on the other hand, asked questions which appeared to be solely for your own benefit, while at the same time offering nothing other than complaints, accusations and apparently extremely rude and crude comments to forum members via PM's. If you can be open minded, you might re-read this thread and see what I'm speaking of.
<< <i>Russ, I contacted you years ago and commented how wonderful your pictures were. Would you be interested in shooting my 58DDO? I still have the replies. You declined. >>
Horse crap.
Post my replies. Now.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>See Mark, this is why you are a jackass, just let it die. Or are you the kind of coinguy that has to have the last post? >>
lincolnsence, if you post the replies from Russ that you claim to have, and which he requested you post, you have my word that I will not post to this thread again. Otherwise, you will appear to have lied to all of us.
Russ - great shots of those toned lincolns. I have some lincoln double dies that I would like to get photographed. I do not have any equipment to do so and have thought about trying to get set up at home. Under what if any circumstances would you be willing to get involved to shoot say 10 coins? My only concern would be that it remain confidential between us. Any thoughts? Thanks.
PS - the reason I ask is obviously because of the quality of the pictures you produce, and the fact that you are in Kent I believe. I am in Redmond so the drive would be worth it.
Regards,
Rich
Mark - the followup post was to inquire why he didnt even send a reply. Some excuse about clicking on it and it going into history. Then he mentioned that he couldnt take good close ups. Well, my point is that I reached out, and it wasn't of interest. I still get a cold shiver thinking about it. So I guess this is where Russ will have to pick up the torch? Please dont.
<< <i>Russ, I contacted you years ago and commented how wonderful your pictures were. Would you be interested in shooting my 58DDO? I still have the replies. >>
Based upon your claim, his denial, his challenge for you to post them and my promise to stop posting to this thread if/when you did so, I would expect that you'd get right to it.
<< <i>Then he mentioned that he couldnt take good close ups. >>
You should have mentioned that the doubled dies you had didn't require any close-ups.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Russ, NCNE
Hi Rich,
I just looked at my history, and it's there. I must have went clicking through my PMs and responding and forgot yours. They automatically disappear in to history once the button is clicked.
Sorry, but I wouldn't be able to help. The macro function on my camera is not sensitive enough to capture doubling. Another member brought me a couple a while back and no matter what I tried, I couldn't get it to show worth a damn.
Russ
So here is one that I remember. I guess you couldnt capture history eh Russ? I can. And I guess you can't capture doubling that is as broad as on these coins - right. You were trying to be polite, and just get rid of me. Way to reach out to a new collector. My original point.
Goodbye for this post Mark
<< <i>Russ, I contacted you years ago and commented how wonderful your pictures were. Would you be interested in shooting my 58DDO? >>
Your request said nothing about the '58 DDO - only that you had some doubled dies. Most doubled dies require macro well beyond the capability of my camera. VERY few have the doubling of coins like the '55, '58 or die 1 of the '72. I would have jumped on the chance to image coins like these - and have for many forum members.
Thus, since you made no specific mention of WHAT coins you were talking about, this statement is crap:
<< <i>And I guess you can't capture doubling that is as broad as on these coins >>
Tell me, how does a reply like this:
<< <i>Sorry, but I wouldn't be able to help. The macro function on my camera is not sensitive enough to capture doubling. Another member brought me a couple a while back and no matter what I tried, I couldn't get it to show worth a damn >>
Translate in to this:
<< <i>But you were not interested in reaching out to a new collector. >>
What are you, like 10 years old? Are your feelings that delicate? I replied honestly - based on the nebulous information you provided - that my camera lacked the macro capability. This is a fact. It only does macro to 3.5 inches which is not nearly adequate enough to capture any but the most dramatically doubled coins.
Thus, it appears that we did have an exchange about your coin, but you were dishonest about the nature of that exchange.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>VERY few have the doubling of coins like the '55, '58 or die 1 of the '72. I would have jumped on the chance to image coins like these >>
It's too bad you didn't, I bet the rest of us would still have the pictures to look at if you had.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I am currently working in Renton every day (exit 2a on 405). I invite you to meet me for lunch somewhere close to here (as I do not know the area that well). I will be delighted to bring several of those DDO's - in the spirit of being neighborly (the 58, 72, 70s, 36's) to share and get your thoughts. And I would like it if you could bring several examples of your favorites so I could learn something. I can even bring some of my special Kennedys. You dont have to say yes obviously. But lets stop wasting other peoples time on this thread. Let me know.
If I could make one suggestion, in my opinion, and from what I have read on this thread,
I would suggest if you were going to photograph any coins, you have release forms, and
or an attorney present. Just my opinion.
On your camera, I know what you mean, I have a digital camera which says it can do macro,
but the close ups we need are difficult, especially in getting the right light.
For closeups I use a nikon 2020 mounted on top of a Edmund Scientific 60mm zoom microscope with a
halogen lamp, gets great close ups, and the halogen lamp creates a nice light effect without
creating a lot of glare.
For full photo I use a nikon 2020 with a 60mm macro lens. Best light for me is natural light
from the sun. I sit outside on a sunny day and tilt the coin to reflect the sunlight
Kevin
One thing I am confused about was the photographs which were taken of your 58 DDO which
were on a thread here.
From what I understand, please correct me if I am wrong, the individual used his photographic
equipment, which he owned, paid for the film, film development, and you did not pay him to
photograph your coins, as which then it might be argued that it was a work for hire.
If this is true, does he not own the copyrights to the photographs he took?
I would gladly quote the copyright laws herein if requested.
If he did own the copyrights based on the law, what basis did you threaten to sue him?
Kevin
<< <i>I invite you to meet me for lunch somewhere close to here (as I do not know the area that well). I will be delighted to bring several of those DDO's - in the spirit of being neighborly (the 58, 72, 70s, 36's) to share and get your thoughts. >>
Sounds good to me. I'll agree to it if you let me image the '58 DDO and post the images here at the forum.
Russ, NCNE
I would suggest if you were going to photograph any coins, you have release forms, and
or an attorney present. Just my opinion.
I agree with Kevin and this is the sad part of this thread. LincolnSence has issues which
unfortunately dragged this post down and erased another. The comparison of the two coins
could have been the PCGS forum at its best. Now it's just a post about a post, how lame is
that?
LincolnSence is a troubled soul. It started with him suggesting I altered Stewart's 1958 DDO
to make it look better than it really did. I don't do that. I throw out images rather than PhotoShop
them. The funny part is Stewart's coin actually looked better in person. I captured the detail
but not the true red color. Those who have seen it in person would agree.
LincolnSence is right about me having a soft spot for Stewart Blay, though his graphic detail was
disturbing. I do truly admire Stewart. He's the major small cent collector of our time and he
shares images of his coins online, taken by an amateur no less. If you haven't noticed
this is a hard crowd to please. Stewart has more to lose here than to gain. Keeping all his coins a
mystery would serve him better. I've taken some horrible images of his coins but he appreciates
my intentions as much as I appreciate his amazing coins. He's a true collector.
<< <i> I am reading the last post by Stewart and now it goes poof on me, this happen to anyone else? >>
Yep, same here.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i> I am reading the last post by Stewart and now it goes poof on me, this happen to anyone else? >>
Yep, same here.
Russ, NCNE >>
Ditto.
Mark
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Well, well, well. This is getting interesting now, isn't it?
Jack
he stated:
"I had a specific agreement with Tim that he would not, specifically not repost my picture. It was in writing and he agreed to it. "
I guess the obvious question here is clarification, was this a written contract which was signed by
both parties before the photographs were taken, in which case if it was specifically spelled out before
hand, Richard would have an obvious point here.
Or, is this after the fact, after the individual spent the time and money to photograph the coins.
Or is this just an email after the fact that the photographs should not be posted.
In the second two scenarios, it is my opinion that the individual would own the copyrights and
could do as they please.
If the second two scenarios, where it was stated after the photographs taken, in my opinion,
at that point, the right thing to do might have been for Richard to offer to buy the photographs
from the individual who took them, and compensate him for his time to take the photographs.
Just my opnion of course
Casual imaging of coins, at no cost, rarely has written agreements like this. If I were Lakes I'd tell you to pound sand before agreeing to
image your coins for free under any sort of written contract. Give me a break.
I fully agree with you, it is not logical to be asked to photograph someone's coins, you use your
camera, pay for film, film development, the time to photograph, and not to be able use the photos.
If he did not want it to be reproduced, in my opinion, it should have been a work for hire, whereas the
individual was paid for his time, film, film development, and such so that the photographs
would have been his.
In this instance, from what I believe and remember, the individual who took the photographs would
own the copyrights to the photographs (unless they were explicitely given up), and the
individual who paid for the film, film development, time, ...., would own the rights to the photographs.
I still have not heard what kind of writing, before, after, agreed, signed, and so on, which could
shed some light on the subject.
From what I have read on this forum, in my opinion, I would doubt it was a signed contract, which
is what I believed lincoln sense was attempting to claim to me.
Kevin
I think you said earlier that it was you who photographed Stewart 58.
I saw the images and was impressed, nice job
Kevin
What you add to this hobby with your books goes far beyond any post here, which can be erased in the blink of an eye. I'm one of your admirers and look forward to your next project.
The legality of coin photos is a boring and tedious subject. I have a feeling you know about that. Two facts are obvious in this thread. 1) LincolnSence is a pimple on Stewart Blay's butt when it comes to collecting Lincoln cents. 2) He's trying as hard as he can to make the one coin he still owns influencial.
A predictible end to a post with wonderful possibilites. Such is life on the PCGS forum.