Options
King of the Ike's; The 1972 T2 or the 1971 D FEP
DRG
Posts: 818
I replied to another post and made the statement that; The 1972 T2 will remain the King of the Ike's but the FEP is definitely the Queen.
After I made it, I followed with the observation that "The 1972 T2 is simply a circulation strike coin made from a die that was used to strike all of the 1971 S Proof Ike's, the 1972 S Silver Circulation strikes and the 1972 S Proof's. In other words, the T2 reverse was used to strike some 8 Million coins." I compared this to the FEP (that I and a few fellow authors wrote about in the current edition of the Numismatist) and pointed out that the FEP reverse is UNIQUE!!! It was used ONLY used on a limited number of 1971 D Ike's (probably about 500,000).
All of this made me think that maybe I am wrong. Given the following, maybe the FEP is really the King of the Ike's.
Here is some history. What do you think?
The FEP is NOT an error or even a variety. It is a PATTERN.
There are enough unique characteristics to the die to definitely state that it is not just an altered Type 1 reverse, but a unique die. Given that the FEP reverse was not used purposefully, to the best of our knowledge, on any other Ike, it fits the definition of a pattern.
It is very rare for pattern coins to be struck in great number and released for circulation. The Cheerios Sac is the only other example that comes to mind from the Modern era.
It is my belief that sometime during the crunch of the first year of mintage, a couple of Pattern dies, that were developed in Philadelphia, were accidentally shipped to Denver and used to strike coins for circulation.
It is well known that the Mint originally planned to strike the Eisenhower dollar in high relief for circulation. However, it was quickly discovered that the dies available at the time were not capable of striking the large Ike CU-NI clad planchets in high relief. In Appendix A of Wexler's "The Authoritative Reference on Eisenhower Dollars", to summarize the first letter (dated January 1971), it states that "Several trial working dies" had been prepared. It goes on about the fact that these dies "may vary in height of relief and shape of basin". It states that "the prototype dies in use are not the final product. The engraver still has several weeks work to do with the preparation of official master dies and hubs". It ends with "After final approval of the master dies and hubs, this year's master hubs will be made and will be used in the production of all working dies for 1971. In accordance with regulations, all of the prototype trial strikes must and will be destroyed by the Directors Committee"
It is also interesting to question why the FEP dies existed. Once the Type 1 design was chosen for the Low Relief circulation strikes and the Type 2 design was chosen for the High Relief Proof's, why would the Mint keep this alternate pattern around. The fact that there were at least 2 such dies (one with obvious doubling) makes the likelihood of it being an accident slim. The fact that the eagle has some features like the T1 and some of the T3, begs the question, were the FEP dies made to strike a CU-NI clad Proof Ike?
Finally, many references to the Eisenhower eagle being "Peaceful, Pleasant, or Friendly" can be found in every article I have ever read about the Eisenhower dollar. However, I have never read anything that discussed what a friendly bird looks like compared to a belligerent or attacking bird of prey. Having owned birds most of my life I can tell you that a bird at rest has its feathers lying flat and smooth. When a bird is angry it will ruffle it's feathers and the feathers then look rough and distinct.
A close examination of the 1971 S Proof eagle reveals a bird with smooth feathers throughout and only minimal lines delineating between individual tail and wing feathers, not to mention that lack of the furrowed brow line. The feathers on the regular 1971 D eagle on the other hand are rough with added artwork delineating between the individual tail and wing feathers. This added artwork, along with the furrowed brow line tend to make the 71 D (T1) eagle look a bit more aggressive, more like a bird pf prey in flight. With these observations in mind it suddenly becomes more clear what Mint Director Mary T. Brooks meant when she referred to a "peaceful eagle" and why Frank Gasparro described it as a "pleasant looking eagle". Evan Michael Collins in his autobiography mentioned that when he was told about the use of his design, the Apollo 11 insignia, on the reverse of the Eisenhower dollar that a friendly eagle was used on the Silver coin. This specific reference to the SILVER coin makes sense when you compare the Silver Proof 1971 coin to the NON-Silver 1971 Ike's
The FEP is a missing link between the original High relief and Low relief Eisenhower dollar designs. Its existence makes the work that was done to transform a High relief design to Low relief much more obvious. The fact that it is a unique pattern, never meant to strike circulating coins, makes it all the more intriguing. The fact that it has a TOTAL mintage of around 500,000 compared to the more than 8 million Eisenhower dollar's struck with the Type 2 reverse die places it as the rarest Eisenhower design.
After I made it, I followed with the observation that "The 1972 T2 is simply a circulation strike coin made from a die that was used to strike all of the 1971 S Proof Ike's, the 1972 S Silver Circulation strikes and the 1972 S Proof's. In other words, the T2 reverse was used to strike some 8 Million coins." I compared this to the FEP (that I and a few fellow authors wrote about in the current edition of the Numismatist) and pointed out that the FEP reverse is UNIQUE!!! It was used ONLY used on a limited number of 1971 D Ike's (probably about 500,000).
All of this made me think that maybe I am wrong. Given the following, maybe the FEP is really the King of the Ike's.
Here is some history. What do you think?
The FEP is NOT an error or even a variety. It is a PATTERN.
There are enough unique characteristics to the die to definitely state that it is not just an altered Type 1 reverse, but a unique die. Given that the FEP reverse was not used purposefully, to the best of our knowledge, on any other Ike, it fits the definition of a pattern.
It is very rare for pattern coins to be struck in great number and released for circulation. The Cheerios Sac is the only other example that comes to mind from the Modern era.
It is my belief that sometime during the crunch of the first year of mintage, a couple of Pattern dies, that were developed in Philadelphia, were accidentally shipped to Denver and used to strike coins for circulation.
It is well known that the Mint originally planned to strike the Eisenhower dollar in high relief for circulation. However, it was quickly discovered that the dies available at the time were not capable of striking the large Ike CU-NI clad planchets in high relief. In Appendix A of Wexler's "The Authoritative Reference on Eisenhower Dollars", to summarize the first letter (dated January 1971), it states that "Several trial working dies" had been prepared. It goes on about the fact that these dies "may vary in height of relief and shape of basin". It states that "the prototype dies in use are not the final product. The engraver still has several weeks work to do with the preparation of official master dies and hubs". It ends with "After final approval of the master dies and hubs, this year's master hubs will be made and will be used in the production of all working dies for 1971. In accordance with regulations, all of the prototype trial strikes must and will be destroyed by the Directors Committee"
It is also interesting to question why the FEP dies existed. Once the Type 1 design was chosen for the Low Relief circulation strikes and the Type 2 design was chosen for the High Relief Proof's, why would the Mint keep this alternate pattern around. The fact that there were at least 2 such dies (one with obvious doubling) makes the likelihood of it being an accident slim. The fact that the eagle has some features like the T1 and some of the T3, begs the question, were the FEP dies made to strike a CU-NI clad Proof Ike?
Finally, many references to the Eisenhower eagle being "Peaceful, Pleasant, or Friendly" can be found in every article I have ever read about the Eisenhower dollar. However, I have never read anything that discussed what a friendly bird looks like compared to a belligerent or attacking bird of prey. Having owned birds most of my life I can tell you that a bird at rest has its feathers lying flat and smooth. When a bird is angry it will ruffle it's feathers and the feathers then look rough and distinct.
A close examination of the 1971 S Proof eagle reveals a bird with smooth feathers throughout and only minimal lines delineating between individual tail and wing feathers, not to mention that lack of the furrowed brow line. The feathers on the regular 1971 D eagle on the other hand are rough with added artwork delineating between the individual tail and wing feathers. This added artwork, along with the furrowed brow line tend to make the 71 D (T1) eagle look a bit more aggressive, more like a bird pf prey in flight. With these observations in mind it suddenly becomes more clear what Mint Director Mary T. Brooks meant when she referred to a "peaceful eagle" and why Frank Gasparro described it as a "pleasant looking eagle". Evan Michael Collins in his autobiography mentioned that when he was told about the use of his design, the Apollo 11 insignia, on the reverse of the Eisenhower dollar that a friendly eagle was used on the Silver coin. This specific reference to the SILVER coin makes sense when you compare the Silver Proof 1971 coin to the NON-Silver 1971 Ike's
The FEP is a missing link between the original High relief and Low relief Eisenhower dollar designs. Its existence makes the work that was done to transform a High relief design to Low relief much more obvious. The fact that it is a unique pattern, never meant to strike circulating coins, makes it all the more intriguing. The fact that it has a TOTAL mintage of around 500,000 compared to the more than 8 million Eisenhower dollar's struck with the Type 2 reverse die places it as the rarest Eisenhower design.
(PAST) OWNER #1 SBA$ REGISTRY COLLECTOIN
0
Comments
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I disagree with calling it a pattern. A pattern is struck for one a specific purpose and circulation isn't that purpose.
Like a Gobrecht dollar, for example.
<< <i>A pattern is struck for one a specific purpose and circulation isn't that purpose.
Like a Gobrecht dollar, for example.
Correct - which is why they aren't called patterns anymore.
<< <i>
<< <i>A pattern is struck for one a specific purpose and circulation isn't that purpose.
Like a Gobrecht dollar, for example.
Correct - which is why they aren't called patterns anymore.
Uh, that was no the point I was making.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A pattern is struck for one a specific purpose and circulation isn't that purpose.
Like a Gobrecht dollar, for example.
Correct - which is why they aren't called patterns anymore.
Uh, that was no the point I was making.
I can't help it that you made my point for me.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A pattern is struck for one a specific purpose and circulation isn't that purpose.
Like a Gobrecht dollar, for example.
Correct - which is why they aren't called patterns anymore.
Uh, that was no the point I was making.
I can't help it that you made my point for me.
Foiled again!
"Live long and prosper"
My "How I Started" columns
<< <i>TDN, by your definition the Cheerio is not a pattern either? >>
No - it's a cereal, silly!
These are no more "pattern" coins than 1878 8TF Morgans, 1913 Ty-1 Buffalo nickels, 1917 Ty-1 SLQs or a dozen other varieties.
What the heck does FEP stand for?
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
"Friendly Eagle Pattern"
The die was made, a different pattern was selected, and ALL 1971 Philly & Denver Ike's were struck using this Type 1 die.
Some how a few of the FEP dies were accidentally sent to the Denver mint and a few FEP coins were struck and released for circulation.
Unlike the 1972 T2, which was a die that was selected to be used to strike coins for release, the FEP was NEVER selected to strike ANY coins. It was a pattern that was put aside, but then some how found its way to the Denver mint. There is no record of this die. We have spoken to a die setter from the Denver mint and he remembers all about the problems they faced with striking the Eisenhower's. He did not have any knowledge of a different die being used and stated that if a different die had been used purposefully he would have known about it.
The FEP IS a Pattern!
I hate to disagree with you TDN, but I have been studying this coin for 4 years.
It fits the definition.
By your definition, a circulation strike struck from a proof die [happened all the time way back when] would be a proof. It isn't.
If the die was a pattern then why would the coin struck from that die not be a pattern?
As far as it being accidently placed into the production mill, so what? If its a pattern then its a pattern.........................
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I'm getting a little confused here TDN?
If the die was a pattern then why would the coin struck from that die not be a pattern?
As far as it being accidently placed into the production mill, so what? If its a pattern then its a pattern......................... >>
So if the die was a proof wouldn't a coin struck from that die be a proof? No, it wouldn't.
If a minor variety pattern die is put into service to strike circulation strikes - they're still circulation strikes. The 1864 small motto 2 cent piece, for example.
BTW, since I do not collect patterns and know little about them, just how do all those patterns get out to the public anyway?
The name is LEE!
Interesting, yes - unique, no. There are examples through the years of a circulation strike coin being made from slightly different pattern dies.
As I have been trying to point out, the FEP die was not selected, or intended to strike ANY coin. It was a trial die that was NOT selected. As you know, all the dies are actually made at the Philadelphia mint, as were all the trial strikings of the Eisenhower dollar. The Low Relief Type 1 die was selected, and ALL circulation strike coins made in 1971 and 1972 at both the Philadelphia and Denver mints (with the exception of changing to a High Relief design at the Philadelphia mint late in 1972....the Type 2 & 3) were suppose to be struck from this T1 die (minor varieties included).
The FEP die is not a variety of the T1 Die. The original galvano was High Relief. When the depth was dialed down, artwork was added to create the FEP die. The FEP die was not selected. The original galvano was again dialed down, different artwork was added and the T1 die was born. From what records we found this process was performed MANY times before Mr. Gasparro was happy with the Low Relief T1 Die. It was also written that ALL the trial dies and strikings were destroyed, that part is WRONG!! One trial design was saved!! How and why it found its way to Denver is still a mystery.
RWB: Varieties and errors occur when the selected die is doubled in the production process, when the die is altered such as the High and Low leaf Wisconsin quarters, or when a die intended for some other use is used, such as the proof die example above. Varieties also occur when the Mint purposefully uses two different dies to strike coins the same year, the 1913 T1 & T2 Buffalo nickels come to mind.
The accidental use of a die NOT intended to strike ANY coin for distribution, is another story all together!
TDN, you have already agreed that the FEP Die is in fact a Pattern die. I can't argue with your statement, that since the coins struck with this Pattern Die were meant for circulation, the coins are not Pattern Coins. However, they are not typical varieties or errors either.
How common is it that we have a "circulation strike struck from a pattern die"?
While not a unique situation, the FEP is certainly unusual and intriguing.
Just for comparison here is another similar (but different) story, taken from collectors-society.com
In the Spotlight: The Arlington Collection 1861-S Paquet $20 Liberty Head Gold Double Eagle
According to An Insider's Guide to Collecting Type 1 Double Eagles by Douglas Winter and Adam Crum, the
Arlington Collection's 1861-S double eagle would qualify as condition census, which by their definition would rank this in the top 5 of 6 examples known.
The 1861-S Paquet reverse double eagle was once thought to have been just a pattern coin. The problem with this logic is that pattern coins were only minted in Philadelphia, not San Francisco. Also, the fact that this coin was released into circulation makes this a regular issue and not a pattern.
The coin gets its name from its designer, Assistant Engraver Anthony C. Paquet. The most noticeable difference between the Paquet reverse and the earlier design is that the lettering on the Paquet is noticeably taller.
But this coin should not exist. Apparently the feeling was that the coin's rim was two narrow and would cause problems. A message was sent to San Francisco telling them to halt production and revert back to the old reverse die design. Unfortunately (or fortunately for collectors), the telegraph only went as far as Missouri. By the time the message arrived in San Francisco, 19,250 coins with the Paquet reverse had already been struck and released into circulation.
This San Francisco double eagle is very popular among collectors due to it being the only double eagle with the Paquet reverse that was released into circulation. As a result, this coin is a must have for type collectors. Because of this demand, the 1861-S Paquet reverse has a significantly higher premium attached to it than other double eagles of similar rarity and grade.
Nevertheless, the 1861-S Paquet reverse is the rarest of all the San Francisco type 1 double eagles, just beating out the 1866-S No Motto for the title. There are no known uncirculated examples and it is a good bet that some of the totals in the NGC population count are the same coin being resubmitted multiple times. Moving up from AU55 to AU58 would increase the value of the coin by tens of thousands of dollars. Now that I look at it, I think mine deserves a grade of AU58!
There are two Philadelphia examples of the Paquet reverse but these were never officially released into circulation. There was a feeling that the rim was too narrow and would cause problems when struck. So the Philadelphia coins were apparently melted with the exception of the two known examples. One example is graded MS67 and was once in the Norweb Collection. This coin was displayed by Monaco Financial at the September 2005 Long Beach show were I was able to snap a picture of it.
The Norweb example is said to be worth $10,000,000 today. This coin was part of the recent Noe scandal in Ohio. Apparently this coin was part of one of the coin funds involved in the scandal. After the coin was sold from the fund, it remained listed on the fund's inventory for years afterwards.
The other example is graded MS61 and was purchased at an auction in August 2006 in Denver by Monaco Financial for a sum of $1,600,000. I'm sure we will be seeing this coin in a future display of Monaco's. I only hope I get the chance to see it and snap a photo of it.
The 1861-P Paquet Reverse is coin #33 in 100 Greatest U.S. Coins (2nd Ed.) by Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth.
The 1861-S Paquet Reverse is coin #99 in 100 Greatest U.S. Coins (2nd Ed.) by Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth.
The most interesting similarity here is the fact that the FEP die was probably used to strike a total of about 500,000 coins. The current "King of the Ike's" reverse die was used to strike over 8 million coins. If and when the FEP reverse is recognized for what it is, it will in fact be the rarest Ike design!
How cool is that!?
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Those who care to believe the hype can do so for their own purposes, delusion and amusement.
Excuse me, I have to go meet a guy named Elvis about a bridge in Brooklyn he is selling – cheap!
<< <i>Do you have any pictures? >>
Check this thread for pictures.
The name is LEE!
If you do not like Ike's that is cool, but why the negativity.
I spent four years researching this coin when I realized that it was NOT just another variety and rather a coin struck from one of the many trial dies that were reportedly all destroyed.
If you read the article and understand the minting process then you know this is not your average variety.
I am not trying to HYPE the coin. I am pointing out the true significance. If you want to say that a coin struck for circulation with a trial die is just another variety...OK, but it is NOT a common occurrence.
If there were 1 or 2 struck at the Philadelphia mint and a telegraph record to Denver telling them to stop production, the story would be exactly the same as the Paquet reverse Double Eagle.....Would you feel the same way if the Double Eagle story was only now being told?.....It is just another variety. Why all the hype?
<< <i>Nothing in the Numismatist article or assorted on-line discussions makes any kind of a logical, convincing argument that these Ike dollar varieties are anything more than interesting varieties. No meaningful evidence or documentation has been presented otherwise.
Those who care to believe the hype can do so for their own purposes, delusion and amusement.
Excuse me, I have to go meet a guy named Elvis about a bridge in Brooklyn he is selling – cheap! >>
RWB, forgive me but aren't you confusing hype with passion? Have you read the article carefully with an open mind?
If you have, then thanks, and thanks for letting the rest of us have one less cherry picker.
And forgive me if I take exception to your comparing our cumulative observations, massive research efforts and careful separation of possibility from fact, to Elvis selling the Brooklyn Bridge
There, I feel much better. Now if you can tell me where you spotted Elvis, I want his autograph...... Rob
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
Very thought provoking and narrow minded!
The name is LEE!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
The name is LEE!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Do you think the differences, compared to the differences between the T1-2-3 Ike's, is more, less, or about the same?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I asked because someone else said that they did not think the FEP would become a major variety.
However, this someone (TDN) based their opinion solely on looking at pictures and he has little if any experience with the Eisenhower varieties. I respect TDN but think he is dead wrong about the FEP.
I also think the FEP is the most easily recognized reverse Ike design. The big round Gulf of Mexico is one of the easiest features to pick out.
As I said before, the 1972 T2 may have a lower mintage and be more difficult to find in MS65+ grades, but the fact remains, the FEP design was used to strike a TOTAL of about 500,000 coins. The Type 2 die was used to strike over 8 million!!
Given that the FEP design is easy to recognize with the naked eye and has the lowest TOTAL mintage, along with its mysterious history (pattern? variety?, meant to strike a low profile proof?) , I say;
The King is Dead!!
Long live the KING!!!
You're right - I forgot you modern guys embrace varieties that require significant magnification to spot. Something discernable with the naked eye, no matter how minor, is cause celebre'
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Nothing in the Numismatist article or assorted on-line discussions makes any kind of a logical, convincing argument that these Ike dollar varieties are anything more than interesting varieties. No meaningful evidence or documentation has been presented otherwise. >>
As time and technology progress, so progresses the difficulty of deciphering an enigma...the further back the incident in history, the more likely documentation no longer exists or even the chance that it was done in any great detail. Who knew in the early 70's that the world would actually be striving to maintain more accountability in all it's manufacturing processes (as a whole) than at that time. It used to be OK to dump your used motor oil in the stones outside the garage - it wasn't that long ago. Now it gets stored, recycled, etc., etc. Likewise, who knew that there would be "nuts" out there that would be interested in understanding the trials and tribulations of developing dies for the Eisenhower dollar. As our society evolves, we unknowingly demand to know the "whys" & "hows" more and more.
For a modern coin the FEP - as we now are labeling it - is a readily apparent and visible variety (or pattern if preferred in this instance). To put together the conotations of mint letters and couple them with the mentality and what were probably standard mint manufacturing practices of the time is all we can do at this point unless new documentation surfaces. They weren't trying to make a coin powered by nuclear fuel, just plain old trying to mint one. Who in 1970 at the mint would bother going to the level of documentation we do in today's world for something like that besides maybe some general notes and memos ?
David, Rob, Gary, Brian, and all the others have done a wonderful job of exposing a neat piece of modern coinage history that you can hold in your hand. There's a reason that probably the majority of doubled dies, RPM's, etc. discoveries have come and gone. Technology and manufacturing process have evolved dramaitcally in the last 40 years. In case all the naysayers have been too busy being close minded to realize this, moments like these are going to come around less and less as time marches forward. I would venture a guess that no one can show me a DETAILED copy of the 1971 US Mint Quality Manual, or the standard operating procedures where it references die dispositon for whatever circumstances....but I bet we could find something very like that today.
<< <i>However, this someone (TDN) based their opinion solely on looking at pictures and he has little if any experience with the Eisenhower varieties
You're right - I forgot you modern guys embrace varieties that require significant magnification to spot. Something discernable with the naked eye, no matter how minor, is cause celebre'
Oh Baloney! There are many coin varieties out there that are not moderns that require a loupe to see! But then, we fall back into the "whats a modern and what isn;t a modern" discussion!
I got home this evening and cracked open that Numismatist article and I think the authors have done an excellent job in defining this coin! They are very easy to spot and do not require a microscope or even a loupe to identify!
Think about it, what other reason could possibly exist for the existance of this noticeably different reverse die? Especially since some of the design elements do not exist on subsequent die changes? The islands for this design don't even come close to what entered the circulating world. That top right crater resembles nothing that was produced in either proof, 40% Business or circulation examples.
San Francisco has a history of shipping things they shouldn't have to the Denver Mint, most noticeably the rejected silver planchets that the 1974-D 40% Silver coins were punched on!
I have no doubt at all that this "pattern" die was intended for proof production in San Francisco and inadvertantly shipped to Denver.
The name is LEE!
Just remember the old saying, " You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." But on the other hand, you can brick a camel
The name is LEE!
The Eisenhower Dollar has been neglected ever since it came out and with the difficulty folks have in getting high grades, I can understand why. They are just darned hard to find!
I'll admit, I'm an IKE bigot but I liken it to those dreams that everybody has had at one time or another. You know the one's where you've uncovered a hoard of coins or something thats collectible. Everywhere you turn, there is an unending supply and you feel like you've struck it rich!
With the IKE's, there is an abundance of special varieties out there just waiting to be discovered and picked up and I'm picking as fast as I can!
The name is LEE!
However, I am perplexed by your negativity
If you do not care about the series, that is cool. There is no good reason for you to care about moderns or Ike's specifically.
On the other hand if you care enough about them to post, why not look at the series the same way you do Trade Dollars.
It is hard for me to believe that you would ignore a "naked eye variety" Trade Dollar. On the other hand, a quick look at your Trade Dollar set leads to another perplexing observation.
While PCGS recognizes, and you have in your Registry set, the 1875 S over CC (which I have read is often not visible with the unaided eye...your coin excluded), neither PCGS or you make any comment about the various Obverse 1 & 2 and Reverse 1 & 2 combinations of the 1875 and 1876 Trade Dollars. I am interested to know if you collect these (and have the highest known specimens) or not.
I am sure there is a logical explanation why PCGS recognizes the seemingly less obvious 1875 S over CC and not the vary obvious "naked eye" Obv. 1 & 2 and Rev. 1 & 2 varieties.
Can you enlighten me?
P.S. I agree, and the bigger the hornet, and the safer the door, the more fun I have.
<< <i>I was at my parents house yesterday and they have a hornet's nest on the back patio door. It's fun to repeatedly knock on the door window and watch the little buggers poor out of the nest looking to sting smoeone...
This reminds me of one of my Dad's most memorable stories:
He related to me that when he was a kid, he took a broom handle and gave a poke at a nest of white-faced hornets. White faces are very venomous, one of the worst kind, as you know if you've ever been stung by one. I think only the mud dauber is more potent. ( You might need magnification too see the difference between the two wasps.)
Anyway, he watched open mouthed as a single hornet flew a bee line right down the broom stick and stung Dad right smack in the middle of the forehead! He says the sting knocked him out cold!!
True story-- thanks for reviving the memory TDN.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Can you enlighten me?
I only joined the thread because I disagreed with calling a circulation strike struck from a supposed pattern die a 'pattern'. Varieties do nothing for me, don't care one whit. Other than semantics and bee stories, I'm not even here...
Lee, I am going to nitpick one word there. San Francisco sent so much stuff that shouldn't have been used at Denver to Denver, that I doubt that it was an accident. Creative accounting or inventory control might be more like it. We can't use it here so ship it out and take a credit. Denver actually using these items might have been inadvertent. They certainly did regret using the quarter planchets on dime stock obtained from San Francisco (1970).
There are other very interesting items likely originating from San Francisco. There was a 1971-D quarter produced from a proof artwork reverse (type
I'd like to think of it as creative "recycling". If San Fran had some extra proof Ike dies that were intended for use on
71-S Proof Clads that never materialized, then I am sure that Denver would be more than happy to use them. The dies
they were using were being stretched to the max to try to get good production totals....."recycling" unused dies rather than
destroying them would make perfect business sense!
Same thing with the 72-P Type 2.....Perhaps it was a die intended to be used for a 72-S Clad Proof that again, never materialized.
Since Philly knew San Fran wasn't going to produce a Clad Proof (for the 2nd year in a row)....rather than ship the dies all the way
out to San Fran, and have them "recycle" them to Denver again...."let's just use them here in Philly". 'Makes perfect business sense.
They finally did get their act together, and got all the design and modifications worked out in 1973 and started producing the
Clad Ike proofs for the Mint sets until the end of the Ike series (1978).
Brian
I Love
Maybe they got their act together and standardized (with new artwork) in 1973, but look at 1994-2007. We now have separate proof and circulation obverse dies for the cent. And occasional mixups to boot. Look at the price of a 1999 wide AM or a 1999-S close AM.