There are more then a few members who wished they all looked like that picture with or without the word copy stamped on it
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If Mr. Carr possessed the ethical values of Ron Landis at the Gallery Mint, there would be no “issues.” However, it appears that is not the case, and whatever he claims is suspect.
<< <i>If Mr. Carr possessed the ethical values of Ron Landis at the Gallery Mint, there would be no “issues.” However, it appears that is not the case, and whatever he claims is suspect. >>
I'm sure you haven't consulted with Landis on this issue at all. He likely has entirely different ideas than you on the subject.
I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #5 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD
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.
<< <i>If Mr. Carr possessed the ethical values of Ron Landis at the Gallery Mint, there would be no “issues.” However, it appears that is not the case, and whatever he claims is suspect. >>
I choose not to judge someone's ethical value's ; unless they are a convicted criminal
<< <i>I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
all Mr. Carr's peace dollars were struck from a single set of dies
<< <i>I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
The newer die pairs have a die gouge, which is another diagnostic along the same lines that also differentiates the pairings.
<< <i>I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
all Mr. Carr's peace dollars were struck from a single set of dies >>
Four different reverse dies used. One with D repunched north-south, one with D repunched east-west, one with D not repunched and more or less centered under the O of One, and one with D not repunched but a bit to the left of the bottom of the O of One. This one has a faint die gouge to the right of the D.
So, I ask again: Was not the repunched D of the original release supposed to be an identifying characteristic that would identify Carr's strikings as a "so-called fantasy" issue to future generations?
How are people supposed to know that the apparently normal coins without the die characteristic are not genuine Denver Mint coins?
TD
Edited to add:
From Carr's website:
"The pictures accurately show what the coins look like. No photo editing was performed. There may be subtle differences between coins. Since they are over-struck on existing coins, there may be faint evidence of the original coin design showing since the overstrike is usually not perfectly aligned with the original strike. A die gouge to the right of the "D" mint mark provides a marker for future identification as to the source. Also note the fourth extra ray below "ONE", as seen on the original 1921 issue and on some of the 1935-S issue. Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
(This is Die Pair 6--TD)
Edited later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 18 of that fast thread that got locked:
Wednesday September 15, 2010 2:20 PM
<< So if no 1964 Peace dollars exists - how did you know what die alterations and markers to make to prevent it from looking like the real deal? >>
Here is the marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). The probablilty that an original surviving 1964-D Peace dollar (if any) would have this marker is nil:"
(Followed by a closeup picture of the D/D east-west die that is now designated in the blog as part of die pairs 4&5--TD)
Edited still later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 44 of that locked thread:
" I don't know how the potential market value of a hypothetical (as far as we know) orignal 1964-D Peace dollar would be affected by this fantasy issue. But, as stated before, I did intentionally put a definite marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). So there would be a way to differentiate one from the other (in the unlikely event the other exists). "
(This is the reverse used on die pairs 4&5--TD)
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.
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word. >>
Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands? >>
If they surfaced the mint would confiscate them and destroy them. >>
That doesn't address the issue of whether the government might be wrong or whether you have reason to doubt their word.. And I'm glad that I was able to answer my own question, since you didn't do so.
<<Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands?>>
<<Edited tio add, yes: <<.......It wouldn't surprise me if a few real 1964-D Peace dollars are in private hands....>> >>
i have not read the blog and apparently I should .......
The last I was told , all of the potential 2000 coins , starting with 222, would all be struck from the same pair of dies unless there was a die failure .
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word. >>
Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands? >>
If they surfaced the mint would confiscate them and destroy them. >>
That doesn't address the issue of whether the government might be wrong or whether you have reason to doubt their word.. And I'm glad that I was able to answer my own question, since you didn't do so.
<<Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands?>>
<<Edited tio add, yes: <<.......It wouldn't surprise me if a few real 1964-D Peace dollars are in private hands....>> >> >>
Is the possible existence of a few stray examples really relevant as long as the official position of the U.S. government is that none exists?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word. >>
Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands? >>
If they surfaced the mint would confiscate them and destroy them. >>
That doesn't address the issue of whether the government might be wrong or whether you have reason to doubt their word.. And I'm glad that I was able to answer my own question, since you didn't do so.
<<Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands?>>
<<Edited tio add, yes: <<.......It wouldn't surprise me if a few real 1964-D Peace dollars are in private hands....>> >> >>
Is the possible existence of a few stray examples really relevant as long as the official position of the U.S. government is that none exists? >>
I believe it's relevant. And that, whether they are aware of it or not, the government's official position might very well be incorrect. I'm sure some will agree and others will disagree with that.
Either way, you have posted "I have no reason to doubt the mint's word" but also "It wouldn't surprise me if a few real 1964-D Peace dollars are in private hands".
<< <i>I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
all Mr. Carr's peace dollars were struck from a single set of dies >>
Four different reverse dies used. One with D repunched north-south, one with D repunched east-west, one with D not repunched and more or less centered under the O of One, and one with D not repunched but a bit to the left of the bottom of the O of One. This one has a faint die gouge to the right of the D.
So, I ask again: Was not the repunched D of the original release supposed to be an identifying characteristic that would identify Carr's strikings as a "so-called fantasy" issue to future generations?
How are people supposed to know that the apparently normal coins without the die characteristic are not genuine Denver Mint coins?
TD
Edited to add:
From Carr's website:
"The pictures accurately show what the coins look like. No photo editing was performed. There may be subtle differences between coins. Since they are over-struck on existing coins, there may be faint evidence of the original coin design showing since the overstrike is usually not perfectly aligned with the original strike. A die gouge to the right of the "D" mint mark provides a marker for future identification as to the source. Also note the fourth extra ray below "ONE", as seen on the original 1921 issue and on some of the 1935-S issue. Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
Edited to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 18 of that fast thread that got locked:
Wednesday September 15, 2010 2:20 PM
<< So if no 1964 Peace dollars exists - how did you know what die alterations and markers to make to prevent it from looking like the real deal? >>
Here is the marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). The probablilty that an original surviving 1964-D Peace dollar (if any) would have this marker is nil:"
(Followed by a closeup picture of the D/D east-west die that is now designated in the blog as part of die pairs 4&5) >>
It seems pretty clear that his new diagnostic is listed there to reflect his current offerings with the new die pairing. His earlier comments likely were issued when he thought he had reached the limit of his die pairings for the overall minting, but since he created a new reverse die, he needed a new die marker, thus the gouge.
<< <i>Is the possible existence of a few stray examples really relevant as long as the official position of the U.S. government is that none exists? >>
The official government position a short time after striking the coins (according to Eva Adams, Director of the Mint) was that "all produced coins were accounted for and melted . . . None was preserved!”
But then, there's documented evidence that at least two 1964 dollars survived until 1970. According to Mint records, 28 of the 30 trial strikes were melted immediately -- but the other two were sent to Washington for optical, physical and spectrographic examination and remained there, in a Treasury vault, until the spring of 1970. At that time, the records show, they were melted. Four members of a destruction committee signed affidavits attesting to this.
So- who are you going to believe- the mint or the mint?
In addition to the mint mark identifiers (RPD / die gouge), Mr Carr also added an additional ray to the reverse design. A small fourth ray underneath "ONE" at the tip of the tailfeathers.
<< <i>In addition to the mint mark identifiers (RPD / die gouge), Mr Carr also added an additional ray to the reverse design. A small fourth ray underneath "ONE" at the tip of the tailfeathers.[/q
Cool, I did not notice the 4th ray until you pointed it out. Another marker to insure the uninformed coin collector does not spend 100,000 to buy what he thinks is the only 1964 peace dollar, stolen from the mint in the cover of darkness and hidden away in LBJ's SDB until offered to the lucky soul by LBJ's fifth cousin twice removed.
<< I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
all Mr. Carr's peace dollars were struck from a single set of dies >>
Not true. Read the blog.
CarrBlogLink
Four different reverse dies used. One with D repunched north-south, one with D repunched east-west, one with D not repunched and more or less centered under the O of One, and one with D not repunched but a bit to the left of the bottom of the O of One. This one has a faint die gouge to the right of the D.
So, I ask again: Was not the repunched D of the original release supposed to be an identifying characteristic that would identify Carr's strikings as a "so-called fantasy" issue to future generations?
How are people supposed to know that the apparently normal coins without the die characteristic are not genuine Denver Mint coins?
TD
Edited to add:
From Carr's website:
"The pictures accurately show what the coins look like. No photo editing was performed. There may be subtle differences between coins. Since they are over-struck on existing coins, there may be faint evidence of the original coin design showing since the overstrike is usually not perfectly aligned with the original strike. A die gouge to the right of the "D" mint mark provides a marker for future identification as to the source. Also note the fourth extra ray below "ONE", as seen on the original 1921 issue and on some of the 1935-S issue. Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
(This is Die Pair 6--TD)
Edited later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 18 of that fast thread that got locked:
Wednesday September 15, 2010 2:20 PM
<< So if no 1964 Peace dollars exists - how did you know what die alterations and markers to make to prevent it from looking like the real deal? >>
Here is the marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). The probablilty that an original surviving 1964-D Peace dollar (if any) would have this marker is nil:"
(Followed by a closeup picture of the D/D east-west die that is now designated in the blog as part of die pairs 4&5--TD)
Edited still later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 44 of that locked thread:
" I don't know how the potential market value of a hypothetical (as far as we know) orignal 1964-D Peace dollar would be affected by this fantasy issue. But, as stated before, I did intentionally put a definite marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). So there would be a way to differentiate one from the other (in the unlikely event the other exists). "
(This is the reverse used on die pairs 4&5--TD)
Just an observation: There seem to be more variations on the counterfeit die story than on the real thing!
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word. >>
Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands? >>
If they surfaced the mint would confiscate them and destroy them. >>
Given today's environment, I just do not think that this would happen. Again, referring back to how the government handled the 1933 Saint's confiscated in the 40's and 50's (destroyed) vs how they handled them in 2006 (displayed). Or, were they really destroyed?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
A great example of why they say "The Greatest Generation" will soon be gone forever. >>
Seems a bit harsh. When I see all those "greatest generation" folks bragging on a tv commercial about how their fancy motorized scooter chairs cost them nothing (I suppose after taxpayer subsidies) then I wonder if that label is a bit overblown.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
When I see all those "greatest generation" folks bragging on a tv commercial about how their fancy motorized scooter chairs cost them nothing (I suppose after taxpayer subsidies) then I wonder if that label is a bit overblown.
That's your argument??? No offense, but the "greatest generation" has earned their title. They don't sell scooter chairs, they are just the target market of this new tool. They do deserve them if they are in need. Seems today's generation deserves everything free!!!
A great example of why they say "The Greatest Generation" will soon be gone forever. >>
Seems a bit harsh. When I see all those "greatest generation" folks bragging on a tv commercial about how their fancy motorized scooter chairs cost them nothing (I suppose after taxpayer subsidies) then I wonder if that label is a bit overblown. >>
Be thoughtful now. Wouldn't want the younger generation thinking euthanasia of all seniors is the way to balance the budget around that time you get that AARP mailer.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but that generation also taught me to hold the door open for a woman, not to curse when people walk past you, and to put money in that red bucket EVERY time you walk past it if you can. They will have my respect till the day I check out.
A great example of why they say "The Greatest Generation" will soon be gone forever. >>
Seems a bit harsh. When I see all those "greatest generation" folks bragging on a tv commercial about how their fancy motorized scooter chairs cost them nothing (I suppose after taxpayer subsidies) then I wonder if that label is a bit overblown. >>
Be thoughtful now. Wouldn't want the younger generation thinking euthanasia of all seniors is the way to balance the budget around that time you get that AARP mailer.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but that generation also taught me to hold the door open for a woman, not to curse when people walk past you, and to put money in that red bucket EVERY time you walk past it if you can. They will have my respect till the day I check out. >>
You may want to consider how respect is earned. Your comment to the other member will garner you none.
There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "not market acceptable.
todays youthful generation spends most of their time on the computer , watching television, playing video games , texting on their cell phones, etc.
Most are overweight, borderline diabetic, out of shape,processed food eating , self centered, spoiled , irresponsible , spiritual depraved , new generations ..........
doomed to a future of co-dependent, lowly educated , jobless citizenship
<< <i>todays youthful generation spends most of their time on the computer , watching television, playing video games , texting on their cell phones, etc.
Most are overweight, borderline diabetic, out of shape,processed food eating , self centered, spoiled , irresponsible , spiritual depraved , new generations ..........
doomed to a future of co-dependent, lowly educated , jobless citizenship >>
Well said PawPaul!!! Now ecichlid, you seem to have a few screws loose....no respect for you! JRocco was dead on......do you even understand how respect is earned??....I seriously doubt it!!!
Sorry I derailed your thread Goldbully. I have spent too many years of my life teaching my children not to take what another man owns or has earned.... or saying something like " make them illegal after I get mine". Next time I will try to refrain. I owe you one Goldbully for derailing this thread.
<< <i>todays youthful generation spends most of their time on the computer , watching television, playing video games , texting on their cell phones, etc.
Most are overweight, borderline diabetic, out of shape,processed food eating , self centered, spoiled , irresponsible , spiritual depraved , new generations ..........
doomed to a future of co-dependent, lowly educated , jobless citizenship >>
Well said PawPaul!!! Now ecichlid, you seem to have a few screws loose....no respect for you! JRocco was dead on......do you even understand how respect is earned??....I seriously doubt it!!! >>
Blah blah balh balh. Senseless babble from someone who believes what the talking heads tell him. PawPaul and you need to feed the pigeons and discuss the problems of youth.
There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "not market acceptable.
<< <i>I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
all Mr. Carr's peace dollars were struck from a single set of dies >>
Four different reverse dies used. One with D repunched north-south, one with D repunched east-west, one with D not repunched and more or less centered under the O of One, and one with D not repunched but a bit to the left of the bottom of the O of One. This one has a faint die gouge to the right of the D.
So, I ask again: Was not the repunched D of the original release supposed to be an identifying characteristic that would identify Carr's strikings as a "so-called fantasy" issue to future generations?
How are people supposed to know that the apparently normal coins without the die characteristic are not genuine Denver Mint coins?
TD
Edited to add:
From Carr's website:
"The pictures accurately show what the coins look like. No photo editing was performed. There may be subtle differences between coins. Since they are over-struck on existing coins, there may be faint evidence of the original coin design showing since the overstrike is usually not perfectly aligned with the original strike. A die gouge to the right of the "D" mint mark provides a marker for future identification as to the source. Also note the fourth extra ray below "ONE", as seen on the original 1921 issue and on some of the 1935-S issue. Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
(This is Die Pair 6--TD)
Edited later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 18 of that fast thread that got locked:
Wednesday September 15, 2010 2:20 PM
<< So if no 1964 Peace dollars exists - how did you know what die alterations and markers to make to prevent it from looking like the real deal? >>
Here is the marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). The probablilty that an original surviving 1964-D Peace dollar (if any) would have this marker is nil:"
(Followed by a closeup picture of the D/D east-west die that is now designated in the blog as part of die pairs 4&5--TD)
Edited still later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 44 of that locked thread:
" I don't know how the potential market value of a hypothetical (as far as we know) orignal 1964-D Peace dollar would be affected by this fantasy issue. But, as stated before, I did intentionally put a definite marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). So there would be a way to differentiate one from the other (in the unlikely event the other exists). "
(This is the reverse used on die pairs 4&5--TD) >>
Let me ask again, please. How significant is it that Carr said he was using a repunched mint mark on his reverse die to diferentiate his strikes from a hypothetical original Denver Mint 1965 product, and then a few weeks later began selling strikes from a different reverse die without a repunched mint mark?
TD
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.
Goldbully
Posts: 16,864 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>If Mr. Carr possessed the ethical values of Ron Landis at the Gallery Mint, there would be no “issues.” However, it appears that is not the case, and whatever he claims is suspect. >>
I'm sure you haven't consulted with Landis on this issue at all. He likely has entirely different ideas than you on the subject.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD
<< <i>If Mr. Carr possessed the ethical values of Ron Landis at the Gallery Mint, there would be no “issues.” However, it appears that is not the case, and whatever he claims is suspect. >>
I choose not to judge someone's ethical value's ; unless they are a convicted criminal
<< <i>I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
all Mr. Carr's peace dollars were struck from a single set of dies
<< <i>I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
The newer die pairs have a die gouge, which is another diagnostic along the same lines that also differentiates the pairings.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
<< <i>I like the 64 obverse with the Denver Mint Centennial Reverse.
John >>
I agree with you, I would like to have that one ...
Whatever you are, be a good one. ---- Abraham Lincoln
<< <i>I like the 64 obverse with the Denver Mint Centennial Reverse.
John >>
Pure Copper.....Nice!!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
all Mr. Carr's peace dollars were struck from a single set of dies >>
Not true. Read the blog.
CarrBlogLink
Four different reverse dies used. One with D repunched north-south, one with D repunched east-west, one with D not repunched and more or less centered under the O of One, and one with D not repunched but a bit to the left of the bottom of the O of One. This one has a faint die gouge to the right of the D.
So, I ask again: Was not the repunched D of the original release supposed to be an identifying characteristic that would identify Carr's strikings as a "so-called fantasy" issue to future generations?
How are people supposed to know that the apparently normal coins without the die characteristic are not genuine Denver Mint coins?
TD
Edited to add:
From Carr's website:
"The pictures accurately show what the coins look like. No photo editing was performed. There may be subtle differences between coins. Since they are over-struck on existing coins, there may be faint evidence of the original coin design showing since the overstrike is usually not perfectly aligned with the original strike. A die gouge to the right of the "D" mint mark provides a marker for future identification as to the source. Also note the fourth extra ray below "ONE", as seen on the original 1921 issue and on some of the 1935-S issue. Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
(This is Die Pair 6--TD)
Edited later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 18 of that fast thread that got locked:
Wednesday September 15, 2010 2:20 PM
<< So if no 1964 Peace dollars exists - how did you know what die alterations and markers to make to prevent it from looking like the real deal? >>
Here is the marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). The probablilty that an original surviving 1964-D Peace dollar (if any) would have this marker is nil:"
(Followed by a closeup picture of the D/D east-west die that is now designated in the blog as part of die pairs 4&5--TD)
Edited still later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 44 of that locked thread:
" I don't know how the potential market value of a hypothetical (as far as we know) orignal 1964-D Peace dollar would be affected by this fantasy issue. But, as stated before, I did intentionally put a definite marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). So there would be a way to differentiate one from the other (in the unlikely event the other exists). "
(This is the reverse used on die pairs 4&5--TD)
and the odd thing was that the finish was not cited by him as a diagnostic.
<< <i>How are people supposed to know that the apparently normal coins without the die characteristic are not genuine Denver Mint coins? >>
The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible?
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word. >>
Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands?
Edited tio add, yes: <<.......It wouldn't surprise me if a few real 1964-D Peace dollars are in private hands....>>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word. >>
Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands? >>
If they surfaced the mint would confiscate them and destroy them.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word. >>
Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands? >>
If they surfaced the mint would confiscate them and destroy them. >>
That doesn't address the issue of whether the government might be wrong or whether you have reason to doubt their word.. And I'm glad that I was able to answer my own question, since you didn't do so.
<<Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands?>>
<<Edited tio add, yes: <<.......It wouldn't surprise me if a few real 1964-D Peace dollars are in private hands....>> >>
i have not read the blog and apparently I should .......
The last I was told , all of the potential 2000 coins , starting with 222, would all be struck from the same pair of dies unless there was a die failure .
his blog must say that has changed ........
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word. >>
Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands? >>
If they surfaced the mint would confiscate them and destroy them. >>
That doesn't address the issue of whether the government might be wrong or whether you have reason to doubt their word.. And I'm glad that I was able to answer my own question, since you didn't do so.
<<Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands?>>
<<Edited tio add, yes: <<.......It wouldn't surprise me if a few real 1964-D Peace dollars are in private hands....>> >> >>
Is the possible existence of a few stray examples really relevant as long as the official position of the U.S. government is that none exists?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>
Is the possible existence of a few stray examples really relevant as long as the official position of the U.S. government is that none exists? >>
This makes no sense whatsoever.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word. >>
Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands? >>
If they surfaced the mint would confiscate them and destroy them. >>
That doesn't address the issue of whether the government might be wrong or whether you have reason to doubt their word.. And I'm glad that I was able to answer my own question, since you didn't do so.
<<Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands?>>
<<Edited tio add, yes: <<.......It wouldn't surprise me if a few real 1964-D Peace dollars are in private hands....>> >> >>
Is the possible existence of a few stray examples really relevant as long as the official position of the U.S. government is that none exists? >>
I believe it's relevant. And that, whether they are aware of it or not, the government's official position might very well be incorrect. I'm sure some will agree and others will disagree with that.
Either way, you have posted "I have no reason to doubt the mint's word" but also "It wouldn't surprise me if a few real 1964-D Peace dollars are in private hands".
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
all Mr. Carr's peace dollars were struck from a single set of dies >>
Not true. Read the blog.
CarrBlogLink
Four different reverse dies used. One with D repunched north-south, one with D repunched east-west, one with D not repunched and more or less centered under the O of One, and one with D not repunched but a bit to the left of the bottom of the O of One. This one has a faint die gouge to the right of the D.
So, I ask again: Was not the repunched D of the original release supposed to be an identifying characteristic that would identify Carr's strikings as a "so-called fantasy" issue to future generations?
How are people supposed to know that the apparently normal coins without the die characteristic are not genuine Denver Mint coins?
TD
Edited to add:
From Carr's website:
"The pictures accurately show what the coins look like. No photo editing was performed. There may be subtle differences between coins. Since they are over-struck on existing coins, there may be faint evidence of the original coin design showing since the overstrike is usually not perfectly aligned with the original strike. A die gouge to the right of the "D" mint mark provides a marker for future identification as to the source. Also note the fourth extra ray below "ONE", as seen on the original 1921 issue and on some of the 1935-S issue. Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
Edited to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 18 of that fast thread that got locked:
Wednesday September 15, 2010 2:20 PM
<< So if no 1964 Peace dollars exists - how did you know what die alterations and markers to make to prevent it from looking like the real deal? >>
Here is the marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). The probablilty that an original surviving 1964-D Peace dollar (if any) would have this marker is nil:"
(Followed by a closeup picture of the D/D east-west die that is now designated in the blog as part of die pairs 4&5) >>
It seems pretty clear that his new diagnostic is listed there to reflect his current offerings with the new die pairing. His earlier comments likely were issued when he thought he had reached the limit of his die pairings for the overall minting, but since he created a new reverse die, he needed a new die marker, thus the gouge.
<< <i>Is the possible existence of a few stray examples really relevant as long as the official position of the U.S. government is that none exists? >>
The official government position a short time after striking the coins (according to Eva Adams, Director of the Mint) was that "all produced coins were accounted for and melted . . . None was preserved!”
But then, there's documented evidence that at least two 1964 dollars survived until 1970. According to Mint records, 28 of the 30 trial strikes were melted immediately -- but the other two were sent to Washington for optical, physical and spectrographic examination and remained there, in a Treasury vault, until the spring of 1970. At that time, the records show, they were melted. Four members of a destruction committee signed affidavits attesting to this.
So- who are you going to believe- the mint or the mint?
<< <i>In addition to the mint mark identifiers (RPD / die gouge), Mr Carr also added an additional ray to the reverse design. A small fourth ray underneath "ONE" at the tip of the tailfeathers.[/q
Cool, I did not notice the 4th ray until you pointed it out. Another marker to insure the uninformed coin collector does not spend 100,000 to buy what he thinks is the only 1964 peace dollar, stolen from the mint in the cover of darkness and hidden away in LBJ's SDB until offered to the lucky soul by LBJ's fifth cousin twice removed.
<< I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
all Mr. Carr's peace dollars were struck from a single set of dies >>
Not true. Read the blog.
CarrBlogLink
Four different reverse dies used. One with D repunched north-south, one with D repunched east-west, one with D not repunched and more or less centered under the O of One, and one with D not repunched but a bit to the left of the bottom of the O of One. This one has a faint die gouge to the right of the D.
So, I ask again: Was not the repunched D of the original release supposed to be an identifying characteristic that would identify Carr's strikings as a "so-called fantasy" issue to future generations?
How are people supposed to know that the apparently normal coins without the die characteristic are not genuine Denver Mint coins?
TD
Edited to add:
From Carr's website:
"The pictures accurately show what the coins look like. No photo editing was performed. There may be subtle differences between coins. Since they are over-struck on existing coins, there may be faint evidence of the original coin design showing since the overstrike is usually not perfectly aligned with the original strike. A die gouge to the right of the "D" mint mark provides a marker for future identification as to the source. Also note the fourth extra ray below "ONE", as seen on the original 1921 issue and on some of the 1935-S issue. Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
(This is Die Pair 6--TD)
Edited later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 18 of that fast thread that got locked:
Wednesday September 15, 2010 2:20 PM
<< So if no 1964 Peace dollars exists - how did you know what die alterations and markers to make to prevent it from looking like the real deal? >>
Here is the marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). The probablilty that an original surviving 1964-D Peace dollar (if any) would have this marker is nil:"
(Followed by a closeup picture of the D/D east-west die that is now designated in the blog as part of die pairs 4&5--TD)
Edited still later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 44 of that locked thread:
" I don't know how the potential market value of a hypothetical (as far as we know) orignal 1964-D Peace dollar would be affected by this fantasy issue. But, as stated before, I did intentionally put a definite marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). So there would be a way to differentiate one from the other (in the unlikely event the other exists). "
(This is the reverse used on die pairs 4&5--TD)
Just an observation: There seem to be more variations on the counterfeit die story than on the real thing!
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact that no coins with this date/mintmark exists according to the U.S. Mint may give them a clue. >>
Do you suppose there's a possibility that the U.S. Mint might sometimes be wrong about something? Or are they, in fact, infallible? >>
Until one surfaces, I have no reason to doubt the mint's word. >>
Didn't you recently post in one of these threads, something to the effect that you wouldn't be surprised if some were in private hands? >>
If they surfaced the mint would confiscate them and destroy them. >>
Given today's environment, I just do not think that this would happen. Again, referring back to how the government handled the 1933 Saint's confiscated in the 40's and 50's (destroyed) vs how they handled them in 2006 (displayed). Or, were they really destroyed?
The name is LEE!
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>Well stamp them after I get mine.... >>
A great example of why they say "The Greatest Generation" will soon be gone forever.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well stamp them after I get mine.... >>
A great example of why they say "The Greatest Generation" will soon be gone forever. >>
Seems a bit harsh. When I see all those "greatest generation" folks bragging on a tv commercial about how their fancy motorized scooter chairs cost them nothing (I suppose after taxpayer subsidies) then I wonder if that label is a bit overblown.
That's your argument??? No offense, but the "greatest generation" has earned their title. They don't sell scooter chairs, they are just the target market of this new tool. They do deserve them if they are in need. Seems today's generation deserves everything free!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Well stamp them after I get mine.... >>
A great example of why they say "The Greatest Generation" will soon be gone forever. >>
Seems a bit harsh. When I see all those "greatest generation" folks bragging on a tv commercial about how their fancy motorized scooter chairs cost them nothing (I suppose after taxpayer subsidies) then I wonder if that label is a bit overblown. >>
Be thoughtful now.
Wouldn't want the younger generation thinking euthanasia of all seniors is the way to balance the budget around that time you get that AARP mailer.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but that generation also taught me to hold the door open for a woman, not to curse when people walk past you, and to put money in that red bucket EVERY time you walk past it if you can.
They will have my respect till the day I check out.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Well stamp them after I get mine.... >>
A great example of why they say "The Greatest Generation" will soon be gone forever. >>
Seems a bit harsh. When I see all those "greatest generation" folks bragging on a tv commercial about how their fancy motorized scooter chairs cost them nothing (I suppose after taxpayer subsidies) then I wonder if that label is a bit overblown. >>
Be thoughtful now.
Wouldn't want the younger generation thinking euthanasia of all seniors is the way to balance the budget around that time you get that AARP mailer.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but that generation also taught me to hold the door open for a woman, not to curse when people walk past you, and to put money in that red bucket EVERY time you walk past it if you can.
They will have my respect till the day I check out. >>
You may want to consider how respect is earned. Your comment to the other member will garner you none.
Most are overweight, borderline diabetic, out of shape,processed food eating , self centered, spoiled , irresponsible , spiritual depraved , new generations ..........
doomed to a future of co-dependent, lowly educated , jobless citizenship
<< <i>todays youthful generation spends most of their time on the computer , watching television, playing video games , texting on their cell phones, etc.
Most are overweight, borderline diabetic, out of shape,processed food eating , self centered, spoiled , irresponsible , spiritual depraved , new generations ..........
doomed to a future of co-dependent, lowly educated , jobless citizenship >>
Well said PawPaul!!!
Now ecichlid, you seem to have a few screws loose....no respect for you!
JRocco was dead on......do you even understand how respect is earned??....I seriously doubt it!!!
I have spent too many years of my life teaching my children not to take what another man owns or has earned....
or saying something like " make them illegal after I get mine".
Next time I will try to refrain.
I owe you one Goldbully for derailing this thread.
<< <i>
<< <i>todays youthful generation spends most of their time on the computer , watching television, playing video games , texting on their cell phones, etc.
Most are overweight, borderline diabetic, out of shape,processed food eating , self centered, spoiled , irresponsible , spiritual depraved , new generations ..........
doomed to a future of co-dependent, lowly educated , jobless citizenship >>
Well said PawPaul!!!
Now ecichlid, you seem to have a few screws loose....no respect for you!
JRocco was dead on......do you even understand how respect is earned??....I seriously doubt it!!! >>
Blah blah balh balh. Senseless babble from someone who believes what the talking heads tell him. PawPaul and you need to feed the pigeons and discuss the problems of youth.
<< <i>EAT YOUR HEARTS OUT!!!!! Die 6!
I can see the die gouge from here.
<< <i>
<< <i>EAT YOUR HEARTS OUT!!!!! Die 6!
I can see the die gouge from here. >>
Nicks on the slab. Better get a new pair of eyes amigo.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>EAT YOUR HEARTS OUT!!!!! Die 6!
I can see the die gouge from here. >>
Nicks on the slab. Better get a new pair of eyes amigo. >>
I don't know if you are joking, but I can see the gouge to the right of the D.
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>EAT YOUR HEARTS OUT!!!!! Die 6!
I can see the die gouge from here. >>
Nicks on the slab. Better get a new pair of eyes amigo. >>
I don't know if you are joking, but I can see the gouge to the right of the D. >>
Come'on, are you drunk?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I thought that the "repunched mint mark" of Die Pair #1 was supposed to be die characteristic that would tell future generations that these were not genuine Denver Mint products.
Did I misunderstand that explanation earlier on?
I see that some of the later reverse dies do not have repunched mint marks. How significant is this?
TD >>
all Mr. Carr's peace dollars were struck from a single set of dies >>
Not true. Read the blog.
CarrBlogLink
Four different reverse dies used. One with D repunched north-south, one with D repunched east-west, one with D not repunched and more or less centered under the O of One, and one with D not repunched but a bit to the left of the bottom of the O of One. This one has a faint die gouge to the right of the D.
So, I ask again: Was not the repunched D of the original release supposed to be an identifying characteristic that would identify Carr's strikings as a "so-called fantasy" issue to future generations?
How are people supposed to know that the apparently normal coins without the die characteristic are not genuine Denver Mint coins?
TD
Edited to add:
From Carr's website:
"The pictures accurately show what the coins look like. No photo editing was performed. There may be subtle differences between coins. Since they are over-struck on existing coins, there may be faint evidence of the original coin design showing since the overstrike is usually not perfectly aligned with the original strike. A die gouge to the right of the "D" mint mark provides a marker for future identification as to the source. Also note the fourth extra ray below "ONE", as seen on the original 1921 issue and on some of the 1935-S issue. Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
(This is Die Pair 6--TD)
Edited later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 18 of that fast thread that got locked:
Wednesday September 15, 2010 2:20 PM
<< So if no 1964 Peace dollars exists - how did you know what die alterations and markers to make to prevent it from looking like the real deal? >>
Here is the marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). The probablilty that an original surviving 1964-D Peace dollar (if any) would have this marker is nil:"
(Followed by a closeup picture of the D/D east-west die that is now designated in the blog as part of die pairs 4&5--TD)
Edited still later to add:
From a posting by Mr. Carr on P. 44 of that locked thread:
" I don't know how the potential market value of a hypothetical (as far as we know) orignal 1964-D Peace dollar would be affected by this fantasy issue. But, as stated before, I did intentionally put a definite marker on mine (multi-punched mint mark). So there would be a way to differentiate one from the other (in the unlikely event the other exists). "
(This is the reverse used on die pairs 4&5--TD) >>
Let me ask again, please. How significant is it that Carr said he was using a repunched mint mark on his reverse die to diferentiate his strikes from a hypothetical original Denver Mint 1965 product, and then a few weeks later began selling strikes from a different reverse die without a repunched mint mark?
TD