I've heard two 64-D Peace dollar sighting stories, relating to two different people who were in a position to have seen one at the time. One came from the person himself, the other from a former employee of the other person. Neither person claimed to know present whereabouts, and one of those involved is no longer alive.
When I met Breen in 1989, this was one of the things we spoke about. Go find Breen's Q+A at the 1989 ANA Convention on video in the ANA Library and you'll hear me ask him about it!
I sincerely believe at least one survives, though I've never seen one personally.
<< <i>“Therefore, it shall be the policy of the U.S. Mint that all pattern, experimental, trial and similar pieces of disputable origin produced before January 1, 1980 shall be considered the personal property of the current possessors.” >>
I agree. There needs to be some sort of statute of limitations for this kind of stuff. If the Mint hasn't found the stuff in 25 years or so, just let it go...
<< <i>A simple, practical solution would be for Director Moy to state:
"The speculation and uncertainty over silver dollars dated 1964-D, a 40-year old coin, and other pattern, experimental and trial pieces is demeaning to coin collectors and distracting to the U.S. Mint and Treasury Department. Continued controversy brings no value to the Mint or anyone else. The passage of time and destruction of vital documents has rendered it impossible to objectively assess whether or not any such items left custody of the U.S. Mint by authorized or unauthorized means. It is something we need to put behind us.
“Therefore, it shall be the policy of the U.S. Mint that all pattern, experimental, trial and similar pieces of disputable origin produced before January 1, 1980 shall be considered the personal property of the current possessors. The U.S. Mint waives all past, current and future claim of ownership to such pieces. This includes all coin-like and medal-like pieces as described in published references on such items as well as items of uncertain or disputed origin including but not limited to silver dollars dated 1804, Trade dollars dated 1884 and 1885, five-cent pieces of the Liberty head design dated 1913, one-cent pieces dated 1952 with a revised portrait of President Lincoln, silver dollars dated 1964-D of the Peace design, one-cent pieces struck in aluminum dated 1974 and 1975.
“Additionally, it shall be the policy of the U.S. Mint to henceforth provide to the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection, as an intergovernmental transfer in perpetuity, at least one example of every experimental and pattern piece struck by the U.S. Mint at the time the pieces are produced.” >>
Now, what steps are necessary to get this done?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>A simple, practical solution would be for Director Moy to state:
"The speculation and uncertainty over silver dollars dated 1964-D, a 40-year old coin, and other pattern, experimental and trial pieces is demeaning to coin collectors and distracting to the U.S. Mint and Treasury Department. Continued controversy brings no value to the Mint or anyone else. The passage of time and destruction of vital documents has rendered it impossible to objectively assess whether or not any such items left custody of the U.S. Mint by authorized or unauthorized means. It is something we need to put behind us.
“Therefore, it shall be the policy of the U.S. Mint that all pattern, experimental, trial and similar pieces of disputable origin produced before January 1, 1980 shall be considered the personal property of the current possessors. The U.S. Mint waives all past, current and future claim of ownership to such pieces. This includes all coin-like and medal-like pieces as described in published references on such items as well as items of uncertain or disputed origin including but not limited to silver dollars dated 1804, Trade dollars dated 1884 and 1885, five-cent pieces of the Liberty head design dated 1913, one-cent pieces dated 1952 with a revised portrait of President Lincoln, silver dollars dated 1964-D of the Peace design, one-cent pieces struck in aluminum dated 1974 and 1975.
“Additionally, it shall be the policy of the U.S. Mint to henceforth provide to the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection, as an intergovernmental transfer in perpetuity, at least one example of every experimental and pattern piece struck by the U.S. Mint at the time the pieces are produced.” >>
Now, what steps are necessary to get this done? >>
Probably some calls and letters to your Congressmen. Attending a few fundraiser dinners probably wouldn't hurt either
The 1933 double eagles are normal coins produced for circulation. The legal question is were they available for release to citizens. There is a lot of relevant documentation. This has to be adjudicated by a court on its merits.
Pattern, experimental and trial pieces (including the 1964-D dollars) are a completely different situation. Most documentation is missing; available evidence shows that most if not all such pieces were released on proper authority (President, Sec of Treas, Mint Dir, Congress, etc.); such pieces were not really coins since the designs/experiments had not been officially accepted for use, they are little more than scrap metal and more closely related to the “waffle pieces” the mint sells as scrap than anything else.
If one mixes the two different situations (which is something the Treasury Dept. seems to want to do) there is the threat of an attempt to apply any decision in the 1933 double eagle case – a very narrow decision – to a much broader but inappropriate situation.
<< <i>The 1933 double eagles are normal coins produced for circulation. The legal question is were they available for release to citizens. There is a lot of relevant documentation. This has to be adjudicated by a court on its merits.
Pattern, experimental and trial pieces (including the 1964-D dollars) are a completely different situation. >>
I'd disagree with you about the 64-D Peace. It seems to me to be completely analogous to the 33 Saint -- hundreds of thousands minted, intended for circulation, but stopped at the last minute and send to the melting pot (except for a few specimens which may or may not be legal to own).
The 1964-D dollars were specifically identified as "trial pieces" by mint officials during Congressional testimony in 1965 and are referred to as such in all related documents. They were not production coins, and were not delivered to the Cashier as counted/bagged coin.
The 1933 $20 were standard production coins.
Understanding the difference is significant and critical to keeping the two classes of items separate.
<< <i>The 1964-D dollars were specifically identified as "trial pieces" by mint officials during Congressional testimony in 1965 and are referred to as such in all related documents. They were not production coins, and were not delivered to the Cashier as counted/bagged coin.
The 1933 $20 were standard production coins.
Understanding the difference is significant and critical to keeping the two classes of items separate. >>
And yet, the Cashier at the Denver Mint sold them at face value to employees. To my mind, that monetized them, even if they did change their mind the next day. TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>And yet, the Cashier at the Denver Mint sold them at face value to employees. To my mind, that monetized them, even if they did change their mind the next day. >>
Exactly.
1) You don't strike over 300,000 "trial" pieces. It is clear to me that despite what was said afterward, the intent at the time of striking was to release these into circulation. If it had been a few hundred I might by the "trial" piece ruse, but not 300,000.
2) The fact that the Denver mint placed some pieces into circulation indicates that everyone involved in the production of these pieces believed that they would be released.
Yes, there are some differences in how these coins were handled, but I think there is a lot more sameness to the situation than differences.
"And yet, the Cashier at the Denver Mint sold them at face value to employees. To my mind, that monetized them, even if they did change their mind the next day. TD"
A. There is no documentation - anything signed by anyone associated with the 1964-D dollars - that this cute anecdote actually occurred. If there were, most of the potential "problems" with owning one of these would vanish. Without verifiable evidence, it is only conjecture.
1) You don't strike over 300,000 "trial" pieces. It is clear to me that despite what was said afterward, the intent at the time of striking was to release these into circulation. If it had been a few hundred I might by the "trial" piece ruse, but not 300,000.
B. Trial production was and is very common at the US Mint. Real trial production pieces are not often encountered because: 1) if the production trial was successful and full-scale minting approved, the coins were released into commerce. This was the case in 1922 with the 200,000 low relief trial pieces made on Feb 13, 14 before the mint director approved normal minting. 2) if the production trial was a failure and full-scale minting not approved, the coins were destroyed and corrective measures taken. This was the case with approx 1.2 million 1916 Mercury dimes struck in late August; these trial pieces showed that thickness was uneven and sample coins got stuck in pay phones and other coin handling machines. All of the mintage was destroyed except for 10 pieces (one is known at present) that were sold to a vending company for testing and never returned.
There are quite a few other instances lurking in archive documents.
I realize that “300,000 trial pieces” seems like a lot. But it is really a small but necessary step before striking 7,000,000 dollars (as was planned for June 1965) or up to 45,000,000 as authorized. No order to release the coins to the Cashier was ever issued and they were not counted and bagged. (Note: the assistant coiner’s records exist including a detailed flow chart showing blanks, planchets and struck coin by weight. It will be reproduced in the Peace dollar book.)
“Trial Strikes” are not lead splashers or the occasional brass uniface item. These are trials of production and are always conducted under production conditions. Think of them as engineering tests to catch all the bugs and snags before investing large amounts of time and money in commercial scale minting.
2) The fact that the Denver mint placed some pieces into circulation indicates that everyone involved in the production of these pieces believed that they would be released.
C. “...Denver mint placed some pieces into circulation…” is not a fact; it is a supposition based on an anecdote. (See above.)
Yes, there are some differences in how these coins were handled, but I think there is a lot more sameness to the situation than differences.
There are more than “…some differences”…. 1933 double eagles, and trial, experimental or pattern pieces are completely different classes of item. Mixing them confuses both their background and potential solutions. (See some of the differences as posted earlier.)
One more little tidbit, peripheral to the discussion:
In 1910 the mint director had all pattern dies and hubs destroyed. He could just as easily have had the Philadelphia Mint Coin Cabinet melted as bullion, until it was transferred to the Smithsonian’s protection. The present director or Sec. of Treasury could do the same with the ten 1933 $20.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but it seemed like a fuller explanation was warranted.
<< <i>Sorry to be so long-winded, but it seemed like a fuller explanation was warranted. >>
OK, fair enough. Point given.
But nonetheless, is there any reason why all extant pre-1982 US Mint coinage, regardless of history, should not be decriminalized? 25 years seems like an appropriate statute of limitations for any criminal activity that may have been associated with a coin's appearance in the public.
<< <i>Sorry to be so long-winded, but it seemed like a fuller explanation was warranted. >>
OK, fair enough. Point given.
But nonetheless, is there any reason why all extant pre-1982 US Mint coinage, regardless of history, should not be decriminalized? 25 years seems like an appropriate statute of limitations for any criminal activity that may have been associated with a coin's appearance in the public. >>
Yes.
It would encourage people to produce and steal coins with which to wait out the statute of limitations or to sell to those who would. It could damage the hobby and would certainly damage the integrity of the mint.
The mint should, however, have to show stronger evidence that something is stolen than simply saying that it was never intentionally issued.
<< <i>It would encourage people to produce and steal coins with which to wait out the statute of limitations or to sell to those who would. >>
But we already have a statute of limitations for most other thefts, and IIRC it's only seven years. I suspect that very few thieves steal with the intention of waiting out the time period -- most thefts are crimes of desperation, for people who need an immediate cash infusion. Waiting 25 years is far beyond the time frame thieves consider.
EDIT: According to this site: Section 3282 of Title 18, United States Code, is the statute of general application. It states that, "(e)xcept as otherwise expressly provided by law," a prosecution for a non-capital offense shall be instituted within five years after the offense was committed. The page goes on to enumerate some exceptions, but in no case is the time limit longer than 20 years.
In 1910 the mint director had all pattern dies and hubs destroyed. He could just as easily have had the Philadelphia Mint Coin Cabinet melted as bullion, until it was transferred to the Smithsonian’s protection. The present director or Sec. of Treasury could do the same with the ten 1933 $20.
I believe that the government agreed not to damage these coins when they accepted them. Consequently, I do not believe the the Secretary of the Treasury could melt them, without a court order. Doing so, IMHO, would certainly open up Treasury to a monstrous cash settlement.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
Boy, I stop reading these boards for 2 weeks and when I return to them, there are all sorts of intellectual discussions going on. I don't know what happened in the last few weeks here, but this is GREAT!
<< <i>1) You don't strike over 300,000 "trial" pieces. >>
Sometimes they do. Two more good examples of large scale trial mintages, the 1.5 million 1974 aluminum cents, and the full press run of 2000-S business strike Sac dollars. (I don't know the size but probably in the thousands if not tens of thousands of pieces or more.) In both of these cases they were working with a new, and for them unfamiliar, alloy and they wanted to do entire production runs to see if any problems would crop up.
I have been told by former mint employees that large trial runs of clad coins were made and destroyed in 1965. The metal was difficult to work with and a lot of changes had to be made before they could produce consistently good cons. Unfortunately, I don't have any quantities.
Comments
When I met Breen in 1989, this was one of the things we spoke about. Go find Breen's Q+A at the 1989 ANA Convention on video in the ANA Library and you'll hear me ask him about it!
I sincerely believe at least one survives, though I've never seen one personally.
Maybe Julian and I heard from the same person?
Betts medals, colonial coins, US Mint medals, foreign coins found in early America, and other numismatic Americana
<< <i>“Therefore, it shall be the policy of the U.S. Mint that all pattern, experimental, trial and similar pieces of disputable origin produced before January 1, 1980 shall be considered the personal property of the current possessors.” >>
I agree. There needs to be some sort of statute of limitations for this kind of stuff. If the Mint hasn't found the stuff in 25 years or so, just let it go...
<< <i>A simple, practical solution would be for Director Moy to state:
"The speculation and uncertainty over silver dollars dated 1964-D, a 40-year old coin, and other pattern, experimental and trial pieces is demeaning to coin collectors and distracting to the U.S. Mint and Treasury Department. Continued controversy brings no value to the Mint or anyone else. The passage of time and destruction of vital documents has rendered it impossible to objectively assess whether or not any such items left custody of the U.S. Mint by authorized or unauthorized means. It is something we need to put behind us.
“Therefore, it shall be the policy of the U.S. Mint that all pattern, experimental, trial and similar pieces of disputable origin produced before January 1, 1980 shall be considered the personal property of the current possessors. The U.S. Mint waives all past, current and future claim of ownership to such pieces. This includes all coin-like and medal-like pieces as described in published references on such items as well as items of uncertain or disputed origin including but not limited to silver dollars dated 1804, Trade dollars dated 1884 and 1885, five-cent pieces of the Liberty head design dated 1913, one-cent pieces dated 1952 with a revised portrait of President Lincoln, silver dollars dated 1964-D of the Peace design, one-cent pieces struck in aluminum dated 1974 and 1975.
“Additionally, it shall be the policy of the U.S. Mint to henceforth provide to the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection, as an intergovernmental transfer in perpetuity, at least one example of every experimental and pattern piece struck by the U.S. Mint at the time the pieces are produced.” >>
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>A simple, practical solution would be for Director Moy to state:
"The speculation and uncertainty over silver dollars dated 1964-D, a 40-year old coin, and other pattern, experimental and trial pieces is demeaning to coin collectors and distracting to the U.S. Mint and Treasury Department. Continued controversy brings no value to the Mint or anyone else. The passage of time and destruction of vital documents has rendered it impossible to objectively assess whether or not any such items left custody of the U.S. Mint by authorized or unauthorized means. It is something we need to put behind us.
“Therefore, it shall be the policy of the U.S. Mint that all pattern, experimental, trial and similar pieces of disputable origin produced before January 1, 1980 shall be considered the personal property of the current possessors. The U.S. Mint waives all past, current and future claim of ownership to such pieces. This includes all coin-like and medal-like pieces as described in published references on such items as well as items of uncertain or disputed origin including but not limited to silver dollars dated 1804, Trade dollars dated 1884 and 1885, five-cent pieces of the Liberty head design dated 1913, one-cent pieces dated 1952 with a revised portrait of President Lincoln, silver dollars dated 1964-D of the Peace design, one-cent pieces struck in aluminum dated 1974 and 1975.
“Additionally, it shall be the policy of the U.S. Mint to henceforth provide to the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection, as an intergovernmental transfer in perpetuity, at least one example of every experimental and pattern piece struck by the U.S. Mint at the time the pieces are produced.” >>
Probably some calls and letters to your Congressmen. Attending a few fundraiser dinners probably wouldn't hurt either
It should be a simple as possible and deal only with a specific problem.
It should absolutely not include anything about or concerning the 1933 double eagles.
<< <i>It should absolutely not include anything about or concerning the 1933 double eagles. >>
Why not? What's so special about them versus the other phantom coins?
Pattern, experimental and trial pieces (including the 1964-D dollars) are a completely different situation. Most documentation is missing; available evidence shows that most if not all such pieces were released on proper authority (President, Sec of Treas, Mint Dir, Congress, etc.); such pieces were not really coins since the designs/experiments had not been officially accepted for use, they are little more than scrap metal and more closely related to the “waffle pieces” the mint sells as scrap than anything else.
If one mixes the two different situations (which is something the Treasury Dept. seems to want to do) there is the threat of an attempt to apply any decision in the 1933 double eagle case – a very narrow decision – to a much broader but inappropriate situation.
<< <i>The 1933 double eagles are normal coins produced for circulation. The legal question is were they available for release to citizens. There is a lot of relevant documentation. This has to be adjudicated by a court on its merits.
Pattern, experimental and trial pieces (including the 1964-D dollars) are a completely different situation. >>
I'd disagree with you about the 64-D Peace. It seems to me to be completely analogous to the 33 Saint -- hundreds of thousands minted, intended for circulation, but stopped at the last minute and send to the melting pot (except for a few specimens which may or may not be legal to own).
The 1933 $20 were standard production coins.
Understanding the difference is significant and critical to keeping the two classes of items separate.
<< <i>The 1964-D dollars were specifically identified as "trial pieces" by mint officials during Congressional testimony in 1965 and are referred to as such in all related documents. They were not production coins, and were not delivered to the Cashier as counted/bagged coin.
The 1933 $20 were standard production coins.
Understanding the difference is significant and critical to keeping the two classes of items separate. >>
And yet, the Cashier at the Denver Mint sold them at face value to employees.
To my mind, that monetized them, even if they did change their mind the next day.
TD
<< <i>And yet, the Cashier at the Denver Mint sold them at face value to employees.
To my mind, that monetized them, even if they did change their mind the next day. >>
Exactly.
1) You don't strike over 300,000 "trial" pieces. It is clear to me that despite what was said afterward, the intent at the time of striking was to release these into circulation. If it had been a few hundred I might by the "trial" piece ruse, but not 300,000.
2) The fact that the Denver mint placed some pieces into circulation indicates that everyone involved in the production of these pieces believed that they would be released.
Yes, there are some differences in how these coins were handled, but I think there is a lot more sameness to the situation than differences.
TD"
A. There is no documentation - anything signed by anyone associated with the 1964-D dollars - that this cute anecdote actually occurred. If there were, most of the potential "problems" with owning one of these would vanish. Without verifiable evidence, it is only conjecture.
1) You don't strike over 300,000 "trial" pieces. It is clear to me that despite what was said afterward, the intent at the time of striking was to release these into circulation. If it had been a few hundred I might by the "trial" piece ruse, but not 300,000.
B. Trial production was and is very common at the US Mint. Real trial production pieces are not often encountered because: 1) if the production trial was successful and full-scale minting approved, the coins were released into commerce. This was the case in 1922 with the 200,000 low relief trial pieces made on Feb 13, 14 before the mint director approved normal minting. 2) if the production trial was a failure and full-scale minting not approved, the coins were destroyed and corrective measures taken. This was the case with approx 1.2 million 1916 Mercury dimes struck in late August; these trial pieces showed that thickness was uneven and sample coins got stuck in pay phones and other coin handling machines. All of the mintage was destroyed except for 10 pieces (one is known at present) that were sold to a vending company for testing and never returned.
There are quite a few other instances lurking in archive documents.
I realize that “300,000 trial pieces” seems like a lot. But it is really a small but necessary step before striking 7,000,000 dollars (as was planned for June 1965) or up to 45,000,000 as authorized. No order to release the coins to the Cashier was ever issued and they were not counted and bagged. (Note: the assistant coiner’s records exist including a detailed flow chart showing blanks, planchets and struck coin by weight. It will be reproduced in the Peace dollar book.)
“Trial Strikes” are not lead splashers or the occasional brass uniface item. These are trials of production and are always conducted under production conditions. Think of them as engineering tests to catch all the bugs and snags before investing large amounts of time and money in commercial scale minting.
2) The fact that the Denver mint placed some pieces into circulation indicates that everyone involved in the production of these pieces believed that they would be released.
C. “...Denver mint placed some pieces into circulation…” is not a fact; it is a supposition based on an anecdote. (See above.)
Yes, there are some differences in how these coins were handled, but I think there is a lot more sameness to the situation than differences.
There are more than “…some differences”…. 1933 double eagles, and trial, experimental or pattern pieces are completely different classes of item. Mixing them confuses both their background and potential solutions. (See some of the differences as posted earlier.)
One more little tidbit, peripheral to the discussion:
In 1910 the mint director had all pattern dies and hubs destroyed. He could just as easily have had the Philadelphia Mint Coin Cabinet melted as bullion, until it was transferred to the Smithsonian’s protection. The present director or Sec. of Treasury could do the same with the ten 1933 $20.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but it seemed like a fuller explanation was warranted.
<< <i>Sorry to be so long-winded, but it seemed like a fuller explanation was warranted. >>
OK, fair enough. Point given.
But nonetheless, is there any reason why all extant pre-1982 US Mint coinage, regardless of history, should not be decriminalized? 25 years seems like an appropriate statute of limitations for any criminal activity that may have been associated with a coin's appearance in the public.
<< <i>
<< <i>Sorry to be so long-winded, but it seemed like a fuller explanation was warranted. >>
OK, fair enough. Point given.
But nonetheless, is there any reason why all extant pre-1982 US Mint coinage, regardless of history, should not be decriminalized? 25 years seems like an appropriate statute of limitations for any criminal activity that may have been associated with a coin's appearance in the public. >>
Yes.
It would encourage people to produce and steal coins with which to
wait out the statute of limitations or to sell to those who would. It
could damage the hobby and would certainly damage the integrity
of the mint.
The mint should, however, have to show stronger evidence that
something is stolen than simply saying that it was never intentionally
issued.
<< <i>It would encourage people to produce and steal coins with which to wait out the statute of limitations or to sell to those who would. >>
But we already have a statute of limitations for most other thefts, and IIRC it's only seven years. I suspect that very few thieves steal with the intention of waiting out the time period -- most thefts are crimes of desperation, for people who need an immediate cash infusion. Waiting 25 years is far beyond the time frame thieves consider.
EDIT: According to this site: Section 3282 of Title 18, United States Code, is the statute of general application. It states that, "(e)xcept as otherwise expressly provided by law," a prosecution for a non-capital offense shall be instituted within five years after the offense was committed. The page goes on to enumerate some exceptions, but in no case is the time limit longer than 20 years.
I believe that the government agreed not to damage these coins when they accepted them. Consequently, I do not believe the the Secretary of the Treasury could melt them, without a court order. Doing so, IMHO, would certainly open up Treasury to a monstrous cash settlement.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
Boy, I stop reading these boards for 2 weeks and when I return to them, there are all sorts of intellectual discussions going on. I don't know what happened in the last few weeks here, but this is GREAT!
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>1) You don't strike over 300,000 "trial" pieces. >>
Sometimes they do. Two more good examples of large scale trial mintages, the 1.5 million 1974 aluminum cents, and the full press run of 2000-S business strike Sac dollars. (I don't know the size but probably in the thousands if not tens of thousands of pieces or more.) In both of these cases they were working with a new, and for them unfamiliar, alloy and they wanted to do entire production runs to see if any problems would crop up.