I saw a TPG authenticated 1910 S VDB today at the Greenville, SC show
WaterSport
Posts: 6,825 ✭✭✭✭✭
Some may remember these old threads..
1910 VDB
I was at the Greenville, SC show today, and there is was in a SEGS holder with a Fiaz/Stanton certification - an MS 60 Cleaned 1910 S VDB.
I put a loop on it and I can not say I say I saw any of the initials left. Just hard grind marks on the Rev where the initials would be. The dealer said he knew of others but this was the ONLY one a TPG would certify. Asking price $3500.
WS
1910 VDB
I was at the Greenville, SC show today, and there is was in a SEGS holder with a Fiaz/Stanton certification - an MS 60 Cleaned 1910 S VDB.
I put a loop on it and I can not say I say I saw any of the initials left. Just hard grind marks on the Rev where the initials would be. The dealer said he knew of others but this was the ONLY one a TPG would certify. Asking price $3500.
WS
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
0
Comments
<< <i>I put a loop on it and I can not say I say I saw any of the initials left. Just hard grind marks on the Rev where the initials would be. >>
I think I would need more than that for $3,500.
<< <i>
<< <i>I put a loop on it and I can not say I say I saw any of the initials left. Just hard grind marks on the Rev where the initials would be. >>
I think I would need more than that for $3,500. >>
I would need a lot more than that.
Personally, I wouldn't pay much of a premium unless the initials were clearly defined on the 1910...
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
The striations are pronounced. I will state that most people I've broached the subject to have poo-pooed it. So it goes.
i believe this speaks more of the TPG in question than the coin
www.brunkauctions.com
<< <i>If you were to grind off the VDB on a die, wouldn't that involve creating a significant depression (more like "ground out") on the die, resulting in a raised area on coins struck from that die? >>
All of which is true...then, how the striations? I didn't do it. I know the propositions, but still, the striations. They were a bit frugal in the time and I don't expect they
threw out the VDB dies.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
WS
<< <i>If you were to grind off the VDB on a die, wouldn't that involve creating a significant depression (more like "ground out") on the die, resulting in a raised area on coins struck from that die? >>
Properly done, it would just leave an angled ramp leading up towards the rim. If you feather it out towards the edges, it would hardly be noticeable.
Over the years I have seen two 1910-S cents with what I considered to be faint traces of a VDB. I tried to get the second one certified for the owner, but could not convince PCGS or NGC.
TD
Later in August 1909, Barber also replaced the reverse master hub with a new one to correct a problem of excess relief. This hub never had the VDB initial on it, and this is what would have been used for 1910 and later dies.
All reverse VDB dies had already been removed from use and returned to Philadelphia for destruction, before changes were made to the hub. There is no logical reason to have effaced working dies. Naturally, it is impossible to prove something wasn’t done, so the fantasy will continue until people stop “seeing ghosts.”
Edited to add: Removing the initials from a working die would create a depression where each initial was located. The depression would be equal to the height of the letter. On a coin this would create 3 tiny raised areas the same height as the former initials. If someone removed all the initials as a group, then a coin would have a raised lump where the initials had been.
Especially on Halloween!
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>In 1909, engraver Barber specifically stated that he removed the initials from the master hub. This would mean all reverse dies w/o VDB would have come from the same master.
Later in August 1909, Barber also replaced the reverse master hub with a new one to correct a problem of excess relief. This hub never had the VDB initial on it, and this is what would have been used for 1910 and later dies.
All reverse VDB dies had already been removed from use and returned to Philadelphia for destruction, before changes were made to the hub. There is no logical reason to have effaced working dies. Naturally, it is impossible to prove something wasn’t done, so the fantasy will continue until people stop “seeing ghosts.”
Edited to add: Removing the initials from a working die would create a depression where each initial was located. The depression would be equal to the height of the letter. On a coin this would create 3 tiny raised areas the same height as the former initials. If someone removed all the initials as a group, then a coin would have a raised lump where the initials had been. >>
Where, exactly, is the raised area where the mint mark was removed from the 1922 "No D" obverse #2?
Where, exactly, is the raised area where the leg was removed from the 1937-D "3-legged" nickel?
If you remove the face of a die over a large area, you can remove detail without leaving a depression in the face of a die.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>In 1909, engraver Barber specifically stated that he removed the initials from the master hub. This would mean all reverse dies w/o VDB would have come from the same master.
Later in August 1909, Barber also replaced the reverse master hub with a new one to correct a problem of excess relief. This hub never had the VDB initial on it, and this is what would have been used for 1910 and later dies.
All reverse VDB dies had already been removed from use and returned to Philadelphia for destruction, before changes were made to the hub. There is no logical reason to have effaced working dies. Naturally, it is impossible to prove something wasn’t done, so the fantasy will continue until people stop “seeing ghosts.”
Edited to add: Removing the initials from a working die would create a depression where each initial was located. The depression would be equal to the height of the letter. On a coin this would create 3 tiny raised areas the same height as the former initials. If someone removed all the initials as a group, then a coin would have a raised lump where the initials had been. >>
Where, exactly, is the raised area where the mint mark was removed from the 1922 "No D" obverse #2?
Where, exactly, is the raised area where the leg was removed from the 1937-D "3-legged" nickel?
If you remove the face of a die over a large area, you can remove detail without leaving a depression in the face of a die.
TD >>
Agree. The VDB was fairly shallow and it wouldn't take much die polishing to remove it. Also, did the mint toss reverse dies that were still servicable or did they carry them over to the next year?
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
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In 1909, engraver Barber specifically stated that he removed the initials from the master hub. This would mean all reverse dies w/o VDB would have come from the same master.
Later in August 1909, Barber also replaced the reverse master hub with a new one to correct a problem of excess relief. This hub never had the VDB initial on it, and this is what would have been used for 1910 and later dies.
All reverse VDB dies had already been removed from use and returned to Philadelphia for destruction, before changes were made to the hub. There is no logical reason to have effaced working dies. Naturally, it is impossible to prove something wasn’t done, so the fantasy will continue until people stop “seeing ghosts.”
Edited to add: Removing the initials from a working die would create a depression where each initial was located. The depression would be equal to the height of the letter. On a coin this would create 3 tiny raised areas the same height as the former initials. If someone removed all the initials as a group, then a coin would have a raised lump where the initials had been. >>
Where, exactly, is the raised area where the mint mark was removed from the 1922 "No D" obverse #2?
Where, exactly, is the raised area where the leg was removed from the 1937-D "3-legged" nickel?
If you remove the face of a die over a large area, you can remove detail without leaving a depression in the face of a die.
TD >>
Agree. The VDB was fairly shallow and it wouldn't take much die polishing to remove it. Also, did the mint toss reverse dies that were still servicable or did they carry them over to the next year? >>
Oh I'm sure they re-used old reverse dies, they certainly did it many times in years past.
What I suspect is that they had a number of reverse dies with the VDB on them, one probably had the VDB polished off and inadvertently got re-used in a pinch. I mean, there's the documentation of what Barber SAID happened and then we have the evidence of what actually DID happen via surviving coins.
Certainly, the entire reverse master die could have been lapped - but that would only produce millions of identical coins for 1909, each showing a trace of VDB, and impaired detail. But such coins do not exist.
As for the 3-leg Bison, you are absolutely correct - the "standard story" and extant specimens do not correlate well unless the entire reverse had already been lapped close to oblivion.
One can apply reasonable standards to existing documentation and artifacts, or get lost in a quagmire of speculation and unfounded assumption. This might be good marketing – after all getting some sucker to pay $3,500 for a coin worth $4 is a triumph of flim-flam – but it is poor research.
<< <i>Actually, there is no evidence from surviving coins because none show anything except excess imagination.
Certainly, the entire reverse master die could have been lapped - but that would only produce millions of identical coins for 1909, each showing a trace of VDB, and impaired detail. But such coins do not exist.
As for the 3-leg Bison, you are absolutely correct - the "standard story" and extant specimens do not correlate well unless the entire reverse had already been lapped close to oblivion.
One can apply reasonable standards to existing documentation and artifacts, or get lost in a quagmire of speculation and unfounded assumption. This might be good marketing – after all getting some sucker to pay $3,500 for a coin worth $4 is a triumph of flim-flam – but it is poor research. >>
Who said anything about lapping a master die? You imagined that.
I am saying that it is possible that a working V.D.B. die was polished down at the San Francisco Mint in late 1909 or early 1910, as happened with the 1922-D cent die and the 1937-D nickel die in Denver in those years.
Roger, your numismatic research is second to none, and I have long been an advocate of your books in the NLG literary competitions. However, you have a bad habit of dismissing as "fantasy" and "imagination" opinions that differ from your opinions. Not your facts, your opinions.
As a collector and student of die varieties for over 45 years, and as a former professional authenticator and grader, I know a heckuva lot more about the practical use of coinage dies than you do. Stick with what you know.
Tom DeLorey
<< <i>
<< <i>Actually, there is no evidence from surviving coins because none show anything except excess imagination.
Certainly, the entire reverse master die could have been lapped - but that would only produce millions of identical coins for 1909, each showing a trace of VDB, and impaired detail. But such coins do not exist.
As for the 3-leg Bison, you are absolutely correct - the "standard story" and extant specimens do not correlate well unless the entire reverse had already been lapped close to oblivion.
One can apply reasonable standards to existing documentation and artifacts, or get lost in a quagmire of speculation and unfounded assumption. This might be good marketing – after all getting some sucker to pay $3,500 for a coin worth $4 is a triumph of flim-flam – but it is poor research. >>
Who said anything about lapping a master die? You imagined that.
I am saying that it is possible that a working V.D.B. die was polished down at the San Francisco Mint in late 1909 or early 1910, as happened with the 1922-D cent die and the 1937-D nickel die in Denver in those years.
Roger, your numismatic research is second to none, and I have long been an advocate of your books in the NLG literary competitions. However, you have a bad habit of dismissing as "fantasy" and "imagination" opinions that differ from your opinions. Not your facts, your opinions.
Right you are. I'm of the opinion that the master die was destroyed. (as quasi documented) There is evidence of lapping on my '09 and I'm leaning toward the possibility of a '10 VDB
Granted the proof is in ther pudding, but people were frugal , more so than now, and I doubt the dies were discarded.
As a collector and student of die varieties for over 45 years, and as a former professional authenticator and grader, I know a heckuva lot more about the practical use of coinage dies than you do. Stick with what you know.
Tom DeLorey >>
Roger, your numismatic research is second to none, and I have long been an advocate of your books in the NLG literary competitions. However, you have a bad habit of dismissing as "fantasy" and "imagination" opinions that differ from your opinions. Not your facts, your opinions.
My “opinions” however inconsequential they might be in some viewpoints, are grounded on the best factual material currently available. What has been presented regarding a “1910-S VDB cent” has no factual support – it is all conjecture, and some of that is contrary to documented normal procedures. The burden of proof has to lie with those who claim something unusual occurred, and proof does not consist of “They might have….”
Frankly, I consider it a great compliment and advantage that I do not have any financial interests in buying, selling or attributing coins for profit. This permits me to relay information as candidly and objectively as I possibly can. Sure, it irritates the heck out of story tellers when their favorite regal myths are found to have no clothes, but real events often are much more interesting than the invented stuff.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Why would they make two different master dies, both with the V.D.B.?
TD
<< <i>Drwstr123, there are definitely striations in the image you have shared, but are there remnants of initials? This is asked because the presence of striations does not mean that initials were removed. >>
Upon first seeing drwstr's photo, I immediately saw what looks to be the top of a "B" in those lines... maybe it's there or maybe it's just imagination. Would be cool if someone could do one of those overlays to see where the letters should be to see if anything matches up.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>That "B" is highly imaginative with the position not being correct and the contours of what is there not matching a "B" (IMO). I still think that speculation is lovely but agree with RWB that is exactly what it is - trying to explain what is seen and hazarding a guess as to what may or may have not been there prior to die or hub or planchet adjustment. How can you a label a coin with what is not there and then holler "1922 no-D"? Different animal, the latter. >>
Might I remind you that drwstr123's picture of the coin with die file marks on the lower reverse are of a 1909-dated coin, not the alleged 1910-S VDB coin, which looks completely different?
The 1922-D reference was made to refute RWB's claim that removing the VDB from a working die would leave a series of three depressions in the die, and consequntly a series of three raised mounds on the coins struck from that die. There are better ways to remove something from a die.
On the 1922-D "No D" obverse die #2 the entire field around the mint mark was removed by grinding down the die, leaving no depression where the mint mark used to be and therefore a flat field below the date.
TD
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Actually I was using the picture to illustrate my point, the date regardless. No evidence of VDB or even bits of it. >>
But what does that die have to do with the alleged 1910-S VDB die?
They were used at different mints, and only one person is suggesting that the 1909 Philadelphia die with the file marks might be a former V.D.B. die. How does it prove or disprove anything?
TD
Well, just Love coins, period.
Pardon my ignorance, as I try to stay in the pool of pre-1840 coinage, but I thought that all of the 1922 No D coins were produced by grease filled dies? This is the first that I have heard of the removal of the mintmark.
Quoting the RedBook..."1922 cents with a weak or missing mintmark were made from extremely worn dies that originally struck normal 1922 D cents. Three different die pairs were involved; two of them produced "Weak D" coins. One die pair (no. 2, identified by a strong reverse) is acknowledged as striking "No D" coins."
Nowhere does it state that on the die "the entire field around the mint mark was removed by grinding down the die, leaving no depression where the mint mark used to be and therefore a flat field below the date." What would the purpose have been for doing this?
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
<< <i>On the 1922-D "No D" obverse die #2 the entire field around the mint mark was removed by grinding down the die, leaving no depression where the mint mark used to be and therefore a flat field below the date.
Pardon my ignorance, as I try to stay in the pool of pre-1840 coinage, but I thought that all of the 1922 No D coins were produced by grease filled dies? This is the first that I have heard of the removal of the mintmark.
Quoting the RedBook..."1922 cents with a weak or missing mintmark were made from extremely worn dies that originally struck normal 1922 D cents. Three different die pairs were involved; two of them produced "Weak D" coins. One die pair (no. 2, identified by a strong reverse) is acknowledged as striking "No D" coins."
Nowhere does it state that on the die "the entire field around the mint mark was removed by grinding down the die, leaving no depression where the mint mark used to be and therefore a flat field below the date." What would the purpose have been for doing this?
QN >>
We, especially Ed Fleischmann who had written about them earlier for Collectors Clearinghouse, studied these coins extensively at ANACS. We contributed to the Redbook descriptions, which are unfortunately way too brief due to the nature of the Redbook.
Three 1922-D obverse dies were heavily ground down at the Denver Mint. On dies one and three, the D was left very weak, but visible when the die was clean. While in use, both became greasy to the point that the D disappeared completely on coins struck in that state. However, later die states, as proven by die cracks on one of them and observed die wear on the other, show the weak D returning as the grease wore off the die or was cleaned off or otherwise went away.
Die two, which happened to be paired with a new reverse die when put in a coin press, never shows a weak D in any die state. The conclusion is that the grinding completely removed the D by removing the field around it.
TD
The further the die face is lapped down, the more shallow the mintmark would have been and then it could be easily filled with grease (or lubricant of some kind).
The way you stated it, you seemed to say (at least to me) that the mint was intentionally trying to "grind" the mintmark away. I would think that would be a big no-no for the Branch mint to do.
On early mint dies there is even instances when dies being lapped caused more detail on the struck coins.
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
<< <i>Then by "grinding", I assume you mean lapping the die face?
The further the die face is lapped down, the more shallow the mintmark would have been and then it could be easily filled with grease (or lubricant of some kind).
The way you stated it, you seemed to say (at least to me) that the mint was intentionally trying to "grind" the mintmark away. I would think that would be a big no-no for the Branch mint to do.
On early mint dies there is even instances when dies being lapped caused more detail on the struck coins.
QN >>
The grinding of die #2 was necessary because of a die clash. In the process the mint mark was removed.
<< <i>
<< <i>Then by "grinding", I assume you mean lapping the die face?
The further the die face is lapped down, the more shallow the mintmark would have been and then it could be easily filled with grease (or lubricant of some kind).
The way you stated it, you seemed to say (at least to me) that the mint was intentionally trying to "grind" the mintmark away. I would think that would be a big no-no for the Branch mint to do.
On early mint dies there is even instances when dies being lapped caused more detail on the struck coins.
QN >>
The grinding of die #2 was necessary because of a die clash. In the process the mint mark was removed.
That is generally accepted as the probable cause of the heavy regrinding, but I don't know that it has ever been proven. I have no problem with the theory. If anybody has documentation regarding the regrinding, as I believe surfaced in the case of the 1937-D 3-legged nickel, please post it.
TD
TD
<< <i>If you were to grind off the VDB on a die, wouldn't that involve creating a significant depression (more like "ground out") on the die, resulting in a raised area on coins struck from that die? >>
.......
........did anyone check under the shoulder?
......
TD
These were originally discovered and published by Ed Fleischmann of Coin World in the early 1970's.
To all: These were shot at the same enlargement. Note the different size lettering, and the different shapes to the B. The easiest thing to see is the position of the period after the "D". It is close to the D on the one, and centered between the D and the B on the other.
This is evidence that (at least) two different master dies were created for the V.D.B. cents in 1909.
Do the Mint records record this fact, or is it just another thing that they overlooked, or deliberately ignored?
TD
I used the pictures provided in this thread....
i can't host the picture...if anyone wants to host it for posting here....email me at MLUMPKIN@INDY.RR.COM
AND I'LL SEND IT TO YOU.
DArn caps lock!
<< <i>I did a picture overlay of the 1910 over the 1909 for the placement of the VDB.
I used the pictures provided in this thread....
i can't host the picture...if anyone wants to host it for posting here....email me at MLUMPKIN@INDY.RR.COM
AND I'LL SEND IT TO YOU.
Which of the two different V.D.B.'s did you use?
TD
DArn caps lock! >>
I really cannot see anything on the picture of the Philadelphia Mint 1909 cent with the angled die file marks on it that I would call a V.D.B. Sometimes die file marks are just die file marks.
Of course, as I said earlier, this looks nothing like the reverse of the San Francisco Mint 1910 die that appears as though it may have a ground down V.D.B. Two completely different dies.
I am still curious to know if the Mint's records indicate the existence of the two different reverse master dies, as evidenced by the differences in the V.D.B.'s. As this thread seems to have run its course, I have started another thread for just the 1909 V.D.B. varieties.
TD