Denver mint question?
holeinone1972
Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭
What was the first coin struck at the Denver mint?
By the way I am bored.
By the way I am bored.
0
Comments
<< <i>What was the first coin struck at the Denver mint?
By the way I am bored. >>
I don't know but it would make sense that it would be the double eagle.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
TD
<< <i>2/1/1906 was the first day of operations at the Denver mint, not sure which coin was first struck but silver was in short supply. The $10 broadstruck below as per mint records may be the first gold Ten struck? >>
Really? Is there actual documentation to the pictured $10 being the first struck or is that taken from the Contoursi school of wishful thinking?
Lane
P.S. VERY nice pair of broadstrikes! Are they yours?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>
<< <i>2/1/1906 was the first day of operations at the Denver mint, not sure which coin was first struck but silver was in short supply. The $10 broadstruck below as per mint records may be the first gold Ten struck? >>
Really? Is there actual documentation to the pictured $10 being the first struck or is that taken from the Contoursi school of wishful thinking? >>
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The Barber Half is mine... for the $10 I could make room
1906-D $10 Liberty Broadstruck Out of Collar
Bruce Amspacher - September 10, 1999
Mint errors. The term encompasses a wide range, and is frequently misused to describe coins that aren't really errors at all, but varieties that were intentionally made. For instance, the 1942/1 Mercury dime is a die variety, but not a mint error as there is no error involved: it was deliberately created. The 1955/55 Doubled Die Lincoln cent, in contrast, was minted by accident and fully qualifies as a true mint error. There are some coins that stretch the boundaries of mint errordom (to coin a word) that somehow escaped the scrutiny of the quality control element of the various Mints. These errors include double struck coins, capped die coins, and the subject of this article, coins that were broadstruck out of collar. Most specifically, this is a story of one particular coin: the spectacular 1906~D $10 gold piece.
"It is the finest quality gold mint error that I have ever seen," said PCGS President Richard Montgomery.
"From the standpoint of condition, it is certainly one of the top five or six gold mint errors to surface in the past 30 years," said world-renowned coin error specialist Fred Weinberg.
With those kinds of accolades for an opening, this coin definitely deserved further investigation.
The year 1906 and the Denver Mint make for a great combination to begin with, as that is the first year that coins were struck there. I had a mild hope that some kind of document might exist regarding the striking of this particular coin, a far-fetched wish that somewhere there was a journal entry that said: "Our first attempt at striking a $10 eagle went somewhat awry when Mr. Stanton forgot to place the blank properly within the collar, leaving an oversized rendition of our original intent that we kept as a reminder to pay attention to our task at hand." They wrote such long-winded sentences as that 100 years ago, and anything is possible, so I checked with the Denver Mint. With the willing assistance of an extremely courteous gentleman named Guillermo Hernandez, and several weeks of searching, nothing turned up. Such is the frustration (and joy) of numismatic research at times.
I needed help in ascertaining precisely how this coin was made, and it was provided by several noted experts, most notably Fred Weinberg. "This is an extremely rare denomination to find broadstruck out of collar," Weinberg noted. "There is absolutely zero evidence of reeding, which is good. It shows that the planchet was lying completely on top of the collar when it was struck."
I asked if this was a "stage one" or "stage two" planchet, and I was informed that I was showing my age a little. "The word 'stage' is a little archaic," Weinberg said. "We called it that about 30 years ago, but now it's 'type one' or 'type two.' This is probably a type two planchet, as there is a trace of a rim, but it is difficult to say for certain."
Weinberg remembered seeing particular coin before. "I saw it in auction years ago and I was awed by its pristine condition. I'm happy to say it's as nice as I remembered it."
The coin is significantly oversized, and gives the impression of being overweight as well. It should weigh 16 grams, and when it was tested on the PCGS scale it weighed in at 16.718 grams, easily within the proper tolerances. Simply put, without a collar the coin was squashed outwards when it was struck, making it larger in diameter, but (of course) not heavier.
After the blank was punched from a blanking strip, it went to an Upset Mill, where it entered as a type one planchet and should have exited as a type two. If this process took place properly, the striking of coin almost completely obliterated the evidence. The planchet was then intended for the "feeder fingers," where it would be struck. The coin never made it into the hole of the feeder fingers, but rested on top. Without the collar, there was no reeding done to the planchet.
There is also a minor amount of controversy about the coin possibly being a 1906/5-D, which would mean that the die made for this coin was originally intended
Even with these problems in the minting process, the result was a magnificent coin, exhibiting a full strike and superb luster. There is no evidence of die deterioration in any way (cracks, lumps, cuds, etc.) meaning that the coin was one of the first pieces minted from this die pair.
There is also a minor amount of controversy about the coin possibly being a l906/5-D, which would mean that the die made coin was originally intended for a 1905-dated coin from another Mint. Such speculation can get numismatic researchers into trouble. After all, the 1853/2 quarter is no longer considered to be an overdate, but a re-cut 3 instead. The 1869/8 Indian cent is no longer regarded as an overdate, either, but simply a re-cut 9, regardless of the fact that there are several distinct varieties. The 1802/1 quarter eagle is no longer believed to be anything other than a simple 1802 that was mistakenly called an overdate because there is an 1802/1 half eagle. As numismatic research clarifies and pares down (and adds to) the overdate population, it was necessary to check out this coin as well. "There is some minor re-cutting on the 6, but there is no reason to believe it is a 1906/5," said Rick Montgomery.
The coin was recently graded MS65 by PCGS. Those viewing the coin for the first time may wonder why it wasn't given a higher grade, possibly as high as MS68. At first and second glance the coin appears to be nearly perfect, but close inspection reveals a few wispy hairlines that were acquired over the century. Even so, the visual impact of the coin is awesome, and it is one of the finest gold coins of any denomination from this first year of the Denver Mint.
"There's a hole in reality through which we can look if we wish," John Steinbeck once said. I am reminded of that quote when I view this coin. It has an unreal quality, and in saying that I am not questioning its authenticity, but commenting on its remarkable survival and ethereal beauty. This is one great coin.