Point (a) I must say I take some perverse pleasure in. It is quite believable as there are apparently no "gougless/leafless" coins from these dies. And what it would suggest is that all the theories that the "intentional gang" have posted here about mint lunch breaks, same press, same time of striking would be completely and utterly irrelevant. And it would seem to suggest that up to date the "intentional gang" really have not had good reasons to hold to their position. If it does turn out they were right, it was just by pure dumb luck. >>
I don't follow your reasoning here. The simple fact they were made on the same press infers a common origin to the dies. Intention is also implied since both have what appear to be artistic designs. Anything which affected dies randomly would appear on different presses in all probability. There is also the simple fact that if only one of these appeared then it would be dismissed by all as a mere abberation. This would be known to any wannabe coin designer and would explain why there were two made; to show that it wasn't simple damage and happenstance.
Obviously something could have happened to two dies resembling leaves and they end up on the same press accidently, it is merely not as likely as their being done for a reason. There is lots of evidence that mint employees sometimes engage in horseplay of various sorts. Many thing have come out of the mint that can only be described as having been done by intent. There have been quarter inch thick die caps found in hand sealed proof sets. You can't do this accidently no matter how sleepy you are since they don't fit.
I'm not sure that the fact they were changed before hardening is conclusive it was inten- tional since it would simply have required more force and effort to impart the design.
But if these are proved to be intentional then demand will soar. Even without any sort of new evidence it would seem a virtual certainty that these were completely intentional.
Point (a) I must say I take some perverse pleasure in. It is quite believable as there are apparently no "gougless/leafless" coins from these dies. And what it would suggest is that all the theories that the "intentional gang" have posted here about mint lunch breaks, same press, same time of striking would be completely and utterly irrelevant. And it would seem to suggest that up to date the "intentional gang" really have not had good reasons to hold to their position. If it does turn out they were right, it was just by pure dumb luck. >>
I don't follow your reasoning here. The simple fact they were made on the same press infers a common origin to the dies. Intention is also implied since both have what appear to be artistic designs. Anything which affected dies randomly would appear on different presses in all probability. There is also the simple fact that if only one of these appeared then it would be dismissed by all as a mere abberation. This would be known to any wannabe coin designer and would explain why there were two made; to show that it wasn't simple damage and happenstance.
Obviously something could have happened to two dies resembling leaves and they end up on the same press accidently, it is merely not as likely as their being done for a reason. There is lots of evidence that mint employees sometimes engage in horseplay of various sorts. Many thing have come out of the mint that can only be described as having been done by intent. There have been quarter inch thick die caps found in hand sealed proof sets. You can't do this accidently no matter how sleepy you are since they don't fit.
I'm not sure that the fact they were changed before hardening is conclusive it was inten- tional since it would simply have required more force and effort to impart the design.
But if these are proved to be intentional then demand will soar. Even without any sort of new evidence it would seem a virtual certainty that these were completely intentional. >>
I think I have stated my case clearly in this thread (my last post in there which basically does discuss the points above), though apparently others disagree. I think we are arguing in circles (no pun intended) and see no reason to restate myself which will lead to the same restatements. I don't deny that midnight minters have existed even in modern times, nor that die re-engravings have occurred. My concern is that people should think about what it is they are collecting, rather than being merely led by fancy names. In any case, a more interesting case of midnight minter vs accident is the 1859 Indian cent/1857 half dime double denomination. (For the record, my opinion is that it's an error, not intentional.)
The major new issue that I bought up is that if the leaves/gouges were added pre-hardening, then it is mere coincidence that the coins were released at the same time in the same locations. If the dies were intentionally marked pre-hardened, then it is rather unlikely that whoever did so could be the same person to put them in whatever press(es) were used to strike the coins. It just happened that way, and in fact these new results, even if they will give a new argument for intentionality, undercut some of the old ones.
<< <i> It just happened that way, and in fact these new results, even if they will give a new argument for intentionality, undercut some of the old ones. >>
I suppose I have to agree you're right that if they were done prehardening, it probably does undercut the arguments against an intentional origins at least a little. I don't know anything about the details of the means and process by which these are trans- ported and arranged for hardening and little about the process itself. Unless they are stored in steel frame cases it seems any technique would tend to separate them and reinforce your argument.
<< <i> It just happened that way, and in fact these new results, even if they will give a new argument for intentionality, undercut some of the old ones. >>
I suppose I have to agree you're right that if they were done prehardening, it probably does undercut the arguments against an intentional origins at least a little. I don't know anything about the details of the means and process by which these are trans- ported and arranged for hardening and little about the process itself. Unless they are stored in steel frame cases it seems any technique would tend to separate them and reinforce your argument. >>
Remember I said "undercut some of the old ones." I still think (look at the above link) that, in the end, whether or not they were struck on the same press, two nearby presses at the same time, or two presses at opposite ends of the coining room one on the first day of WI quarter production and the other on the last, is something which does not argue for or against an intentional origin.
Remember I said "undercut some of the old ones." I still think (look at the above link) that, in the end, whether or not they were struck on the same press, two nearby presses at the same time, or two presses at opposite ends of the coining room one on the first day of WI quarter production and the other on the last, is something which does not argue for or against an intentional origin. >>
But they were made on the same press or their distribution would be different.
They were only found together which is indicative of being made on the same press and at the same time.
Intentional or unintentional that we will find out soon enough. Which will make these coins more collectible? Are they worth more by knowing that they were engraved pre-hardening or by them being a (un)common mint error? And what would that difference be?
Makes an interesting case study in human psychology, tho. Give him credit for taking time away from his research into the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.
Kidding!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>Intentional or unintentional that we will find out soon enough. Which will make these coins more collectible? Are they worth more by knowing that they were engraved pre-hardening or by them being a (un)common mint error? And what would that difference be? >>
It's the difference between "type" and "variety".
As a type they are automatically part of the set to most collectors. One doesn't collect buffalo nickels and omit the both types of 1913 coins usually. But many will consider the '18/ '17-D as a variety which doesn't need to be included.
There will be much higher demand if it can be proved to be intentional. It really doesn't matter if it was official or not, merely that it was intentional.
I think I have stated my case clearly in this thread (my last post in there which basically does discuss the points above), though apparently others disagree. I think we are arguing in circles (no pun intended) and see no reason to restate myself which will lead to the same restatements. I don't deny that midnight minters have existed even in modern times, nor that die re-engravings have occurred.
I just reactivated that thread and made a comment there. TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
<< <i>Makes an interesting case study in human psychology, tho. >>
Some people do not see apparitions of the Virgin Mary in the salt stains of highway underpasses. Others do. I suspect this is more analogous to the WI quarters than most of us think.
Not to be confused with the original Wisconsin Extra High and Extra Low Leaf Statehood Quarters is an interesting "Sunken Die" Variety of the now famous Wisconsin Quarter minted at the Denver mint from October 3, 2004 until early December, 2004. This "Sunken Die" quarter has been marketed rather successfully on Ebay for the last two years as AKA The Fat Leaf. As the Ebay auction states, there are at least four Die Markers that are on each Sunken Die Wisconsin Quarter. These neat coins were found on a truly sparse basis again in the San Antonio, Tx area in late 2004. Estimated mintage is approximately 3,500 !! Living in the San Antonio/Austin, Tx area, I have found only a few circulated Wisconsin Extra Leaf Quarters during the past two years in rolls and even "Fewer" of these amazing Sunken Die Quarters !!
The Wisconsin "Sunken Die" Quarter is on Ebay currently. The auction number is: 28008586155. This is not my Ebay auction. Take a look and enjoy !! Mark.
Some people do not see apparitions of the Virgin Mary in the salt stains of highway underpasses. Others do. I suspect this is more analogous to the WI quarters than most of us think. >>
Isn't there an old saying that goes, "there is no so blind as he who will not see the forest for the leaves."?
Seriously though, I can understand the case against these being intentional. If the evidence were looked at a single piece at a time then it could be dismissed as coincidence, but taken in total, there seems but a single unavoidable conclusion.
Mark.. nice and strange looking "WI Fat leaf" coins although the "top professional" graders like PCGS and NGC will not recongize or designate these as any type of error or variety, etc. ,,, ANACS will do just about anything to slab something! I would pay no more than one or two dollar at most for those over-polished die quarters!
Telsa is one of the greatest inventors of all time! Render to Caesar's what is Caesars and give to God what is God's.
Comments
of all time! Render to Caesar's what is
Caesars and give to God what is God's.
<< <i>
Point (a) I must say I take some perverse pleasure in. It is quite believable as there are apparently no "gougless/leafless" coins from these dies. And what it would suggest is that all the theories that the "intentional gang" have posted here about mint lunch breaks, same press, same time of striking would be completely and utterly irrelevant. And it would seem to suggest that up to date the "intentional gang" really have not had good reasons to hold to their position. If it does turn out they were right, it was just by pure dumb luck. >>
I don't follow your reasoning here. The simple fact they were made on the same press
infers a common origin to the dies. Intention is also implied since both have what appear
to be artistic designs. Anything which affected dies randomly would appear on different
presses in all probability. There is also the simple fact that if only one of these appeared
then it would be dismissed by all as a mere abberation. This would be known to any wannabe
coin designer and would explain why there were two made; to show that it wasn't simple
damage and happenstance.
Obviously something could have happened to two dies resembling leaves and they end up
on the same press accidently, it is merely not as likely as their being done for a reason. There
is lots of evidence that mint employees sometimes engage in horseplay of various sorts. Many
thing have come out of the mint that can only be described as having been done by intent.
There have been quarter inch thick die caps found in hand sealed proof sets. You can't do
this accidently no matter how sleepy you are since they don't fit.
I'm not sure that the fact they were changed before hardening is conclusive it was inten-
tional since it would simply have required more force and effort to impart the design.
But if these are proved to be intentional then demand will soar. Even without any sort of new
evidence it would seem a virtual certainty that these were completely intentional.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Point (a) I must say I take some perverse pleasure in. It is quite believable as there are apparently no "gougless/leafless" coins from these dies. And what it would suggest is that all the theories that the "intentional gang" have posted here about mint lunch breaks, same press, same time of striking would be completely and utterly irrelevant. And it would seem to suggest that up to date the "intentional gang" really have not had good reasons to hold to their position. If it does turn out they were right, it was just by pure dumb luck. >>
I don't follow your reasoning here. The simple fact they were made on the same press
infers a common origin to the dies. Intention is also implied since both have what appear
to be artistic designs. Anything which affected dies randomly would appear on different
presses in all probability. There is also the simple fact that if only one of these appeared
then it would be dismissed by all as a mere abberation. This would be known to any wannabe
coin designer and would explain why there were two made; to show that it wasn't simple
damage and happenstance.
Obviously something could have happened to two dies resembling leaves and they end up
on the same press accidently, it is merely not as likely as their being done for a reason. There
is lots of evidence that mint employees sometimes engage in horseplay of various sorts. Many
thing have come out of the mint that can only be described as having been done by intent.
There have been quarter inch thick die caps found in hand sealed proof sets. You can't do
this accidently no matter how sleepy you are since they don't fit.
I'm not sure that the fact they were changed before hardening is conclusive it was inten-
tional since it would simply have required more force and effort to impart the design.
But if these are proved to be intentional then demand will soar. Even without any sort of new
evidence it would seem a virtual certainty that these were completely intentional. >>
I think I have stated my case clearly in this thread (my last post in there which basically does discuss the points above), though apparently others disagree. I think we are arguing in circles (no pun intended) and see no reason to restate myself which will lead to the same restatements. I don't deny that midnight minters have existed even in modern times, nor that die re-engravings have occurred. My concern is that people should think about what it is they are collecting, rather than being merely led by fancy names. In any case, a more interesting case of midnight minter vs accident is the 1859 Indian cent/1857 half dime double denomination. (For the record, my opinion is that it's an error, not intentional.)
The major new issue that I bought up is that if the leaves/gouges were added pre-hardening, then it is mere coincidence that the coins were released at the same time in the same locations. If the dies were intentionally marked pre-hardened, then it is rather unlikely that whoever did so could be the same person to put them in whatever press(es) were used to strike the coins. It just happened that way, and in fact these new results, even if they will give a new argument for intentionality, undercut some of the old ones.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i> It just happened that way, and in fact these new results, even if they will give a new argument for intentionality, undercut some of the old ones. >>
I suppose I have to agree you're right that if they were done prehardening, it probably
does undercut the arguments against an intentional origins at least a little. I don't
know anything about the details of the means and process by which these are trans-
ported and arranged for hardening and little about the process itself. Unless they are
stored in steel frame cases it seems any technique would tend to separate them and
reinforce your argument.
<< <i>
<< <i> It just happened that way, and in fact these new results, even if they will give a new argument for intentionality, undercut some of the old ones. >>
I suppose I have to agree you're right that if they were done prehardening, it probably
does undercut the arguments against an intentional origins at least a little. I don't
know anything about the details of the means and process by which these are trans-
ported and arranged for hardening and little about the process itself. Unless they are
stored in steel frame cases it seems any technique would tend to separate them and
reinforce your argument. >>
Remember I said "undercut some of the old ones." I still think (look at the above link) that, in the end, whether or not they were struck on the same press, two nearby presses at the same time, or two presses at opposite ends of the coining room one on the first day of WI quarter production and the other on the last, is something which does not argue for or against an intentional origin.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>
Remember I said "undercut some of the old ones." I still think (look at the above link) that, in the end, whether or not they were struck on the same press, two nearby presses at the same time, or two presses at opposite ends of the coining room one on the first day of WI quarter production and the other on the last, is something which does not argue for or against an intentional origin. >>
But they were made on the same press or their distribution would be different.
They were only found together which is indicative of being made on the same press
and at the same time.
If someone sees the coins and concludes it was blind luck that they were minted then I doubt any further discussion changes their mind.
Kidding!
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>Intentional or unintentional that we will find out soon enough. Which will make these coins more collectible? Are they worth more by knowing that they were engraved pre-hardening or by them being a (un)common mint error? And what would that difference be? >>
It's the difference between "type" and "variety".
As a type they are automatically part of the set to most collectors. One doesn't
collect buffalo nickels and omit the both types of 1913 coins usually. But many will
consider the '18/ '17-D as a variety which doesn't need to be included.
There will be much higher demand if it can be proved to be intentional. It really
doesn't matter if it was official or not, merely that it was intentional.
I think I have stated my case clearly in this thread (my last post in there which basically does discuss the points above), though apparently others disagree. I think we are arguing in circles (no pun intended) and see no reason to restate myself which will lead to the same restatements. I don't deny that midnight minters have existed even in modern times, nor that die re-engravings have occurred.
I just reactivated that thread and made a comment there.
TD
<< <i>Makes an interesting case study in human psychology, tho. >>
Some people do not see apparitions of the Virgin Mary in the salt stains of highway underpasses. Others do. I suspect this is more analogous to the WI quarters than most of us think.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Have agreat day collecting coins !! Mark.
<< <i>
Some people do not see apparitions of the Virgin Mary in the salt stains of highway underpasses. Others do. I suspect this is more analogous to the WI quarters than most of us think. >>
Isn't there an old saying that goes, "there is no so blind as he who will not see the forest for the leaves."?
Seriously though, I can understand the case against these being intentional. If the evidence were looked
at a single piece at a time then it could be dismissed as coincidence, but taken in total, there seems but a
single unavoidable conclusion.
of all time! Render to Caesar's what is
Caesars and give to God what is God's.
I will now have to locate a few raw ones soon!!!
of all time! Render to Caesar's what is
Caesars and give to God what is God's.