1947 Booker T. Washington's question.

devious

Were BTWs issued in cellophane for 1947 and stapled? Anybody have any insight? Also, while we're on the subject, can I get a good listing of books that are available on commemorative issued US coinage? Thanks!

Steve123

According to The Encyclopedia of United States Silver & Gold Commemorative Coins 1892 to 1954 (Swiatek and Breen), BTW's were mounted in a cellphane coin envelope and attached to a mailing card. Outside of the above mentioned book, A Guide Book of United States Commemorative Coins by Q. David Bowers is an excellent source for the history of commemorative coins.

truthteller

I have handled many BTW exonumia. The 1946s were never officially issued in any one type of envelope, but many differing types of mailers, cardholders and leatheretter holders, many of which were distributed far after the date 1946. To my knowledge, the 1947 issues had no mailers since there were plenty of 1946 dates to fill the demand. There are even Mardi Gra envelopes with the date 1947 containing 1946 BTWs. The rare mailers were Christmas cards containing the 1946 coin with an open oval exhibiting the coin. By the 1950s, many 1946 coins languished and were sold for 60C in drug and department stores with the coins in cellophane crinkley holders attached or stapled to advertising cards.



TRUTH

devious

Got them! Here's all three of them. The 1947-S is still even stapled. appears to never have been removed from the cellophane. They're all three going to PCGS. They are condition rarities no doubt. MS67+ The 1947-S is by far the best looking one and funny, it is still in its original cellophane with staple. I don't know why they were issued in cellophane like this, but I am baffled that these in such wonderful condition were still laying around in paper envelopes in somebody's dresser drawer.

Anyway, here's a bad photo of all three together including the one I put in a saflip. PDS!

I'll post back the grades when I get them to this thread.

Bear

The major problem with the BTW, was excessive die burn on the jaw. I have always felt

that the distraction was excessive and it annoyed me. On a very few coins, the burn is

so trivial it is not noticeable. Of course, such coins command a large premium.

devious

<< <i>The major problem with the BTW, was excessive die burn on the jaw. I have always felt

that the distraction was excessive and it annoyed me. On a very few coins, the burn is

so trivial it is not noticeable. Of course, such coins command a large premium. >>



Can you explain die burn, Bear? I hate to say it, but I think the San Francisco is a 68, even a 69. I said it.

Bear

It looks like scratches on the jaw, but it is Mint made.

devious

Okay, gotcha. I've seen that in many BTWs then. Never knew it was referred to as die burn. What do they do particularly that causes that in the dies?

PawPaul

I think Bear coined a new term " die burn " !

Bear

I am not absolutely sure, but die roughness is a possibility. The dies of both BTW and the Wash/Carver

were both, not prepared to the highest Mint Standards. Perhaps the anti blck sentiment of the day, played

a role in the dies preparation.