I love those little errors in the use of our English words. We use "dye" to color fabric or hair. In numismatics, that would be associated with artificial toning. In this eBay ad, it refers to manufacturing. Oh well, I knew what the seller was referring to.
That's not such a big deal, per se, but the use of the language is important in the study of numismatics.
I can agree on all points thus far made, and to me it most resembles a Barber pattern dollar mentioned. So...for those who are well versed in patterns, I would enjoy a best guess or explanation. Btw, I did not buy it. Intrigue is fueling my inquiry.
No way is it a legit die. Coin dies are never a simple cylinder. The coin/medal design is always engraved at the top of a taper from a cylinder of a diameter that is larger than the coin/medal diameter.
it is obvious the seller had no clue what they had - they even called it a dye
I think someone practiced making a die and used the pattern I listed as a model I hope they had one in hand - if not it is darn scary if someone could do that from a pic
I am not sure if diameters match, but the locations are fairly close it may have been used for some commemorative medal as one side at some time
I do not remember ever seeing anything looking like that - but there are billions of coins/medals I have never seen
some say it is poorly made - I think it is pretty good comsidering the eBay pic makes it hard to see the detail on the head the denticles are the worst part - and could have been damaged since it was used
as far as not being a mint product because it is wrong shape, I think it would br close if someone cut off the end opposite the die face - which then gets bigger for the mint
Well...I am trying to find the reason for its existence, and I keep coming up with question marks. It is clear to me at least the intent was to at very least mimic the Barber Sailor Head pattern. I agree the dentilation and the chin looks off, but then again the photos aren't great so who knows how close it really is. I am unaware of any production copies of this pattern, and given the coins rarity and fairly well documented provenance, it is unlikely someone (at least today) would make an attempt at counterfeiting. I also find it interesting that most of other items sold by this seller can be dated to the late 1800s and early 1900s. Given the context, the die being modern doesn't seem likely to me.
That said, if we can somehow agree it is period, the likelihood of an attempted counterfeit die for such an obscure coin doesn't seem like a plausible answer either. A counterfeiter would find much greater utility in making a struck copy of circulating coinage.
So, I would really like to hear from a pattern expert, because I'm not familiar if there were significant striking variations for patterns. I would also be interested in knowing if it is possible this die was intended for pattern production, but as everyone has noted, was discarded because of imperfections.
My best guess is a blundered and discarded die that was originally intended for striking a pattern.
RWB - We all know nothing has ever escaped from the Mint that shouldn't have. Now regarding the shape of dies, that is something I'm not too familiar with, so I will defer to your expertise that it is outside of the realm of possibility that this was Mint inspired.
I know it might require a little stretching, but I would enjoy your opinion as to what it is, as opposed to what it isn't.
Violation of 18 USC § 487 (making or possession of counterfeit dies) carries a stiffer penalty than 18 USC § 486 (making, uttering, or passing counterfeit coins). I'm surprised this auction was allowed to finish.
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.
Sorry RWB. Perhaps I should have winked And while I have no intention of making anything of anything, it is a stretch for me to believe "logic does not operate on a chain of speculation" couldn't have been interpreted in the same vein. Maybe being able to take as much as we dish out is a good model for all of us to go by
Back to topic, it seems it has run its course with the most popular opinion being that it is bogus for the sake of being bogus (or possibly of Chinese origin), which in my opinion isn't a very good answer, but it seems like what I'll settle for this time and say I appreciated everyone's input and opinions.
Comments
Gary
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
That's not such a big deal, per se, but the use of the language is important in the study of numismatics.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
how about Barbers sailors head pattern?
link to us patterns page
but as already said, the denticles on die look off, like possibly a fake
edit to add eBay pic
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
it is obvious the seller had no clue what they had - they even called it a dye
I think someone practiced making a die and used
the pattern I listed as a model
I hope they had one in hand - if not it is darn scary if someone could do that from a pic
I am not sure if diameters match, but the locations are fairly close
it may have been used for some commemorative medal as one side at some time
I do not remember ever seeing anything looking like that - but there are billions of coins/medals I have never seen
some say it is poorly made - I think it is pretty good comsidering
the eBay pic makes it hard to see the detail on the head
the denticles are the worst part - and could have been damaged since it was used
as far as not being a mint product because it is wrong shape,
I think it would br close if someone cut off the end opposite the die face - which then gets bigger for the mint
That said, if we can somehow agree it is period, the likelihood of an attempted counterfeit die for such an obscure coin doesn't seem like a plausible answer either. A counterfeiter would find much greater utility in making a struck copy of circulating coinage.
So, I would really like to hear from a pattern expert, because I'm not familiar if there were significant striking variations for patterns. I would also be interested in knowing if it is possible this die was intended for pattern production, but as everyone has noted, was discarded because of imperfections.
My best guess is a blundered and discarded die that was originally intended for striking a pattern.
<< <i>My best guess is a blundered and discarded die that was originally intended for striking a pattern. >>
I like your logic. I was thinking the same thing.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
Absent better photos, it's whatever one’s imagination wants to believe it is.
Logic does not operate on a chain of speculation.
I know it might require a little stretching, but I would enjoy your opinion as to what it is, as opposed to what it isn't.
but can only speculate what it 'could be'
US Mint dies look different and are defaced when discarded
How close is this seller to Philadelphia?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
you can swim in your own juice.
<< <i>The Chinese are moving into dies now. >>
Back to topic, it seems it has run its course with the most popular opinion being that it is bogus for the sake of being bogus (or possibly of Chinese origin), which in my opinion isn't a very good answer, but it seems like what I'll settle for this time and say I appreciated everyone's input and opinions.