<< <i>I doubt it's really an error but a piece a la carte. >>
I think you mean it was a "piece de caprice".
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>As far as being a partner in Legend and therefore having to justify the price - no, I don't. The buyer said go fetch and I don't give a rat's ass if he's buried or not. He's a big boy and capable of making his own financial decisions on how much to overpay for things. What bothers me is your judgemental and dismissive attitude that something is stupid money instead of appreciation for what's been built. Bottom line is that when you are building unique sets, you ALWAYS have to overpay. I know it's true because I've been there and done that. And it has NOTHING to do with other Lincoln cents - the owner likes copper 43 cents because he found one in circulation as a child [wasn't real]. >>
Although I have no grudge against you, I'm not one of your sycophants. I think ultra-rarities have gotten way ahead of themselves in recent years, and this Lincoln cent is a particularly egregious example. We'll have to agree to disagree.
As far as not appreciating the "accomplishment", I'm more impressed by a 19th Century proof set than three off metal Lincoln cents. A spectacular collection of real coins could be built for what was spent on these novelties.
<< <i>What the critics here seem to be missing is the charity aspect of the whole deal. The new owner is no fool - he doesn't value the coin at $1.7M. But if, as an extremely wealthy individual, you ALREADY make sizeable charitable donations and someone who has something you want badly is willing to sell you something at too high of a price so a Childrens Wing can be built on a hospital - what do you do? You move money from pot A to pot B, buy the coin, ensure the hospital wing is built and feel rather good about yourself. >>
Well put. Unfortunately, there are so many here who just can't see beyond the seven figure sale price.
Also, I hope those who suscribe to the "too much money" line don't own pitchforks.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
<< <i>Here is the bottomline: first this sale doesn't make the value of the subject coin $1.7 m, it only says that one anxious buyer was willing to fork that out. If he should ever have to sell (even though the buyer probably believes that won't ever happen) then at that time probably the true value will be determined only then. >>
That pretty much sums up every sale - the "value" is as of that particular point in time
Ms. Laura's placement of the Flannagan S$1 collection mid-'00's may be the largest charitable donation funded through a coin sale. Besides having many really high grade early coins, it had a scruffy 1804 S$1 that brought $867,500.
Pending reporting from someone less lazy than I, what did Flannagan's top out at?
There was a wonder set of Morgan DMPLs put together by Coingame2000t hat was in a Heritage LB sale 3-5 years ago. The owner let everyone within hearing distance know the proceeds were going to a revered charity.
Right now Andy has the "unaudited" lead.
Wouldn't it be sublime if more wealthy people figured out how to get really great tax advantages making charitable gifts.
Other coin collections sold for charity? Laura and Andy would love to hear stories like the ones they've helped create. Big or small.
Tell us what you want to contribute to the YN auctions at ANA Summer Seminars. They come at the tail-ends of both weeks. Raised about $40K this past year. I've seen dealers pay $150 for a copy of Penny Whimsy and gift it to a YN 10 secs after the hammer fell. Parents too.
BTW.. I've only seen 6 '43 bronzes any mint. This is the best of them in quality. Including Kritzman's. Perhaps technical grade was considered a major factor in the pricing.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
"A penny minted from the wrong metal in World War II has been sold for $1.7 million, said Laura Sperber of Legend Numismatics in Lincroft, who arranged the sale. Virtually all United States cents minted in 1943 were struck in steel rather than copper alloy, and are worth only a few cents each today, but a few coins were mistakenly made from bronze blanks left over in mint machinery. The coin was unknown to the collectors until 1979. Proceeds will go to charity."
"A penny minted from the wrong metal in World War II has been sold for $1.7 million, said Laura Sperber of Legend Numismatics in Lincroft, who arranged the sale. Virtually all United States cents minted in 1943 were struck in steel rather than copper alloy, and are worth only a few cents each today, but a few coins were mistakenly made from bronze blanks left over in mint machinery. The coin was unknown to the collectors until 1979. Proceeds will go to charity."
"A penny minted from the wrong metal in World War II has been sold for $1.7 million, said Laura Sperber of Legend Numismatics in Lincroft, who arranged the sale. Virtually all United States cents minted in 1943 were struck in steel rather than copper alloy, and are worth only a few cents each today, but a few coins were mistakenly made from bronze blanks left over in mint machinery. The coin was unknown to the collectors until 1979. Proceeds will go to charity."
The bronze planchets were left over in mint machinery? I thought they were left over in the tote bins where they were caught in the seams.
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 LOVE to collect Lincoln cents and I am HAPPY there is a new Lincoln cent collector. This coin could not fit in my collection
because it is not RED and therefore I never had any interest in owning the coin.
The previous owner is also a Lincoln Cent collector and it did not fit in his collection either so he is probably happy it went to someone
who can appreciate it and that it fits into the new owners collection. Another fact is that the previous owner made a charitable donation so he is not responsible for taxes on the profit.
Money does not matter or as QDB would say its only money... think of the present opportunity.
How many of these exsist? Just a handful? I find it hard to believe that only a few were struck. 206 + million were struck in 42 at the Denver Mint, and only a few blank copper planchets made it through? It wasn't meant to enter circulation, why is this piece legal to own, and a 64D dollar illegal? Have any S or P mint pieces surfaced? I know it's a lot of questions, but this piece is quite intriguing. This guy struck a few pieces, wonder how many of his are in tight numismatic circles today?
<< <i>When I first got into trade dollars, I paid 'too much money' for the top pops and look what I built. When I moved into classic rarities, for a while I paid 'too much money' and I sure wish I still had them at the levels I was buying them at then. Then others came along and paid 'too much money' for them on top of me and I could no longer play, so I moved on to the seated dollar set - where I paid 'too much money' to complete something that had never been done before.
So I've been there and I've done that and while it may be no fun at all to give Jay Parrino a $500k profit on the Eliasberg 1885 trade dollar after only a year [too much money yet again], just a few years later it was traded in on the 1913 Liberty Head nickel at $3M+. Sometimes you just gotta tip your cap to the dorkster and acknowledge that he's right when he says if you love something, if you really love it, then price doesn't matter. >>
Let's get our bearings, here. The value of this piece to a collector is dependent on whether it's an error. That's what captivated the imagination of every collector since 1943, not whether some goofball employee at the Mint had the motive and opportunity to strike these up.
I'll guarantee this, it's going to be represented as an error, when resold, whenever that may be, unless the owner is really dumb...
Best thread I read in a very long time!! I agree with Tradedollarnut that the price is set between the owner and the buyer, but you have several 'Factors' that increase this transaction price. I think the next time around is not going to hit the 1M mark again. Keith
<< <i>How many of these exsist? Just a handful? I find it hard to believe that only a few were struck. 206 + million were struck in 42 at the Denver Mint, and only a few blank copper planchets made it through? It wasn't meant to enter circulation, why is this piece legal to own, and a 64D dollar illegal? Have any S or P mint pieces surfaced? I know it's a lot of questions, but this piece is quite intriguing. This guy struck a few pieces, wonder how many of his are in tight numismatic circles today?
>>
Very kool article & pic about the 43 copper cent... Thanks for sharing it.
<< <i>When I first got into trade dollars, I paid 'too much money' for the top pops and look what I built. When I moved into classic rarities, for a while I paid 'too much money' and I sure wish I still had them at the levels I was buying them at then. Then others came along and paid 'too much money' for them on top of me and I could no longer play, so I moved on to the seated dollar set - where I paid 'too much money' to complete something that had never been done before.
So I've been there and I've done that and while it may be no fun at all to give Jay Parrino a $500k profit on the Eliasberg 1885 trade dollar after only a year [too much money yet again], just a few years later it was traded in on the 1913 Liberty Head nickel at $3M+. Sometimes you just gotta tip your cap to the dorkster and acknowledge that he's right when he says if you love something, if you really love it, then price doesn't matter. >>
Let's get our bearings, here. The value of this piece to a collector is dependent on whether it's an error. That's what captivated the imagination of every collector since 1943, not whether some goofball employee at the Mint had the motive and opportunity to strike these up.
I'll guarantee this, it's going to be represented as an error, when resold, whenever that may be, unless the owner is really dumb... >>
You're completely wrong. The value of this piece is based upon decades of people hearing about one, looking for one and dreaming about one. It doesn't matter if it's an error or a 1913 Liberty Head nickel - that's what creates the value.
"A penny minted from the wrong metal in World War II has been sold for $1.7 million, said Laura Sperber of Legend Numismatics in Lincroft, who arranged the sale. Virtually all United States cents minted in 1943 were struck in steel rather than copper alloy, and are worth only a few cents each today, but a few coins were mistakenly made from bronze blanks left over in mint machinery. The coin was unknown to the collectors until 1979. Proceeds will go to charity."
The bronze planchets were left over in mint machinery? I thought they were left over in the tote bins where they were caught in the seams. >>
The mint is an industrial plant and raw material gets everywhere. While many of these are believed to be planchets which get stuck to debris in tote bins the fact is that planchets can be found everywhere from the blankers riddlers even all the way to bagging operations. When they were minting the 1974 aluminum cents (next million dollar modern?) there were dozens of planchets found in-side the stamping press itself.
<< <i>How many of these exsist? Just a handful? I find it hard to believe that only a few were struck. 206 + million were struck in 42 at the Denver Mint, and only a few blank copper planchets made it through? It wasn't meant to enter circulation, why is this piece legal to own, and a 64D dollar illegal? Have any S or P mint pieces surfaced? I know it's a lot of questions, but this piece is quite intriguing. This guy struck a few pieces, wonder how many of his are in tight numismatic circles today?
>>
In short, 1943 Lincoln cents were authorized to be released from the mint. A mint error that gets through quality control is still legal to own. Technically, this is a transitional piece if the planchet is a 1942 composition, and not really an error per se. There are many transitional pieces in virtually all other series as you probably know. As for the 64D, I don't know of any legal means by which one could have been released by the Denver mint. That's the difference. This is the crux of the 1933 gold $20 pieces. I seriously doubt that there was a "midnight minter" that made these pieces, and there is no need to speculate about that. As you say, there were millions of cents struck at the Denver mint, and every year a few mistakes slip through.
For many of us growing up in the 50's/60's (ouch) a 1943 copper 1C was probably the equivalent of Max Mehl's search for a 1913 5C. We always thought itwas was worth a fortune.
We remember coins like that from our youth. I do not like pennies, but I admit, I too fantasized about finding one.
I'd be shocked if the majority of people here haven't checked many times in their lives to see if they found one.
<< <i>You're completely wrong. The value of this piece is based upon decades of people hearing about one, looking for one and dreaming about one. It doesn't matter if it's an error or a 1913 Liberty Head nickel - that's what creates the value. >>
Well, then, I reckon we'll just have to respectfully disagree...
On that $1,700,000 price tag, specifically, I'll add this. To the degree a charitable donation figured into that, to the same degree it's skewed. Case in point, that candy bar I bought from the boy scout the other day was hardly worth the $20 I gave him for it.
<<Very kool article & pic about the 43 copper cent... Thanks for sharing it.>>
Here'e the rest of the article about the portable press.
If you can use a micrometer, a lathe, a sledgehammer, and a drill press, creating a 1943 copper cent is very real. Think about it, 1943 cents in 67 range from $85- $120, blank 95% copper 3.11 gram planchets range from $10 -$50. It's possible that one could create this rarity for $500 + or -
Great point. A steel cent can be hardened and then used as a hub to make false dies and unstruck cent planchets are relatively plentiful.
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><<Very kool article & pic about the 43 copper cent... Thanks for sharing it.>>
Here'e the rest of the article about the portable press.
If you can use a micrometer, a lathe, a sledgehammer, and a drill press, creating a 1943 copper cent is very real. Think about it, 1943 cents in 67 range from $85- $120, blank 95% copper 3.11 gram planchets range from $10 -$50. It's possible that one could create this rarity for $500 + or - >>
_____ These are great references from "Numismatic Forgery" by Charles Larson. Thank you.
My question is this: knowing how mechanically simple it would be to create a 1943 bronze cent, how was this particular genuine specimen actually authenticated be PCGS?
Does anyone have experience as to what specific tests are used to that end?
<<My question is this: knowing how mechanically simple it would be to create a 1943 bronze cent, how was this particular genuine specimen actually authenticated be PCGS?>>
I'm wondering the same. Surely it weighed 3.11 grams, 95% copper, 5% tin and zinc, with a diameter of 19mm. Are there equal amounts of tin and zinc? 2.5% of each? 95% of 3.11 grams is 2.9545 grams of copper. 5% of 3.11 grams is 0.1555 grams of tin and zinc. Can they test for all 3 metals?
<< <i><<My question is this: knowing how mechanically simple it would be to create a 1943 bronze cent, how was this particular genuine specimen actually authenticated be PCGS?>>
I'm wondering the same. Surely it weighed 3.11 grams, 95% copper, 5% tin and zinc, with a diameter of 19mm. Are there equal amounts of tin and zinc? 2.5% of each? 95% of 3.11 grams is 2.9545 grams of copper. 5% of 3.11 grams is 0.1555 grams of tin and zinc. Can they test for all 3 metals? >>
Yeah; obviously the metallic composition would be scanned. The zinc-coated bronze seems to be evidence, although I suppose a smart forger could actually simulate that. Someone in this thread mentioned that ‘strike’ was one authenticating factor, as the die pressure were set higher to imprint on steel and not copper. Again, I don’t know if that would in itself confirm with the level of certainty required.
But then along with the raw physical characteristics of the coin I would use the actually chain of title/custody of the cent, if I knew it with certainty, in an attempt to establish it is what it purports to be based on its lineage.
I don’t know if any one factor would be an ‘authenticator’ but maybe a combination of factors. Maybe like in a criminal law case, beyond a reasonable doubt standard would suffice in proving authenticity?
<< <i>Maybe like in a criminal law case, beyond a reasonable doubt standard would suffice in proving authenticity? >>
More like a "preponderance of the evidence" standard in civil court. >>
Yeah, maybe. I honestly don't know. So what is the standard? That is certainly a big question.
And my true question above was really what are the authenticating factors that are used within the standard? I would think these questions would be relevant to not only this 1943-D sale, but any PCGS-related sale where money changes hands. So where many have posed questions about the value of the coin and the grading of the coin, it's surprising to me that no one really touched on the issue of authenticating standards. Clearly, everyone involved in the transaction feels confident that the 1943-D s genuine. But what is the basis of the confidence? It seems like that should be public information, IMHO.
Ironically, in this case that fact that the specimen is the only one known actually makes it easier to authenticate, as there is not frame of comparison. With no other example to compare this coin to, who can argue one way or the other, save for maybe an exact and recorded unbroken chain of title?
<< <i>Maybe like in a criminal law case, beyond a reasonable doubt standard would suffice in proving authenticity? >>
More like a "preponderance of the evidence" standard in civil court. >>
Yeah, maybe. I honestly don't know. So what is the standard? That is certainly a big question.
And my true question above was really what are the authenticating factors that are used within the standard? I would think these questions would be relevant to not only this 1943-D sale, but any PCGS-related sale where money changes hands. So where many have posed questions about the value of the coin and the grading of the coin, it's surprising to me that no one really touched on the issue of authenticating standards. Clearly, everyone involved in the transaction feels confident that the 1943-D s genuine. But what is the basis of the confidence? It seems like that should be public information, IMHO.
Ironically, in this case that fact that the specimen is the only one known actually makes it easier to authenticate, as there is not frame of comparison. With no other example to compare this coin to, who can argue one way or the other, save for maybe an exact and recorded unbroken chain of title?
Just food for thought.... >>
The existence of the '43-D has been known for a very long time. At least the late-'50's I believe. I remember that the score at that time was Philly-8, Denver-1, and San Francisco-5.
<< <i>The existence of the '43-D has been known for a very long time. At least the late-'50's I believe. I remember that the score at that time was Philly-8, Denver-1, and San Francisco-5.
I believe a few more have been found since. >>
Do you happen to know whether they were deliberative or mistakes (i.e., errors)? Or, rather, I guess, what have you heard on that, if anything?
<< <i>Here'e the rest of the article about the portable press. >>
Just to be on the safe side you and Duane ought to edit your replies so as to omit the photocopies of the book. I'm just sayin'... >>
Thanks Kurt. It's a point well-taken. Just so you know for your future use, one actual exception to the copyright laws is that use of copyrighted materials is allowed for 'educational' purposes. Arguably, Morgan's past and my follow up are educational in nature. I don't think either one of us or anyone involved in this thread is using the information for commercial reasons. That's not legal advice but just intended to be informational. Thank you.
Cladking - Thanks for the information on '43-D history. Sounds like authentication may be based partly on the chain of custody of that specific coin.
Do you happen to know whether they were deliberative or mistakes (i.e., errors)? Or, rather, I guess, what have you heard on that, if anything? >>
Many were found in circulation which suggests they were accidental.
There's no compelling reason to believe any must have been made intentionally but this might no longer be knowable.
The reports of them appearing seemed random as well which is con- sistent with accidental production. Had they been made all at once they'd probably have been found together or in a single city.
<< <i>Thanks Kurt. It's a point well-taken. Just so you know for your future use, one actual exception to the copyright laws is that use of copyrighted materials is allowed for 'educational' purposes. Arguably, Morgan's past and my follow up are educational in nature. I don't think either one of us or anyone involved in this thread is using the information for commercial reasons. That's not legal advice but just intended to be informational. Thank you. >>
You're arguably trying to come in under copyright fair use. Good luck.
<< <i>Many were found in circulation which suggests they were accidental.
There's no compelling reason to believe any must have been made intentionally but this might no longer be knowable.
The reports of them appearing seemed random as well which is con- sistent with accidental production. Had they been made all at once they'd probably have been found together or in a single city. >>
I see. I'll say this. I never suspected it could be an issue until I read this thread.
<< <i>Thanks Kurt. It's a point well-taken. Just so you know for your future use, one actual exception to the copyright laws is that use of copyrighted materials is allowed for 'educational' purposes. Arguably, Morgan's past and my follow up are educational in nature. I don't think either one of us or anyone involved in this thread is using the information for commercial reasons. That's not legal advice but just intended to be informational. Thank you. >>
You're arguably trying to come in under copyright fair use. Good luck. >>
Sorry Kurt. I didn't intend my 'arguably' comment to be snide but see how you may have taken it that way. This really is a clear fair use of the Larson text. I practice IP law for a living, and can tell you this is about as clean as it gets. Just Google Section 107 of the Copyright Act and you'll see a million websites that characterize four general criterion which courts use to decide a fair use. This particular thread would fit right into one or all of the criteria. If you truly disagree with my assessment, we can take it off-line, and I can give you more information. Regards, Duane
Amazing that the coin sold for as much as it did, but it makes sense that it would since [collectively] the '43 copper cents are the most popular error on U.S. coinage, and since this coin is unique, it should rightly be the most expensive error coin-which it is, and by a very long shot!
The coin is flat out awesome, wasn't trying to start any copy right issues, or give out recipes. This coin stimulates my curiosity big time, always wondering what is intentional. It would be kinda neat to trace it back as to where it originated. When and where did it enter the hobby, and by whom.
<< <i>Sorry Kurt. I didn't intend my 'arguably' comment to be snide but see how you may have taken it that way. This really is a clear fair use of the Larson text. I practice IP law for a living, and can tell you this is about as clean as it gets. Just Google Section 107 of the Copyright Act and you'll see a million websites that characterize four general criterion which courts use to decide a fair use. This particular thread would fit right into one or all of the criteria. If you truly disagree with my assessment, we can take it off-line, and I can give you more information. Regards, Duane >>
Duane, I didn't take your use of that term like that, I can assure you, and I'm really at a loss as to how you jumped to that conclusion. You are arguably trying to come in under statutory fair use. I thought I was just making a statement of fact, acknowledging your argument, and letting the matter go at that.
<< <i>Amazing that the coin sold for as much as it did, but it makes sense that it would since [collectively] the '43 copper cents are the most popular error on U.S. coinage, and since this coin is unique, it should rightly be the most expensive error coin-which it is, and by a very long shot! >>
That begs the question, though, whether it's in fact an error.
<< <i>Sorry Kurt. I didn't intend my 'arguably' comment to be snide but see how you may have taken it that way. This really is a clear fair use of the Larson text. I practice IP law for a living, and can tell you this is about as clean as it gets. Just Google Section 107 of the Copyright Act and you'll see a million websites that characterize four general criterion which courts use to decide a fair use. This particular thread would fit right into one or all of the criteria. If you truly disagree with my assessment, we can take it off-line, and I can give you more information. Regards, Duane >>
Duane, I didn't take your use of that term like that, I can assure you, and I'm really at a loss as to how you jumped to that conclusion. You are arguably trying to come in under statutory fair use. I thought I was just making a statement of fact, acknowledging your argument, and letting the matter go at that.
What I wrote in the Authoritative Reference on Lincoln cents on the 1943D copper cent
"The 1943D Bronze cent was owned by a former Denver Mint employee who is believed to have struck it. This coin has the strongest strike of any 1943 bronze cent. Speculation has it that the person hand fed a bronze planchet into a coining press, struck it twice to bring up the design, then kept it. There are zinc fragments on both the obverse and reverse, which means that the dies were used to strike normal 1943 zinc-coated steel cents first. The coin was kept secret for years. After the person died, the coin was given to one of his children, who in 1996, consigned the coin to Superior Galleries to be auctioned. The coin was examined by ANACS in 1979 and declared “genuine.” In 1996, it was sent to NGC, where it received a grade of MS64BN. It has since been certified by PCGS as MS64BN. This coin recently sold for $212,750, the second highest price ever paid for a Lincoln cent."
I had heard that the Mint employee first struck it as a novelity, then hid it for years for fear of persecution from the Secret Service. I heard that the letter from this individual was seen at NGC.
<< <i>What I wrote in the Authoritative Reference on Lincoln cents on the 1943D copper cent
"The 1943D Bronze cent was owned by a former Denver Mint employee who is believed to have struck it. This coin has the strongest strike of any 1943 bronze cent. Speculation has it that the person hand fed a bronze planchet into a coining press, struck it twice to bring up the design, then kept it. There are zinc fragments on both the obverse and reverse, which means that the dies were used to strike normal 1943 zinc-coated steel cents first. The coin was kept secret for years. After the person died, the coin was given to one of his children, who in 1996, consigned the coin to Superior Galleries to be auctioned. The coin was examined by ANACS in 1979 and declared “genuine.” In 1996, it was sent to NGC, where it received a grade of MS64BN. It has since been certified by PCGS as MS64BN. This coin recently sold for $212,750, the second highest price ever paid for a Lincoln cent."
I had heard that the Mint employee first struck it as a novelity, then hid it for years for fear of persecution from the Secret Service. I heard that the letter from this individual was seen at NGC.
Kevin >>
If it was struck clandestinely, is it an illegal piece as the Denver Mint employee feared?
From the description, I'm guessing that the identity of the Mint employee and the person's family are anonymous. If this is true, can this story be verified?
Comments
<< <i>I doubt it's really an error but a piece a la carte. >>
I think you mean it was a "piece de caprice".
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 doubt it's really an error but a piece a la carte. >>
I think you mean it was a "piece de caprice". >>
That or a numismatic delicacy.
But since it was specially made, maybe you can say it was also a la carte, just not one that many chose to make
<< <i>As far as being a partner in Legend and therefore having to justify the price - no, I don't. The buyer said go fetch and I don't give a rat's ass if he's buried or not. He's a big boy and capable of making his own financial decisions on how much to overpay for things. What bothers me is your judgemental and dismissive attitude that something is stupid money instead of appreciation for what's been built. Bottom line is that when you are building unique sets, you ALWAYS have to overpay. I know it's true because I've been there and done that. And it has NOTHING to do with other Lincoln cents - the owner likes copper 43 cents because he found one in circulation as a child [wasn't real]. >>
Although I have no grudge against you, I'm not one of your sycophants. I think ultra-rarities have gotten way ahead of themselves in recent years, and this Lincoln cent is a particularly egregious example. We'll have to agree to disagree.
As far as not appreciating the "accomplishment", I'm more impressed by a 19th Century proof set than three off metal Lincoln cents. A spectacular collection of real coins could be built for what was spent on these novelties.
<< <i>What the critics here seem to be missing is the charity aspect of the whole deal. The new owner is no fool - he doesn't value the coin at $1.7M. But if, as an extremely wealthy individual, you ALREADY make sizeable charitable donations and someone who has something you want badly is willing to sell you something at too high of a price so a Childrens Wing can be built on a hospital - what do you do? You move money from pot A to pot B, buy the coin, ensure the hospital wing is built and feel rather good about yourself. >>
Well put.
Unfortunately, there are so many here who just can't see beyond the seven figure sale price.
Also, I hope those who suscribe to the "too much money" line don't own pitchforks.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I doubt it's really an error but a piece a la carte. >>
I think you mean it was a "piece de caprice". >>
That or a numismatic delicacy. >>
...or a bronze Trompe L'Oeil
<< <i>
<< <i>I doubt it's really an error but a piece a la carte. >>
I think you mean it was a "piece de caprice". >>
Thanks, that's what I get for trying to be fancy.
<< <i>Here is the bottomline:
first this sale doesn't make the value of the subject coin $1.7 m, it only says that one anxious buyer was willing to fork that out. If he should ever have to sell (even though the buyer probably believes that won't ever happen) then at that time probably the true value will be determined only then. >>
That pretty much sums up every sale - the "value" is as of that particular point in time
And if I were to have purchased it, it would be off the market for several decades.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
Pending reporting from someone less lazy than I, what did Flannagan's top out at?
There was a wonder set of Morgan DMPLs put together by Coingame2000t hat was in a Heritage LB sale 3-5 years ago. The owner let everyone within hearing distance know the proceeds were going to a revered charity.
Right now Andy has the "unaudited" lead.
Wouldn't it be sublime if more wealthy people figured out how to get really great tax advantages making charitable gifts.
Other coin collections sold for charity? Laura and Andy would love to hear stories like the ones they've helped create. Big or small.
Tell us what you want to contribute to the YN auctions at ANA Summer Seminars. They come at the tail-ends of both weeks. Raised about $40K this past year. I've seen dealers pay $150 for a copy of Penny Whimsy and gift it to a YN 10 secs after the hammer fell. Parents too.
BTW.. I've only seen 6 '43 bronzes any mint. This is the best of them in quality. Including Kritzman's. Perhaps technical grade was considered a major factor in the pricing.
"A penny minted from the wrong metal in World War II has been sold for $1.7 million, said Laura Sperber of Legend Numismatics in Lincroft, who arranged the sale. Virtually all United States cents minted in 1943 were struck in steel rather than copper alloy, and are worth only a few cents each today, but a few coins were mistakenly made from bronze blanks left over in mint machinery. The coin was unknown to the collectors until 1979. Proceeds will go to charity."
NYT Link
<< <i>New York Times chimes in.......
"A penny minted from the wrong metal in World War II has been sold for $1.7 million, said Laura Sperber of Legend Numismatics in Lincroft, who arranged the sale. Virtually all United States cents minted in 1943 were struck in steel rather than copper alloy, and are worth only a few cents each today, but a few coins were mistakenly made from bronze blanks left over in mint machinery. The coin was unknown to the collectors until 1979. Proceeds will go to charity."
NYT Link >>
Were they mistakenly made or made on purpose?
<< <i>
<< <i>New York Times chimes in.......
"A penny minted from the wrong metal in World War II has been sold for $1.7 million, said Laura Sperber of Legend Numismatics in Lincroft, who arranged the sale. Virtually all United States cents minted in 1943 were struck in steel rather than copper alloy, and are worth only a few cents each today, but a few coins were mistakenly made from bronze blanks left over in mint machinery. The coin was unknown to the collectors until 1979. Proceeds will go to charity."
NYT Link >>
Were they mistakenly made or made on purpose? >>
The bronze planchets were left over in mint machinery? I thought they were left over in the tote bins where they were caught in the seams.
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 LOVE to collect Lincoln cents and I am HAPPY there is a new Lincoln cent collector. This coin could not fit in my collection
because it is not RED and therefore I never had any interest in owning the coin.
The previous owner is also a Lincoln Cent collector and it did not fit in his collection either so he is probably happy it went to someone
who can appreciate it and that it fits into the new owners collection. Another fact is that the previous owner made a charitable donation so he is not
responsible for taxes on the profit.
Money does not matter or as QDB would say its only money... think of the present opportunity.
Stewart Blay
206 + million were struck in 42 at the Denver Mint, and only a few blank copper planchets made it through?
It wasn't meant to enter circulation, why is this piece legal to own, and a 64D dollar illegal?
Have any S or P mint pieces surfaced? I know it's a lot of questions, but this piece is quite intriguing.
This guy struck a few pieces, wonder how many of his are in tight numismatic circles today?
<< <i>When I first got into trade dollars, I paid 'too much money' for the top pops and look what I built. When I moved into classic rarities, for a while I paid 'too much money' and I sure wish I still had them at the levels I was buying them at then. Then others came along and paid 'too much money' for them on top of me and I could no longer play, so I moved on to the seated dollar set - where I paid 'too much money' to complete something that had never been done before.
So I've been there and I've done that and while it may be no fun at all to give Jay Parrino a $500k profit on the Eliasberg 1885 trade dollar after only a year [too much money yet again], just a few years later it was traded in on the 1913 Liberty Head nickel at $3M+. Sometimes you just gotta tip your cap to the dorkster and acknowledge that he's right when he says if you love something, if you really love it, then price doesn't matter. >>
Let's get our bearings, here. The value of this piece to a collector is dependent on whether it's an error. That's what captivated the imagination of every collector since 1943, not whether some goofball employee at the Mint had the motive and opportunity to strike these up.
I'll guarantee this, it's going to be represented as an error, when resold, whenever that may be, unless the owner is really dumb...
I agree with Tradedollarnut that the price is set between the owner and the buyer, but you have several 'Factors' that increase this transaction price. I think the next time around is not going to hit the 1M mark again.
Keith
<< <i>How many of these exsist? Just a handful? I find it hard to believe that only a few were struck.
206 + million were struck in 42 at the Denver Mint, and only a few blank copper planchets made it through?
It wasn't meant to enter circulation, why is this piece legal to own, and a 64D dollar illegal?
Have any S or P mint pieces surfaced? I know it's a lot of questions, but this piece is quite intriguing.
This guy struck a few pieces, wonder how many of his are in tight numismatic circles today?
Very kool article & pic about the 43 copper cent... Thanks for sharing it.
<< <i>
<< <i>When I first got into trade dollars, I paid 'too much money' for the top pops and look what I built. When I moved into classic rarities, for a while I paid 'too much money' and I sure wish I still had them at the levels I was buying them at then. Then others came along and paid 'too much money' for them on top of me and I could no longer play, so I moved on to the seated dollar set - where I paid 'too much money' to complete something that had never been done before.
So I've been there and I've done that and while it may be no fun at all to give Jay Parrino a $500k profit on the Eliasberg 1885 trade dollar after only a year [too much money yet again], just a few years later it was traded in on the 1913 Liberty Head nickel at $3M+. Sometimes you just gotta tip your cap to the dorkster and acknowledge that he's right when he says if you love something, if you really love it, then price doesn't matter. >>
Let's get our bearings, here. The value of this piece to a collector is dependent on whether it's an error. That's what captivated the imagination of every collector since 1943, not whether some goofball employee at the Mint had the motive and opportunity to strike these up.
I'll guarantee this, it's going to be represented as an error, when resold, whenever that may be, unless the owner is really dumb... >>
You're completely wrong. The value of this piece is based upon decades of people hearing about one, looking for one and dreaming about one. It doesn't matter if it's an error or a 1913 Liberty Head nickel - that's what creates the value.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>New York Times chimes in.......
"A penny minted from the wrong metal in World War II has been sold for $1.7 million, said Laura Sperber of Legend Numismatics in Lincroft, who arranged the sale. Virtually all United States cents minted in 1943 were struck in steel rather than copper alloy, and are worth only a few cents each today, but a few coins were mistakenly made from bronze blanks left over in mint machinery. The coin was unknown to the collectors until 1979. Proceeds will go to charity."
NYT Link >>
Were they mistakenly made or made on purpose? >>
The bronze planchets were left over in mint machinery? I thought they were left over in the tote bins where they were caught in the seams. >>
The mint is an industrial plant and raw material gets everywhere. While many
of these are believed to be planchets which get stuck to debris in tote bins the
fact is that planchets can be found everywhere from the blankers riddlers even
all the way to bagging operations. When they were minting the 1974 aluminum
cents (next million dollar modern?) there were dozens of planchets found in-side
the stamping press itself.
<< <i>How many of these exsist? Just a handful? I find it hard to believe that only a few were struck.
206 + million were struck in 42 at the Denver Mint, and only a few blank copper planchets made it through?
It wasn't meant to enter circulation, why is this piece legal to own, and a 64D dollar illegal?
Have any S or P mint pieces surfaced? I know it's a lot of questions, but this piece is quite intriguing.
This guy struck a few pieces, wonder how many of his are in tight numismatic circles today?
In short, 1943 Lincoln cents were authorized to be released from the mint. A mint error that gets through quality control is still legal to own. Technically, this is a transitional piece if the planchet is a 1942 composition, and not really an error per se. There are many transitional pieces in virtually all other series as you probably know. As for the 64D, I don't know of any legal means by which one could have been released by the Denver mint. That's the difference. This is the crux of the 1933 gold $20 pieces. I seriously doubt that there was a "midnight minter" that made these pieces, and there is no need to speculate about that. As you say, there were millions of cents struck at the Denver mint, and every year a few mistakes slip through.
For many of us growing up in the 50's/60's (ouch) a 1943 copper 1C was probably the equivalent of Max Mehl's search for a 1913 5C. We always thought itwas was worth a fortune.
We remember coins like that from our youth. I do not like pennies, but I admit, I too fantasized about finding one.
I'd be shocked if the majority of people here haven't checked many times in their lives to see if they found one.
It does not surprise me what this 43D sold. for.
<< <i>You're completely wrong. The value of this piece is based upon decades of people hearing about one, looking for one and dreaming about one. It doesn't matter if it's an error or a 1913 Liberty Head nickel - that's what creates the value. >>
Well, then, I reckon we'll just have to respectfully disagree...
On that $1,700,000 price tag, specifically, I'll add this. To the degree a charitable donation figured into that, to the same degree it's skewed. Case in point, that candy bar I bought from the boy scout the other day was hardly worth the $20 I gave him for it.
Here'e the rest of the article about the portable press.
If you can use a micrometer, a lathe, a sledgehammer, and a drill press, creating a 1943 copper cent is very real.
Think about it, 1943 cents in 67 range from $85- $120, blank 95% copper 3.11 gram planchets range from $10 -$50.
It's possible that one could create this rarity for $500 + or -
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><<Very kool article & pic about the 43 copper cent... Thanks for sharing it.>>
Here'e the rest of the article about the portable press.
If you can use a micrometer, a lathe, a sledgehammer, and a drill press, creating a 1943 copper cent is very real.
Think about it, 1943 cents in 67 range from $85- $120, blank 95% copper 3.11 gram planchets range from $10 -$50.
It's possible that one could create this rarity for $500 + or - >>
_____
These are great references from "Numismatic Forgery" by Charles Larson. Thank you.
My question is this: knowing how mechanically simple it would be to create a 1943 bronze cent, how was this particular genuine specimen actually authenticated be PCGS?
Does anyone have experience as to what specific tests are used to that end?
I'm wondering the same. Surely it weighed 3.11 grams, 95% copper, 5% tin and zinc, with a diameter of 19mm.
Are there equal amounts of tin and zinc? 2.5% of each?
95% of 3.11 grams is 2.9545 grams of copper. 5% of 3.11 grams is 0.1555 grams of tin and zinc.
Can they test for all 3 metals?
<< <i><<My question is this: knowing how mechanically simple it would be to create a 1943 bronze cent, how was this particular genuine specimen actually authenticated be PCGS?>>
I'm wondering the same. Surely it weighed 3.11 grams, 95% copper, 5% tin and zinc, with a diameter of 19mm.
Are there equal amounts of tin and zinc? 2.5% of each?
95% of 3.11 grams is 2.9545 grams of copper. 5% of 3.11 grams is 0.1555 grams of tin and zinc.
Can they test for all 3 metals? >>
Yeah; obviously the metallic composition would be scanned. The zinc-coated bronze seems to be evidence, although I suppose a smart forger could actually simulate that. Someone in this thread mentioned that ‘strike’ was one authenticating factor, as the die pressure were set higher to imprint on steel and not copper. Again, I don’t know if that would in itself confirm with the level of certainty required.
But then along with the raw physical characteristics of the coin I would use the actually chain of title/custody of the cent, if I knew it with certainty, in an attempt to establish it is what it purports to be based on its lineage.
I don’t know if any one factor would be an ‘authenticator’ but maybe a combination of factors. Maybe like in a criminal law case, beyond a reasonable doubt standard would suffice in proving authenticity?
<< <i>Maybe like in a criminal law case, beyond a reasonable doubt standard would suffice in proving authenticity? >>
More like a "preponderance of the evidence" standard in civil court.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe like in a criminal law case, beyond a reasonable doubt standard would suffice in proving authenticity? >>
More like a "preponderance of the evidence" standard in civil court. >>
Yeah, maybe. I honestly don't know. So what is the standard? That is certainly a big question.
And my true question above was really what are the authenticating factors that are used within the standard? I would think these questions would be relevant to not only this 1943-D sale, but any PCGS-related sale where money changes hands. So where many have posed questions about the value of the coin and the grading of the coin, it's surprising to me that no one really touched on the issue of authenticating standards. Clearly, everyone involved in the transaction feels confident that the 1943-D s genuine. But what is the basis of the confidence? It seems like that should be public information, IMHO.
Ironically, in this case that fact that the specimen is the only one known actually makes it easier to authenticate, as there is not frame of comparison. With no other example to compare this coin to, who can argue one way or the other, save for maybe an exact and recorded unbroken chain of title?
Just food for thought....
<< <i>Here'e the rest of the article about the portable press. >>
Just to be on the safe side you and Duane ought to edit your replies so as to omit the photocopies of the book. I'm just sayin'...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe like in a criminal law case, beyond a reasonable doubt standard would suffice in proving authenticity? >>
More like a "preponderance of the evidence" standard in civil court. >>
Yeah, maybe. I honestly don't know. So what is the standard? That is certainly a big question.
And my true question above was really what are the authenticating factors that are used within the standard? I would think these questions would be relevant to not only this 1943-D sale, but any PCGS-related sale where money changes hands. So where many have posed questions about the value of the coin and the grading of the coin, it's surprising to me that no one really touched on the issue of authenticating standards. Clearly, everyone involved in the transaction feels confident that the 1943-D s genuine. But what is the basis of the confidence? It seems like that should be public information, IMHO.
Ironically, in this case that fact that the specimen is the only one known actually makes it easier to authenticate, as there is not frame of comparison. With no other example to compare this coin to, who can argue one way or the other, save for maybe an exact and recorded unbroken chain of title?
Just food for thought.... >>
The existence of the '43-D has been known for a very long time. At least the
late-'50's I believe. I remember that the score at that time was Philly-8, Denver-1,
and San Francisco-5.
I believe a few more have been found since.
<< <i>The existence of the '43-D has been known for a very long time. At least the
late-'50's I believe. I remember that the score at that time was Philly-8, Denver-1,
and San Francisco-5.
I believe a few more have been found since. >>
Do you happen to know whether they were deliberative or mistakes (i.e., errors)? Or, rather, I guess, what have you heard on that, if anything?
<< <i>
<< <i>Here'e the rest of the article about the portable press. >>
Just to be on the safe side you and Duane ought to edit your replies so as to omit the photocopies of the book. I'm just sayin'... >>
Thanks Kurt. It's a point well-taken. Just so you know for your future use, one actual exception to the copyright laws is that use of copyrighted materials is allowed for 'educational' purposes. Arguably, Morgan's past and my follow up are educational in nature. I don't think either one of us or anyone involved in this thread is using the information for commercial reasons. That's not legal advice but just intended to be informational. Thank you.
Cladking - Thanks for the information on '43-D history. Sounds like authentication may be based partly on the chain of custody of that specific coin.
Duane
<< <i>
I believe a few more have been found since. >>
Do you happen to know whether they were deliberative or mistakes (i.e., errors)? Or, rather, I guess, what have you heard on that, if anything? >>
Many were found in circulation which suggests they were accidental.
There's no compelling reason to believe any must have been made
intentionally but this might no longer be knowable.
The reports of them appearing seemed random as well which is con-
sistent with accidental production. Had they been made all at once
they'd probably have been found together or in a single city.
<< <i>Thanks Kurt. It's a point well-taken. Just so you know for your future use, one actual exception to the copyright laws is that use of copyrighted materials is allowed for 'educational' purposes. Arguably, Morgan's past and my follow up are educational in nature. I don't think either one of us or anyone involved in this thread is using the information for commercial reasons. That's not legal advice but just intended to be informational. Thank you. >>
You're arguably trying to come in under copyright fair use. Good luck.
<< <i>Many were found in circulation which suggests they were accidental.
There's no compelling reason to believe any must have been made
intentionally but this might no longer be knowable.
The reports of them appearing seemed random as well which is con-
sistent with accidental production. Had they been made all at once
they'd probably have been found together or in a single city. >>
I see. I'll say this. I never suspected it could be an issue until I read this thread.
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks Kurt. It's a point well-taken. Just so you know for your future use, one actual exception to the copyright laws is that use of copyrighted materials is allowed for 'educational' purposes. Arguably, Morgan's past and my follow up are educational in nature. I don't think either one of us or anyone involved in this thread is using the information for commercial reasons. That's not legal advice but just intended to be informational. Thank you. >>
You're arguably trying to come in under copyright fair use. Good luck. >>
Sorry Kurt. I didn't intend my 'arguably' comment to be snide but see how you may have taken it that way. This really is a clear fair use of the Larson text. I practice IP law for a living, and can tell you this is about as clean as it gets. Just Google Section 107 of the Copyright Act and you'll see a million websites that characterize four general criterion which courts use to decide a fair use. This particular thread would fit right into one or all of the criteria. If you truly disagree with my assessment, we can take it off-line, and I can give you more information.
Regards,
Duane
Jon
This coin stimulates my curiosity big time, always wondering what is intentional.
It would be kinda neat to trace it back as to where it originated. When and where did it enter the hobby, and by whom.
<< <i>Sorry Kurt. I didn't intend my 'arguably' comment to be snide but see how you may have taken it that way. This really is a clear fair use of the Larson text. I practice IP law for a living, and can tell you this is about as clean as it gets. Just Google Section 107 of the Copyright Act and you'll see a million websites that characterize four general criterion which courts use to decide a fair use. This particular thread would fit right into one or all of the criteria. If you truly disagree with my assessment, we can take it off-line, and I can give you more information.
Regards,
Duane >>
Duane, I didn't take your use of that term like that, I can assure you, and I'm really at a loss as to how you jumped to that conclusion. You are arguably trying to come in under statutory fair use. I thought I was just making a statement of fact, acknowledging your argument, and letting the matter go at that.
Listen, no problem; take care.
<< <i>Amazing that the coin sold for as much as it did, but it makes sense that it would since [collectively] the '43 copper cents are the most popular error on U.S. coinage, and since this coin is unique, it should rightly be the most expensive error coin-which it is, and by a very long shot! >>
That begs the question, though, whether it's in fact an error.
Suspicious looking 43-D on eBay....looks more like copper/bronze than steel!!
eBay Link
<< <i>
<< <i>Sorry Kurt. I didn't intend my 'arguably' comment to be snide but see how you may have taken it that way. This really is a clear fair use of the Larson text. I practice IP law for a living, and can tell you this is about as clean as it gets. Just Google Section 107 of the Copyright Act and you'll see a million websites that characterize four general criterion which courts use to decide a fair use. This particular thread would fit right into one or all of the criteria. If you truly disagree with my assessment, we can take it off-line, and I can give you more information.
Regards,
Duane >>
Duane, I didn't take your use of that term like that, I can assure you, and I'm really at a loss as to how you jumped to that conclusion. You are arguably trying to come in under statutory fair use. I thought I was just making a statement of fact, acknowledging your argument, and letting the matter go at that.
Listen, no problem; take care. >>
No harm no foul, Kurt.
Take care,
Duane
"The 1943D Bronze cent was owned by a former Denver Mint employee who is believed to have struck it. This coin has the strongest strike of any 1943 bronze cent. Speculation has it that the person hand fed a bronze planchet into a coining press, struck it twice to bring up the design, then kept it. There are zinc fragments on both the obverse and reverse, which means that the dies were used to strike normal 1943 zinc-coated steel cents first. The coin was kept secret for years. After the person died, the coin was given to one of his children, who in 1996, consigned the coin to Superior Galleries to be auctioned. The coin was examined by ANACS in 1979 and declared “genuine.” In 1996, it was sent to NGC, where it received a grade of MS64BN. It has since been certified by PCGS as MS64BN. This coin recently sold for $212,750, the second highest price ever paid for a Lincoln cent."
I had heard that the Mint employee first struck it as a novelity, then hid it for years for fear of persecution from the Secret Service.
I heard that the letter from this individual was seen at NGC.
Kevin
<< <i>What I wrote in the Authoritative Reference on Lincoln cents on the 1943D copper cent
"The 1943D Bronze cent was owned by a former Denver Mint employee who is believed to have struck it. This coin has the strongest strike of any 1943 bronze cent. Speculation has it that the person hand fed a bronze planchet into a coining press, struck it twice to bring up the design, then kept it. There are zinc fragments on both the obverse and reverse, which means that the dies were used to strike normal 1943 zinc-coated steel cents first. The coin was kept secret for years. After the person died, the coin was given to one of his children, who in 1996, consigned the coin to Superior Galleries to be auctioned. The coin was examined by ANACS in 1979 and declared “genuine.” In 1996, it was sent to NGC, where it received a grade of MS64BN. It has since been certified by PCGS as MS64BN. This coin recently sold for $212,750, the second highest price ever paid for a Lincoln cent."
I had heard that the Mint employee first struck it as a novelity, then hid it for years for fear of persecution from the Secret Service.
I heard that the letter from this individual was seen at NGC.
Kevin >>
If it was struck clandestinely, is it an illegal piece as the Denver Mint employee feared?
From the description, I'm guessing that the identity of the Mint employee and the person's family are anonymous. If this is true, can this story be verified?
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.