<< <i>Now Dan, don't go practicing ageism. It is beneath you.
So what if Mrs. Miller was in her early to mid-70's in 1965? Some people are sharp as a tack in their 80's. Some people are fools at a much younger age.
As to Mr. Brown, how old was he when he told the story to Q. David Bowers? How old was he when he told the story to Walter Breen?
I have an aunt who just turned 96. When I saw her last Fall at a family gathering, I asked her about the house that she and my mother lived in back in the 1920's. She gave me the address and the nearest intersection.
Stick with facts, or opinions, but please stay away from slurs.
TD >>
30 years is a long time for recollections to change. But my main point is, we have no way to verify for certain that Brown correctly understood what Miller said in 1966. I'm certainly not saying that Miller was mentally lacking. Nor am I saying that about Brown. But we are getting the story second-hand, after a lot of time had passed, and so there could have been an unintentional miscommunication along the way. Note that we have retired Mint Foreman Lantz's story first-hand (via the video), and he seems entirely cognizant of the events.
But it appears that one account is in error. Either it is the reported Miller/Brown account, or the Lantz account. The Lantz (2012) and Treasury (1973) accounts are first-hand, so that is why I am inclined to go with those. >>
The Lantz account, if given in 2012, was 48 years after the fact. If 30 years is a long time, why should we put more faith in a recollection nearly twenty years older than that?
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
A thought on the Treasury account of the situation.
What else did you expect them to say?
A statement such as "Uhh, we melted most of them, some of them got out, we don't know how many and we don't know where they are.", would have admitted incompetence of the highest order.
Plus, it would have legalized any that got out.
So, in my opinion, Treasury felt compelled to say what they did. Maybe it was accurate, but it is certainly possible that it wasn't accurate, but it is ridiculous to think they would have said anything else.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>A thought on the Treasury account of the situation.
What else did you expect them to say?
A statement such as "Uhh, we melted most of them, some of them got out, we don't know how many and we don't know where they are.", would have admitted incompetence of the highest order.
Plus, it would have legalized any that got out.
So, in my opinion, Treasury felt compelled to say what they did. Maybe it was accurate, but it is certainly possible that it wasn't accurate, but it is ridiculous to think they would have said anything else. >>
+1
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>...we have no way to verify for certain that Brown correctly understood what Miller said in 1966...But we are getting the story second-hand, after a lot of time had passed, ....Note that we have retired Mint Foreman Lantz's story first-hand (via the video), and he seems entirely cognizant of the events. >>
Not to split hairs here, but isn't Mr. Browns' letter sent to CH, the contents which personally recollect his conversation with Ms. Miller in her office a first hand account? >>
Brown was not inside the Mint at the time the coins were produced. The story about Mint employees' opportunity to purchase two of the dollars on the day of their production comes from Miller, via Brown. If the letter in question had been written by Miller, I would consider it to be first-hand. But since it was relayed through Brown, I consider it to be second-hand.
<< <i>Now Dan, don't go practicing ageism. It is beneath you.
So what if Mrs. Miller was in her early to mid-70's in 1965? Some people are sharp as a tack in their 80's. Some people are fools at a much younger age.
As to Mr. Brown, how old was he when he told the story to Q. David Bowers? How old was he when he told the story to Walter Breen?
I have an aunt who just turned 96. When I saw her last Fall at a family gathering, I asked her about the house that she and my mother lived in back in the 1920's. She gave me the address and the nearest intersection.
Stick with facts, or opinions, but please stay away from slurs.
TD >>
30 years is a long time for recollections to change. But my main point is, we have no way to verify for certain that Brown correctly understood what Miller said in 1966. I'm certainly not saying that Miller was mentally lacking. Nor am I saying that about Brown. But we are getting the story second-hand, after a lot of time had passed, and so there could have been an unintentional miscommunication along the way. Note that we have retired Mint Foreman Lantz's story first-hand (via the video), and he seems entirely cognizant of the events.
But it appears that one account is in error. Either it is the reported Miller/Brown account, or the Lantz account. The Lantz (2012) and Treasury (1973) accounts are first-hand, so that is why I am inclined to go with those. >>
The Lantz account, if given in 2012, was 48 years after the fact. If 30 years is a long time, why should we put more faith in a recollection nearly twenty years older than that?
Sean Reynolds >>
This is true. But the Lantz account is first-hand. And in the video he seems entirely credible to me, with an apparent firm grasp on the events. Also, the final word on this from the US Treasury (1973 newsletter) is in agreement with Lantz's account. Of course, there is no way to know for sure which account is correct, the Brown/Miller account or the Gantz/Treasury account. But it can't be both.
<< <i>A thought on the Treasury account of the situation.
What else did you expect them to say?
A statement such as "Uhh, we melted most of them, some of them got out, we don't know how many and we don't know where they are.", would have admitted incompetence of the highest order.
Plus, it would have legalized any that got out.
So, in my opinion, Treasury felt compelled to say what they did. Maybe it was accurate, but it is certainly possible that it wasn't accurate, but it is ridiculous to think they would have said anything else. >>
If any of the coins were bagged and counted and reached the cashier, would the Treasury lie and say they weren't ? Maybe. But when corroborated by the Lantz account, I don't think any of the coins reached the cashier, especially if the minting, counting, transfer to the cashier, and purchase by Mint employees had to be done in a narrow window of a few hours.
<< <i>A thought on the Treasury account of the situation.
What else did you expect them to say?
A statement such as "Uhh, we melted most of them, some of them got out, we don't know how many and we don't know where they are.", would have admitted incompetence of the highest order.
Plus, it would have legalized any that got out.
So, in my opinion, Treasury felt compelled to say what they did. Maybe it was accurate, but it is certainly possible that it wasn't accurate, but it is ridiculous to think they would have said anything else. >>
If any of the coins were bagged and counted and reached the cashier, would the Treasury lie and say they weren't ? Maybe. But when corroborated by the Lantz account, I don't think any of the coins reached the cashier, especially if the minting, counting, transfer to the cashier, and purchase by Mint employees had to be done in a narrow window of a few hours. >>
Would the Treasury lie to protect itself? Perhaps.
And hasn't it been established by Mr. Burdette that the coins were in existence for several days? The window of opportunity could have been longer than just a few hours.
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>Now Dan, don't go practicing ageism. It is beneath you.
So what if Mrs. Miller was in her early to mid-70's in 1965? Some people are sharp as a tack in their 80's. Some people are fools at a much younger age.
As to Mr. Brown, how old was he when he told the story to Q. David Bowers? How old was he when he told the story to Walter Breen?
I have an aunt who just turned 96. When I saw her last Fall at a family gathering, I asked her about the house that she and my mother lived in back in the 1920's. She gave me the address and the nearest intersection.
Stick with facts, or opinions, but please stay away from slurs.
TD >>
30 years is a long time for recollections to change. But my main point is, we have no way to verify for certain that Brown correctly understood what Miller said in 1966. I'm certainly not saying that Miller was mentally lacking. Nor am I saying that about Brown. But we are getting the story second-hand, after a lot of time had passed, and so there could have been an unintentional miscommunication along the way. Note that we have retired Mint Foreman Lantz's story first-hand (via the video), and he seems entirely cognizant of the events.
But it appears that one account is in error. Either it is the reported Miller/Brown account, or the Lantz account. The Lantz (2012) and Treasury (1973) accounts are first-hand, so that is why I am inclined to go with those. >>
The Lantz account, if given in 2012, was 48 years after the fact. If 30 years is a long time, why should we put more faith in a recollection nearly twenty years older than that?
Sean Reynolds >>
This is true. But the Lantz account is first-hand. And in the video he seems entirely credible to me, with an apparent firm grasp on the events. Also, the final word on this from the US Treasury (1973 newsletter) is in agreement with Lantz's account. Of course, there is no way to know for sure which account is correct, the Brown/Miller account or the Gantz/Treasury account. But it can't be both. >>
I disagree, he did not come across as credible, imho he came across as a guy who was looking to be in the spotlight. He did not seemt obe a witness to the events but only to have worked there at the time and then trying to tie his timing to the actual events but it feel apart when he said he wasn't on that particular shift. To me he gave only general info to the sounds and times at the mint during those days but named nothing of substance. >>
I have met Michael Lantz and he's anything but someone seeking the spotlight.
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.
I don't know if the story I am about to tell was truth or a lie to receive some praise for being the owner.
Back in the early 70's I am guessing 1973-1974 I was standing outside a frequented B&M and chatting with a Vestpocket dealer I would see there ever so often. He was telling me how he was transitioning into becoming a traveling show dealer Working with some of his dealer friends. As we talked He opened up to me and said he did not like the old boy network he now found himself in. Then as though he was bragging that he was better then they he told me of his search for a 1964 peace dollar. I gave him the arugment as I had read that they were all supposedly melted He told me no that a few got out and he was able to obtain one! I was unblieving, but he repeated he had one. He had quite a bit of knowledge about the coin and sounded like he had been on the hunt. As I remember, But I also remember walking away thinking he was probably just bragging trying to get a response from me . I have no recollection of more details then these after all these years. I saw him at a few shows thereafter then never saw him again, I do not remember what his name was. Interesting that I remembered this conversation all these years.
Interestingly many years later I ran into a dealer that told me of a Very very rare U.S. 1907 Proof Philippine peso that a friend of his had. Again I was skeptical thinking maybe countertfeit. There was at the time only one known in the Bank of the philippine' s museum. Well a year or two later this second one showed up in a Pominent collectors collection, was displayed , talked about then and was certified as genuine and recently sold fo 6 figures.
<< <i>A thought on the Treasury account of the situation.
What else did you expect them to say?
A statement such as "Uhh, we melted most of them, some of them got out, we don't know how many and we don't know where they are.", would have admitted incompetence of the highest order. >>
It would seem. That's why they said this instead:
"All of the trial strikes for this proposed 1964 dollar were ordered destroyed under strict supervisory and accounting procedures required by Mint regulations. None reached the final stage of being counted, bagged and issued by the Mint's cashier as finished coins. Should anyone have such trial Mint-struck pieces in his possession, they are the property of the United states which it is entitled to recover since the pieces were never issued."
Basically governmentese for "We don't know ifor sure that they were all melted" as there would be no need to put out a news bulletin to tell people that they're not allowed to possess something that doesn't exist, would there?
<< <i>I remember that Bob Cohen was actively trying to buy one in the 1970's. I think that he later moved to Hawaii. Does anyone know if he is still anound? >>
That was Bob Cohen who was very openly trying to buy one in the late 60's and early 70's. He may have been the reason why the Treasury issued the 1973 letter saying that there were'nt any. Just speculation on my part.
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.
Per Roger W. Burdette, author of A Guide Book of Peace Dollars...
Please read the lengthy chapter about 1964-D Peace dollars in the book A Guide Book of Peace Dollars. It contains the latest research and information available nowhere else. Collectors will likely find many of the questions posted here already have been addressed.
<< <i>I disagree, he did not come across as credible, imho he came across as a guy who was looking to be in the spotlight. He did not seemt obe a witness to the events but only to have worked there at the time and then trying to tie his timing to the actual events but it feel apart when he said he wasn't on that particular shift. To me he gave only general info to the sounds and times at the mint during those days but named nothing of substance. >>
If he was only interested in being in the "spotlight", he could have said that he held one of the coins in his hand, examined it carefully, and that he had a chance to buy it. That would have gathered a great deal MORE attention than the testimony he actually gave.
<< <i>I disagree, he did not come across as credible, imho he came across as a guy who was looking to be in the spotlight. He did not seemt obe a witness to the events but only to have worked there at the time and then trying to tie his timing to the actual events but it feel apart when he said he wasn't on that particular shift. To me he gave only general info to the sounds and times at the mint during those days but named nothing of substance. >>
If he was only interested in being in the "spotlight", he could have said that he held one of the coins in his hand, examined it carefully, and that he had a chance to buy it. That would have gathered a great deal MORE attention than the testimony he actually gave. >>
Indeed!
However, he did a good job of keeping to the company line.
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 he was only interested in being in the "spotlight", he could have said that he held one of the coins in his hand, examined it carefully, and that he had a chance to buy it. That would have gathered a great deal MORE attention than the testimony he actually gave. >>
It comes down to credibility as to who to believe, Mr. Lantz or the Superintendent of the Denver Mint. I have no horse in this race, it was before my time and I have no 1964-D Peace dollars.
How departmentalized is the operations within the US Mint? Would a common laborer know all of the “ins and outs” of what is going on or is that something that mid to upper management would know? It has been mentioned that Mr. Lantz was a foreman within the US Mint at Denver, but was this his position at retirement or was he a foreman in May of 1965? Was the production of the 1964-D Peace dollars just a few days like Mr. Lantz states or was it a few weeks? Would the Superintendent of the Denver Mint know more about the overall operation of the Denver Mint or would a laborer?
What was the window of production on the 1964-D Peace dollars? I haven’t read Rodger’s book, so I’m not sure what time line he has established using his research. For purpose of discussion, if members could comment on the accuracy or mistakes in the following time line:
May 12, 1965, Treasury Secretary Henry H. Fowler gives permission to start production of silver dollars using the Peace dollar design and dated 1964.
May 13, 1965, The Denver Mint starts striking trial pieces of the 1964 Peace dollars.
May 15, 1965, President L.B. Johnson announces that the resuming of production of silver dollars has started.
May 15, 1965, The Denver Mint started producing Peace dollars intended for circulation.
May 24, 1965, Mint Director Eva Adams testifies at a Congressional House Subcommittee that the new Peace dollars being struck are trial pieces and that legislative approval had not yet been given for production of coins for official release.
May 24, 1965, President Johnson orders a halt to striking Peace Dollars and the Denver Mint ceases.
May 25, 1965, Treasury officials announce that silver dollar coin production had been suspended. Director Eva Adams orders the destruction of all recently struck 1964 Peace dollars.
May 26, 1965, the Denver Mint melts all of the newly minted 1964 Peace dollars.
May 28, 1965, all of the working dies for the 1964 silver dollars are mutilated.
@Caleb, much of that is answered by Roger Burdette in his Peace Dollar book and ATS.
As to how much a worker in one part of the Mint knows about what is going on in another part of the mint, who knows? All I know is that when I talked with Tom Rogers about the Cheerios dollars, he told me that the Engraving Department was still working on finalizing the design when the Promotions people, who did not know that the design had not been finalized yet, told the Production people to strike 5,500 of the coins for delivery to General Mills, because General Mills needed to get the coins holdered and placed in cereal boxes and shipped to stores before the Jan. 1 release.
The Production people did not know that Engraving was still fiddling with the design, so they struck the coins and shipped them. Engraving did not know that coins had been struck with a prototype design and shipped until I told Rogers about the Enhanced Tail Feather Cheerio coins. Nobody talked to nobody!
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.
Quite often we attribute to conspiracy what is mere incompetence. >>
Or indifference.
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>... a retired Denver Mint employee had told me about how the Mint had sold coins to employees on one day and frantically recalled them the next. The former employee told me that a friend of his had purchased two of the coins, and when asked for them back had told hisn superiors that he had spent them in a bar the night before. That is the bar reference in the letter. >>
In what year did the retired Denver Mint employee tell you this story ? >>
Circa 1980. When I started at the ANA in November of 1978 the rotunda at the front of the building had an old Denver Mint balance beam in the center of the rotunda. A call came back to ANACS that somebody up front had a question about some coins (a common occurence), and it was my turn to go up there. When I got there there was an elderly couple waiting, and the gentleman was looking at the balance beam.
He was quite animated by it, and volunteered the information that he used to use one of those beams when he worked at the Denver Mint in the weighing room. We spent a few minutes appreciating the beam before proceeding to the library to look at their coins (which, as I recall, were nothing special).
Because he had mentioned working at the Mint, I asked him if he had been working there when they struck the silver dollars back in the 1960's. He said that he was. I told him that I had heard a report that when the coins were struck that employees were allowed to buy them, but that they had then been required to return them, and asked if he could confirm this.
He said that it was true, and that employees were allowed to buy two coins each, but that he had not bothered to because they were just another coin to him. He then volunteered the story about his friend who did buy two of the dollars, and how when the man came in to work the next day he was told that if he did not return the coins to the Mint, and that he had told the people wanting the coins back that he had spent them in a bar the night before.
As I recall the balance beam was removed from the rotunda in 1981 when work began on enlarging the building (you could probably find out when this happened from back issues of the Numismatist in the Library there), so this would put the conversation sometime from 1979 to 1981.
TD
Bump for Mr. Keets
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.
RE: "That was Bob Cohen who was very openly trying to buy one in the late 60's and early 70's. He may have been the reason why the Treasury issued the 1973 letter saying that there were'nt any. Just speculation on my part."
Cohen's buying offers were cited by Mint/Treasury lawyers as part of the reason for the press release claiming 1964-D silver dollars were illegal. The "illegal" bit was added to a draft of the release - probably to frighten anyone who had a coin. There was and is no case law or precedent. This was not an admission that one of more escaped, but that the Denver Mint failed to make a complete physical count and verification prior to destruction. As things were done only by weight, and final coin and melt weights were "identical" the Mint Bureau lost the ability to publish a definitive, certified destruction certificate.
Bob Cohen is back in the Baltimore area where he came from. He came to the 2017 Fall Baltimore show and I talked to him for a while. He just stopped in to see if he still knew anyone. He is into trains, real and collectible now.
a retired Denver Mint employee had told me about how the Mint had sold coins to employees on one day and frantically recalled them the next. The former employee told me that a friend of his had purchased two of the coins, and when asked for them back had told hisn superiors that he had spent them in a bar the night before. That is the bar reference in the letter.
In what year did the retired Denver Mint employee tell you this story ?
Circa 1980. When I started at the ANA in November of 1978 the rotunda at the front of the building had an old Denver Mint balance beam in the center of the rotunda. A call came back to ANACS that somebody up front had a question about some coins (a common occurence), and it was my turn to go up there. When I got there there was an elderly couple waiting, and the gentleman was looking at the balance beam.
He was quite animated by it, and volunteered the information that he used to use one of those beams when he worked at the Denver Mint in the weighing room. We spent a few minutes appreciating the beam before proceeding to the library to look at their coins (which, as I recall, were nothing special).
Because he had mentioned working at the Mint, I asked him if he had been working there when they struck the silver dollars back in the 1960's. He said that he was. I told him that I had heard a report that when the coins were struck that employees were allowed to buy them, but that they had then been required to return them, and asked if he could confirm this.
He said that it was true, and that employees were allowed to buy two coins each, but that he had not bothered to because they were just another coin to him. He then volunteered the story about his friend who did buy two of the dollars, and how when the man came in to work the next day he was told that if he did not return the coins to the Mint, and that he had told the people wanting the coins back that he had spent them in a bar the night before.
As I recall the balance beam was removed from the rotunda in 1981 when work began on enlarging the building (you could probably find out when this happened from back issues of the Numismatist in the Library there), so this would put the conversation sometime from 1979 to 1981.
TD
I wish there was a bit more to this story. It's unfortunate that the man's name is not known.
@CaptHenway said:
<< <i>I remember that Bob Cohen was actively trying to buy one in the 1970's. I think that he later moved to Hawaii. Does anyone know if he is still anound? >>
That was Bob Cohen who was very openly trying to buy one in the late 60's and early 70's. He may have been the reason why the Treasury issued the 1973 letter saying that there were'nt any. Just speculation on my part.
Now that his name is out, I will say that Bob Cohen is involved in the story of these coins. If he is alive, his comments would be like those of "totellthetruth" and the "Omega" man.
And so, the mystery continues..... But thanks for resurrecting this thread... there is a lot of information here...and the link to the letter still works as well. Cheers, RickO
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.
The US Mint in Carson City coined their first silver dollars on Feb 4, 1870 and Mint Super Abe Curry was giving presentation pieces out the same day. Don't know how things work back then and probably very different that 1964, but I do believe that 64's could have been made and "issued" to clients, dealers, customers, good friends, etc.
bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
Just going to repost Dan's letter for posterity since the original photobucket image crapped out, and somebody wanted to see it.
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.
Comments
<< <i>200 >>
????
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Now Dan, don't go practicing ageism. It is beneath you.
So what if Mrs. Miller was in her early to mid-70's in 1965? Some people are sharp as a tack in their 80's. Some people are fools at a much younger age.
As to Mr. Brown, how old was he when he told the story to Q. David Bowers? How old was he when he told the story to Walter Breen?
I have an aunt who just turned 96. When I saw her last Fall at a family gathering, I asked her about the house that she and my mother lived in back in the 1920's. She gave me the address and the nearest intersection.
Stick with facts, or opinions, but please stay away from slurs.
TD >>
30 years is a long time for recollections to change. But my main point is, we have no way to verify for certain that Brown correctly understood what Miller said in 1966.
I'm certainly not saying that Miller was mentally lacking. Nor am I saying that about Brown. But we are getting the story second-hand, after a lot of time had passed, and so there could have been an unintentional miscommunication along the way. Note that we have retired Mint Foreman Lantz's story first-hand (via the video), and he seems entirely cognizant of the events.
But it appears that one account is in error. Either it is the reported Miller/Brown account, or the Lantz account.
The Lantz (2012) and Treasury (1973) accounts are first-hand, so that is why I am inclined to go with those. >>
The Lantz account, if given in 2012, was 48 years after the fact. If 30 years is a long time, why should we put more faith in a recollection nearly twenty years older than that?
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
What else did you expect them to say?
A statement such as "Uhh, we melted most of them, some of them got out, we don't know how many and we don't know where they are.", would have admitted incompetence of the highest order.
Plus, it would have legalized any that got out.
So, in my opinion, Treasury felt compelled to say what they did. Maybe it was accurate, but it is certainly possible that it wasn't accurate, but it is ridiculous to think they would have said anything else.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>A thought on the Treasury account of the situation.
What else did you expect them to say?
A statement such as "Uhh, we melted most of them, some of them got out, we don't know how many and we don't know where they are.", would have admitted incompetence of the highest order.
Plus, it would have legalized any that got out.
So, in my opinion, Treasury felt compelled to say what they did. Maybe it was accurate, but it is certainly possible that it wasn't accurate, but it is ridiculous to think they would have said anything else. >>
+1
<< <i>
<< <i>...we have no way to verify for certain that Brown correctly understood what Miller said in 1966...But we are getting the story second-hand, after a lot of time had passed, ....Note that we have retired Mint Foreman Lantz's story first-hand (via the video), and he seems entirely cognizant of the events. >>
Not to split hairs here, but isn't Mr. Browns' letter sent to CH, the contents which personally recollect his conversation with Ms. Miller in her office a first hand account? >>
Brown was not inside the Mint at the time the coins were produced. The story about Mint employees' opportunity to purchase two of the dollars on the day of their production comes from Miller, via Brown. If the letter in question had been written by Miller, I would consider it to be first-hand. But since it was relayed through Brown, I consider it to be second-hand.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Now Dan, don't go practicing ageism. It is beneath you.
So what if Mrs. Miller was in her early to mid-70's in 1965? Some people are sharp as a tack in their 80's. Some people are fools at a much younger age.
As to Mr. Brown, how old was he when he told the story to Q. David Bowers? How old was he when he told the story to Walter Breen?
I have an aunt who just turned 96. When I saw her last Fall at a family gathering, I asked her about the house that she and my mother lived in back in the 1920's. She gave me the address and the nearest intersection.
Stick with facts, or opinions, but please stay away from slurs.
TD >>
30 years is a long time for recollections to change. But my main point is, we have no way to verify for certain that Brown correctly understood what Miller said in 1966.
I'm certainly not saying that Miller was mentally lacking. Nor am I saying that about Brown. But we are getting the story second-hand, after a lot of time had passed, and so there could have been an unintentional miscommunication along the way. Note that we have retired Mint Foreman Lantz's story first-hand (via the video), and he seems entirely cognizant of the events.
But it appears that one account is in error. Either it is the reported Miller/Brown account, or the Lantz account.
The Lantz (2012) and Treasury (1973) accounts are first-hand, so that is why I am inclined to go with those. >>
The Lantz account, if given in 2012, was 48 years after the fact. If 30 years is a long time, why should we put more faith in a recollection nearly twenty years older than that?
Sean Reynolds >>
This is true. But the Lantz account is first-hand. And in the video he seems entirely credible to me, with an apparent firm grasp on the events. Also, the final word on this from the US Treasury (1973 newsletter) is in agreement with Lantz's account. Of course, there is no way to know for sure which account is correct, the Brown/Miller account or the Gantz/Treasury account. But it can't be both.
<< <i>A thought on the Treasury account of the situation.
What else did you expect them to say?
A statement such as "Uhh, we melted most of them, some of them got out, we don't know how many and we don't know where they are.", would have admitted incompetence of the highest order.
Plus, it would have legalized any that got out.
So, in my opinion, Treasury felt compelled to say what they did. Maybe it was accurate, but it is certainly possible that it wasn't accurate, but it is ridiculous to think they would have said anything else. >>
If any of the coins were bagged and counted and reached the cashier, would the Treasury lie and say they weren't ?
Maybe. But when corroborated by the Lantz account, I don't think any of the coins reached the cashier, especially if the minting, counting, transfer to the cashier, and purchase by Mint employees had to be done in a narrow window of a few hours.
<< <i>
<< <i>A thought on the Treasury account of the situation.
What else did you expect them to say?
A statement such as "Uhh, we melted most of them, some of them got out, we don't know how many and we don't know where they are.", would have admitted incompetence of the highest order.
Plus, it would have legalized any that got out.
So, in my opinion, Treasury felt compelled to say what they did. Maybe it was accurate, but it is certainly possible that it wasn't accurate, but it is ridiculous to think they would have said anything else. >>
If any of the coins were bagged and counted and reached the cashier, would the Treasury lie and say they weren't ?
Maybe. But when corroborated by the Lantz account, I don't think any of the coins reached the cashier, especially if the minting, counting, transfer to the cashier, and purchase by Mint employees had to be done in a narrow window of a few hours. >>
Would the Treasury lie to protect itself? Perhaps.
And hasn't it been established by Mr. Burdette that the coins were in existence for several days? The window of opportunity could have been longer than just a few hours.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Now Dan, don't go practicing ageism. It is beneath you.
So what if Mrs. Miller was in her early to mid-70's in 1965? Some people are sharp as a tack in their 80's. Some people are fools at a much younger age.
As to Mr. Brown, how old was he when he told the story to Q. David Bowers? How old was he when he told the story to Walter Breen?
I have an aunt who just turned 96. When I saw her last Fall at a family gathering, I asked her about the house that she and my mother lived in back in the 1920's. She gave me the address and the nearest intersection.
Stick with facts, or opinions, but please stay away from slurs.
TD >>
30 years is a long time for recollections to change. But my main point is, we have no way to verify for certain that Brown correctly understood what Miller said in 1966.
I'm certainly not saying that Miller was mentally lacking. Nor am I saying that about Brown. But we are getting the story second-hand, after a lot of time had passed, and so there could have been an unintentional miscommunication along the way. Note that we have retired Mint Foreman Lantz's story first-hand (via the video), and he seems entirely cognizant of the events.
But it appears that one account is in error. Either it is the reported Miller/Brown account, or the Lantz account.
The Lantz (2012) and Treasury (1973) accounts are first-hand, so that is why I am inclined to go with those. >>
The Lantz account, if given in 2012, was 48 years after the fact. If 30 years is a long time, why should we put more faith in a recollection nearly twenty years older than that?
Sean Reynolds >>
This is true. But the Lantz account is first-hand. And in the video he seems entirely credible to me, with an apparent firm grasp on the events. Also, the final word on this from the US Treasury (1973 newsletter) is in agreement with Lantz's account. Of course, there is no way to know for sure which account is correct, the Brown/Miller account or the Gantz/Treasury account. But it can't be both. >>
I disagree, he did not come across as credible, imho he came across as a guy who was looking to be in the spotlight. He did not seemt obe a witness to the events but only to have worked there at the time and then trying to tie his timing to the actual events but it feel apart when he said he wasn't on that particular shift. To me he gave only general info to the sounds and times at the mint during those days but named nothing of substance. >>
I have met Michael Lantz and he's anything but someone seeking the spotlight.
The name is LEE!
Back in the early 70's I am guessing 1973-1974 I was standing outside a frequented B&M and chatting
with a Vestpocket dealer I would see there ever so often. He was telling me how he was transitioning into becoming a traveling show dealer
Working with some of his dealer friends. As we talked He opened up to me and said he did not like the old boy network he now found himself in.
Then as though he was bragging that he was better then they he told me of his search for a 1964 peace dollar. I gave him the arugment as I had read that they were all supposedly melted
He told me no that a few got out and he was able to obtain one! I was unblieving, but he repeated he had one. He had quite a bit of knowledge about the coin and sounded like he had been on the hunt. As I remember, But I also remember walking away thinking he was probably just bragging trying to get a response from me . I have no recollection of more details then these after all these years. I saw him at a few shows thereafter then never saw him again, I do not remember what his name was.
Interesting that I remembered this conversation all these years.
Interestingly many years later I ran into a dealer that told me of a Very very rare U.S. 1907 Proof Philippine peso that a friend of his had. Again I was skeptical thinking maybe countertfeit. There was at the time only one known in the Bank of the philippine' s museum. Well a year or two later this second one showed up in a Pominent collectors collection, was displayed , talked about then and was certified as genuine and recently sold fo 6 figures.
Krueger
<< <i>A thought on the Treasury account of the situation.
What else did you expect them to say?
A statement such as "Uhh, we melted most of them, some of them got out, we don't know how many and we don't know where they are.", would have admitted incompetence of the highest order. >>
It would seem. That's why they said this instead:
"All of the trial strikes for this proposed 1964 dollar were ordered destroyed under strict supervisory and accounting procedures required by Mint regulations. None reached the final stage of being counted, bagged and issued by the Mint's cashier as finished coins. Should anyone have such trial Mint-struck pieces in his possession, they are the property of the United states which it is entitled to recover since the pieces were never issued."
Basically governmentese for "We don't know ifor sure that they were all melted" as there would be no need to put out a news bulletin to tell people that they're not allowed to possess something that doesn't exist, would there?
<< <i>I remember that Bob Cohen was actively trying to buy one in the 1970's. I think that he later moved to Hawaii. Does anyone know if he is still anound? >>
That was Bob Cohen who was very openly trying to buy one in the late 60's and early 70's. He may have been the reason why the Treasury issued the 1973 letter saying that there were'nt any. Just speculation on my part.
Please read the lengthy chapter about 1964-D Peace dollars in the book A Guide Book of Peace Dollars. It contains the latest research and information available nowhere else. Collectors will likely find many of the questions posted here already have been addressed.
https://greatcollections.com/Collections/1120/The-Keyman64-Mercury-Dime-Collection/2024-07-07
<< <i>I disagree, he did not come across as credible, imho he came across as a guy who was looking to be in the spotlight. He did not seemt obe a witness to the events but only to have worked there at the time and then trying to tie his timing to the actual events but it feel apart when he said he wasn't on that particular shift. To me he gave only general info to the sounds and times at the mint during those days but named nothing of substance. >>
If he was only interested in being in the "spotlight", he could have said that he held one of the coins in his hand, examined it carefully, and that he had a chance to buy it. That would have gathered a great deal MORE attention than the testimony he actually gave.
<< <i>
<< <i>I disagree, he did not come across as credible, imho he came across as a guy who was looking to be in the spotlight. He did not seemt obe a witness to the events but only to have worked there at the time and then trying to tie his timing to the actual events but it feel apart when he said he wasn't on that particular shift. To me he gave only general info to the sounds and times at the mint during those days but named nothing of substance. >>
If he was only interested in being in the "spotlight", he could have said that he held one of the coins in his hand, examined it carefully, and that he had a chance to buy it. That would have gathered a great deal MORE attention than the testimony he actually gave. >>
Indeed!
However, he did a good job of keeping to the company line.
<< <i> If he was only interested in being in the "spotlight", he could have said that he held one of the coins in his hand, examined it carefully, and that he had a chance to buy it. That would have gathered a great deal MORE attention than the testimony he actually gave. >>
It comes down to credibility as to who to believe, Mr. Lantz or the Superintendent of the Denver Mint. I have no horse in this race, it was before my time and I have no 1964-D Peace dollars.
How departmentalized is the operations within the US Mint? Would a common laborer know all of the “ins and outs” of what is going on or is that something that mid to upper management would know? It has been mentioned that Mr. Lantz was a foreman within the US Mint at Denver, but was this his position at retirement or was he a foreman in May of 1965? Was the production of the 1964-D Peace dollars just a few days like Mr. Lantz states or was it a few weeks? Would the Superintendent of the Denver Mint know more about the overall operation of the Denver Mint or would a laborer?
What was the window of production on the 1964-D Peace dollars? I haven’t read Rodger’s book, so I’m not sure what time line he has established using his research. For purpose of discussion, if members could comment on the accuracy or mistakes in the following time line:
May 12, 1965, Treasury Secretary Henry H. Fowler gives permission to start production of silver dollars using the Peace dollar design and dated 1964.
May 13, 1965, The Denver Mint starts striking trial pieces of the 1964 Peace dollars.
May 15, 1965, President L.B. Johnson announces that the resuming of production of silver dollars has started.
May 15, 1965, The Denver Mint started producing Peace dollars intended for circulation.
May 24, 1965, Mint Director Eva Adams testifies at a Congressional House Subcommittee that the new Peace dollars being struck are trial pieces and that legislative approval had not yet been given for production of coins for official release.
May 24, 1965, President Johnson orders a halt to striking Peace Dollars and the Denver Mint ceases.
May 25, 1965, Treasury officials announce that silver dollar coin production had been suspended. Director Eva Adams orders the destruction of all recently struck 1964 Peace dollars.
May 26, 1965, the Denver Mint melts all of the newly minted 1964 Peace dollars.
May 28, 1965, all of the working dies for the 1964 silver dollars are mutilated.
As to how much a worker in one part of the Mint knows about what is going on in another part of the mint, who knows? All I know is that when I talked with Tom Rogers about the Cheerios dollars, he told me that the Engraving Department was still working on finalizing the design when the Promotions people, who did not know that the design had not been finalized yet, told the Production people to strike 5,500 of the coins for delivery to General Mills, because General Mills needed to get the coins holdered and placed in cereal boxes and shipped to stores before the Jan. 1 release.
The Production people did not know that Engraving was still fiddling with the design, so they struck the coins and shipped them. Engraving did not know that coins had been struck with a prototype design and shipped until I told Rogers about the Enhanced Tail Feather Cheerio coins. Nobody talked to nobody!
TD
<< <i>Nobody talked to nobody! >>
Quite often we attribute to conspiracy what is mere incompetence.
<< <i>
<< <i>Nobody talked to nobody! >>
Quite often we attribute to conspiracy what is mere incompetence. >>
Or indifference.
Bump for Mr. Keets
RE: "That was Bob Cohen who was very openly trying to buy one in the late 60's and early 70's. He may have been the reason why the Treasury issued the 1973 letter saying that there were'nt any. Just speculation on my part."
Cohen's buying offers were cited by Mint/Treasury lawyers as part of the reason for the press release claiming 1964-D silver dollars were illegal. The "illegal" bit was added to a draft of the release - probably to frighten anyone who had a coin. There was and is no case law or precedent. This was not an admission that one of more escaped, but that the Denver Mint failed to make a complete physical count and verification prior to destruction. As things were done only by weight, and final coin and melt weights were "identical" the Mint Bureau lost the ability to publish a definitive, certified destruction certificate.
Does anyone know what happened to Bob Cohen? I knew him back in the 70's.
Bob Cohen is back in the Baltimore area where he came from. He came to the 2017 Fall Baltimore show and I talked to him for a while. He just stopped in to see if he still knew anyone. He is into trains, real and collectible now.
I wish there was a bit more to this story. It's unfortunate that the man's name is not known.
.
Now that his name is out, I will say that Bob Cohen is involved in the story of these coins. If he is alive, his comments would be like those of "totellthetruth" and the "Omega" man.
And so, the mystery continues..... But thanks for resurrecting this thread... there is a lot of information here...and the link to the letter still works as well. Cheers, RickO
Bump
Has anyone lobbied to make possession of these legal?
The US Mint in Carson City coined their first silver dollars on Feb 4, 1870 and Mint Super Abe Curry was giving presentation pieces out the same day. Don't know how things work back then and probably very different that 1964, but I do believe that 64's could have been made and "issued" to clients, dealers, customers, good friends, etc.
bob
Snipe hunt.
Just going to repost Dan's letter for posterity since the original photobucket image crapped out, and somebody wanted to see it.
TD