Twenty-cent piece book ... an update
astrorat
Posts: 9,221 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hi folks,
A few people have asked so I thought I would post an update. John and I have finished the content and it is in the hands of a few external reviewers. The book should be off to the printers within a few weeks and ready for delivery at the ANA show this summer.
The website will be updated soon.
Thanks to all of you who have contributed comments and shared your coins with us.
Lane
A few people have asked so I thought I would post an update. John and I have finished the content and it is in the hands of a few external reviewers. The book should be off to the printers within a few weeks and ready for delivery at the ANA show this summer.
The website will be updated soon.
Thanks to all of you who have contributed comments and shared your coins with us.
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
0
Comments
BHNC #203
We are printing 200 copies (probably WAY too many!). The book will be spiral bound, 8.5 x 11" (just a tad smaller than quarto), and 171 pages. We are still working on a small printing of a full-color, hard-bound "collector" edition of about a dozen or so).
The retail price for the spiral bound edition will be $50 (or something really close to that).
We are currently updated the website to match the printed book's content and we will supplement with new findings, etc. as appropriate. We are also working to make the web version as friendly as possible to mobile devices so that the information can be easily accessed at a shop or show.
Access to the website will remain free.
Thanks again to everyone for their support and encouragement.
Here is the cover ...
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
to buy the book through the mail? If so please post an
address. Also the the price of the hard cover copy. My
checkbook is ready!!
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Great job, John.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
www.brunkauctions.com
1875 - 2,790
1876 - 1,260
1877 - 510
1878 - 760
Plus you stated for 1877 the total is ~350 as a number were melted when the series was abolished in 1878
that 1877 totals were ~600 because a number were melted when the series were abolished.
Questions
1. Where did you get the proof counts, assume they were from Breen, which most are incorrect.
What evidence/archive/research do you have to back these.
2. What evidence do you have to the effect that twenty cent proofs of 1877 and 1878 were melted?
You include no archive records/evidence or anything else to back up these claims. Did you research these?
Are you simply following Breen's claims?
The Red Book I believed originally followed Breen, but these totals were updated through archive records which showed the true totals.
Walter Breen claims the following in his Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proofs Coins 1722 - 1989 regarding twenty cent proof counts.
1875 - [2950] - 1950 proofs struck in second quarter and another 840 struck in second half of year. Of these 1000 and 1200 respectfully delivered leaving 590 on hand at the beginning of 1876.
1876 - [1260] - 590 left over from 1875. 360 struck in first quarter, 900 in the second quarter for a total of 1260 struck. Delivered 700 in first quarter and 700 in fourth quarter. Plus 590 left over from 1875 for a total of 1850 proofs, minus 1400 delivered makes 450 left over for 1877.
1877 - [350] - 450 left over from 1876. 350 struck during first quarter. 400 delivered in first quarter. 110 delivered at the end of the year. 290 left over for 1878.
1878 - [760 less an unknown meltage] - 290 left over from 1877. 760 struck in first quarter. 600 delivered in first quarter. Remaining 450 melted in June 1878.
Breen claims that it was possible that silver proof sets contained the previous years proof coinage. This was never practiced at the Mint during this period. In addition, letters from the National Archives in the 1870s show collectors being told at the beng of a new year that the previous year proof coins were no longer available.
It was not uncommon to have an unequal number of proof coins struck for each denomination. But during this period, proof coins were only sold as part of the sets. The only exception would have been first year of issue and for patterns that were sold in first year of issue, which were permitted to be sold as proofs if they identical to design, alloy, and size.
The dollar value of the silver sets transferred from the Coiner to the Mint Superintendent only reflected the face value of the silver coins. In 1874, the only silver coins were the Trade dollar, Liberty Seated half dollar, quarter, and dime (face value $1.85). With the twenty cent coin, the face value would have increased to $2.05. The minor coinage proofs are assumed to have been delivered in the same number as the silver coinage because all silver proof sets sold contained the minor proof coins. Proof coins could only be sold in either the gold sets, silver sets, or minor sets, with the exception of new issue coins, which could be sold individually.
Silver proof sets delivered from the Coiner to the Mint Superintendent, listed in the Gold and Silver Ledger, Record 62A.
1875 Proof Deliveries
Date of Delivery ---- Dollar Value --- Number of Sets
January 15, 1875 ---- $ 185.00 ----- 100 Silver Proof Sets (without 20 cent coin)
January 29, 1875 ---- $ 370.00 ------ 200 Silver Proof Sets (without 20 cent coin)
March 11, 1875 ------ $ 370.00 ------ 200 Silver Proof Sets (without 20 cent coin)
June 4, 1875 --------- $ 50.00 ------ 250 - 20 cent proofs
June 10, 1875 -------- $ 50.00 ------ 250 - 20 cent proofs
June 14, 1875 -------- $ 100.00 ------ 500 - 20 cent proofs
July 9, 1875 ----------- $ 102.50 ------ 50 Silver Proof Sets (with 20 cent coin)
August 30, 1875 ----- $ 102.50 ------ 50 Silver Proof Sets (with 20 cent coin)
September 27, 1875 - $ 205.00 ----- 100 Silver Proof Sets (with 20 cent coin)
1875 Summation
Total Silver proof sets without 20 cent coin - 500
Total Silver proof sets with 20 cent coin - 200
Total 20 cent proof coins not with sets - 1,000
Total Silver proof sets - 700
Total 20 cent proof coins - 1,200
Red Book Proof Totals: Dime - 700, Twenty Cent - 2,790, Quarter - 700, Half Dollar - 700, Trade Dollar - 700
1878 Proof Deliveries
Date of Delivery ---- Dollar Value ---- Number of Sets
January 29, 1878 ---- $ 410.00 ---- 200 Silver Proof Sets
February 8, 1878 ---- $ 205.00 ---- 100 Silver Proof Sets
February 19, 1878 ---- $ 205.00 ---- 100 Silver Proof Sets
March 18, 1878 ---- $ 410.00 ---- 200 Silver Proof Sets
1878 Summation
Total Silver proof sets with 20 cent coin - 600
Total Silver proof sets without 20 cent coin - 200
Red Book Proof Totals: Dime - 800, Twenty Cent - 600, Quarter - 800, Half Dollar - 800, Trade Dollar - 900, Morgan 750
In 1939, Wayte Raymond requested proof mintages from the Mint. The Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint Edwin H. Dressel sent a letter stating some of the regulations and proof counts to that point.
Under Number of Proof Pieces struck in Silver, the Superintendent of the Mint's 1939 report states for the years 1875 - 1878:
Year ---- Dime ---- Twenty ----Quarter -Half ------ Trade ---- Standard
----------------------- Cents ---- Dollar ---- Dollar ---- Dollar ---- Silver Dollar
1875 ---- 700 ---- 1,200 ----- 700 ----- 700 -------- 700 -------- 0
1876 ---- 1,150 -- 1,150 ----- 1,150 --- 1,150 ----- 1,150 ------ 0
1877 ---- 510 ---- 510 ------ 510 ----- 510 ------- 510 --------- 0
1878 ---- 800 ---- 600 ------ 800 ----- 800 ------- 900 --------- 550
If you have evidence, please back it up
Kevin
There are no archive records from the San Francisco Mint or Philadelphia Mint stating that coins were struck as proofs at San Francisco.
There is no 1875-S proof in the Smithsonian Collection.
The first specimen claimed to be a proof was in 1931, 56 years after they were struck.
There are no records of the sale or presentation or proof coins from the San Francisco Mint in 1875.
There are no specimens that can be traced back to dignateries, mint officials, or anyone else from 1875.
In R.B. White, 1974 article on this subject, White states that he had researched all newspapers from San Fran from this time period, and found no reference to any ceremony, coins being given/struc/sold as proofs.
There were 18 obverse and 18 reverse working dies sent to the San Francisco Mint in 1875, in the letter they were sent with, none were marked in any special way.
Can you explain any of this?
When I spoke to John previously on this issue, he agreed that there were no documents or other evidence to support they were struck as proofs.
From what he told me, his belief that they were struck as proofs was based upon the physical characteristics of the coin.
This is great, but I suggest changing the opening statement to reflect this, such as
"We believe there were several 1875-S Twenty cent pieces struck as proofs. There is no documents or other evidence to support the San Francisco Mint striking these as proofs, but the physical characteristics of the coins supports our conclusion that they are proofs. Perhaps they were struck to commemorate the first striking of a new denomination."
When you put something in writing, it is normally taken literally
If you can absolutely prove it was struck as a proof through records/evidence/coins that can be traced back to 1875, please provide.
Kevin
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Congratulations to Lane and John on their major accomplishment. I will be purchasing this book at the ANA!
On a side note, the envelope to Adam C. Eckfeldt from Dubois is something different. Adam C. was not the Chief Coiner in 1875. He would have had a personal relationship with Mint officials, but he was not associated with the Mint in an official capacity. Rather, he was Adam Eckfeldt's son. Adam Sr. was Chief Coiner from 1817 to 1839 (or approximately so--don't quote me on the years). I am friends with a direct descendent of John Jacob and Adam Eckfeldt, Sr. He has a lot of original family documentation from Adam Eckfeldt, Sr. all the way through to current times, including two of Adam Eckfeldt, Sr's official Mint appointments signed by James Madison and Andrew Jackson.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
<< <i>Thanks for the comments, everyone! >>
Lane,
Not just comments, these were questions.
Did you just copy Breen's proof counts? Can you support your proof totals in your site????
Can you support your assertions on the 1875-S so called branch mint proof??
Kevin
<< <i>Congratulations to Lane and John on their major accomplishment. I will be purchasing this book at the ANA!
On a side note, the envelope to Adam C. Eckfeldt from Dubois is something different. Adam C. was not the Chief Coiner in 1875. He would have had a personal relationship with Mint officials, but he was not associated with the Mint in an official capacity. Rather, he was Adam Eckfeldt's son. Adam Sr. was Chief Coiner from 1817 to 1839 (or approximately so--don't quote me on the years). I am friends with a direct descendent of John Jacob and Adam Eckfeldt, Sr. He has a lot of original family documentation from Adam Eckfeldt, Sr. all the way through to current times, including two of Adam Eckfeldt, Sr's official Mint appointments signed by James Madison and Andrew Jackson. >>
Excellent catch, Dennis! It's surprising the error got through so many reviews by some pretty bright folks. The erroneous information was from the Stacks' auction lot description and we (I) failed to verify. I believe A. Louden Snowden was the Chief Coiner at the US Mint in PA in 1875.
We'll make the change to the website as we update.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks for the comments, everyone! >>
Lane,
Not just comments, these were questions.
Did you just copy Breen's proof counts? Can you support your proof totals in your site????
Can you support your assertions on the 1875-S so called branch mint proof??
Kevin >>
Kevin,
Okay, then thanks for your questions.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks for the comments, everyone! >>
Lane,
Not just comments, these were questions.
Did you just copy Breen's proof counts? Can you support your proof totals in your site????
Can you support your assertions on the 1875-S so called branch mint proof??
Kevin >>
Kevin,
Okay, then thanks for your questions. >>
Lane,
The problem for the hobby is that if you use false/misleading information in your book, it will most likely be referenced directly/indirectly.
If you do not want to use the proof counts I have offered and the supporting documents that I can provide,
you can also request the same from Roger Burdette, who, I believed has offered you help and information.
If not, please validate these yourself, the Red Book now reflects the correct totals.
You can also ask John Dannreuther, who is probably the leading expert on 19th century proof coinage.
Its also incorrect to state that these proof coins were melted.
During different periods, different procedures were done to leftover proofs, it was usually up to the Director of the Mint
From 1861 through 1866, they were carried forward, then finally melted in 66.
During the 1870s, Roger Burdette has found evidence/archive records that these coins were released into circulation with the business strikes.
On the 1875-S, I am not suggest you not call these proofs, it is your opinion.
Only that you fix the first assertion that they were struck by the San Francisco Mint to commemorate the first striking of a new denomination.
Your own coauthor told me that he knew of no evidence to support this.
Please state as a theory or belief, not as a fact.
Kevin
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
<< <i>Lane - any word on hardbound / deluxe formats? >>
We are currently looking for a company to bind the "deluxe" format.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
.........................................
worth noting that Flynn’s recent book on Seated Liberty dollars has a similar problem. One such
difficulty, for example, is the 1,330 silver dollar proofs for 1860 reported by Breen but for which
Flynn says that the Archives have no such records. Unfortunately the Archives do in fact have the
information and it was used in the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine for September 1964.
not September as stated earlier. The sales records are reported in a separate article and explain how many of each
denomination were sold. Dates are not given for the issues after 1862 as these were covered in earlier NSM
articles for other denominations. The figures were taken from account books in RG 104.
In 1860 and 1861 proofs could be bought in sets or singly. The change to sets only was made by order of Mint
Director James Pollock at the beginning of 1862.
I did not say that your 20-cent figures were wrong, merely that you were criticizing someone when you had also
made mistakes on proof figures.
I know of no documentation for 1854 proof coins sold to the public.
1) It is known that individual proof coins were sold in 1860 and 1861 because the numbers
are found in the account books. The account books, however, are somewhat vague on the
exact number of odd proofs sold for the 1861 issue.
2) It is not correct to say that proof sets were first sold in 1858. Proof sets were sold to collectors
prior to that year but were not always ready early in the year. Snowden decided that proof sets
ought to be available early in the year, rather than later.
3) There were 1000 full silver proof sets (plus 330 dollars) delivered in 1860 but the number of
full sets sold was only a few hundred. Many of the odd pieces were later melted.
4) The posted article shows delivered coins; others may have been held in reserve but melted
at year’s end when not called for.
<< <i>I do know that sets were carried forward during this period, I have seen letters from 1865 where they were selling sets from 1860
I did not say proof sets were first sold in 1858, I said 'Director Snowden started selling sets of proofs to collectors in 1858",
proof sets were struck starting in 1834, but sold to/given/used primarily by Mint employees, government officials, dignitaries, people connected to the Mint.
In 1858, Director Snowden began offering them for sale to collectors or to the general public. >>
Comments:
1) Director Snowden began selling sets (as well as single proof coins) to collectors in 1855, after
Peale had been fired as chief coiner. The change in 1858 was simply that sets were now available
earlier in the year.
2) The purchasers of proof coins were primarily collectors, not government officials or dignitaries.
3) The public was allowed to obtain proof coins before 1834.
4) It is true that proof coins were sometimes presented to various entities, such as the Siam set, but this
was the exception, not the rule. It defies common sense to believe that non-collectors would have had
the slightest interest in proof coins.
5) The belief that proof coins were mostly presented to dignitaries was presumably started by someone
knowing little or nothing about Mint procedures. Someone had to pay for a coin, if a presentation piece,
and no such fiscal entry has been found in the Mint accounts. A proof dollar, for example, was worth a
significant sum in the 1840s and Chief Coiner Peale certainly wasn’t giving them away.
6) I find letters from January 30 and February 17, 1862, which indicate that 1860 proof coins were no
longer on hand. Those of 1861 were, however.
There are only a limited number of individuals who have have your level of knowledge of early Mint history and have researched the Philadelphia national archives to this extent, and have copies of the documents. Breen is dead, Taxey has not been around since the 70s, QDB knows the history, but I do not believe the archive records, Nancy Oliver and Rich Kelly mainly focus on San Fran, Rusty Goe mainly focus on Carson City, Roger Burdette is no longer on PCGS, Pete Smith I believe main has covered the beginning of the Mint and also the Eckfeldt family, David Lange and others have mainly covered a single series.
Given your not happy about me claiming to have refuted the 1860 LS Dollar proof totals you discovered from your research in 1964 and writing here about it.
Given you instant memory of the 1964 article by Julian and the mintages, very few people would have cared or known, or remembered the source of these totals.
The kicker was your use of denga for your signature, which when I looked up, is a Russian coin, remember from our conversations that your passion was Russian coinage.
Obviously you have my book.
You obviously know your Mint history, and the importance of accuracy
Given your displeasure of my claiming to have refuted proof mintages that (your research) uncovered. Why did you not just write me if you believed I was incorrect. I would have researched, and if I agreed with you, would have posted on here and in my other LS books the correct info, you have my email address and mailing address.
IMO, you should understand then why I am attempting to persuade these authors to research the total for the twenty cent proofs, the only thing that counts is the truth, when we know something is wrong, we should address it.
Unfortunately Mr. Flynn did not read very carefully what I had to say as is shown by the following typical example:
Franklin Peale was fired as Chief Coin by President Pearce in 1854, not 1855.
There are two problems with this statement. First of all, misspelling the name of the President is not a good start. Second,
Snowden in fact took over the selling of proofs in 1855, which is after December 1854 when President Franklin Pierce
fired Peale as chief coiner. Also, Peale was the chief coiner, not the chief coin.
It would take hours to look up all of the documents he demands as well as correcting the mistakes he makes in his latest
posting. I’ll pass. However, he might try reading the materials published by Professor Richard McCulloh in the early 1850s
if he really wishes to know more about the activities of Franklin Peale; it was, in fact, the charges made by McCulloh which
ultimately led to Peale’s ouster.
<< <i>The information that I posted is based on a knowledge of the Mint records as well as published accounts from other sources. >>
Yeah, Ok, so your saying you are not R.W. Julian?
You still have not answered the questions.
If you believed I was incorrect in my 1860 Dollar proof counts, why not just write me? This way I can see if I was wrong and update accordingly if the information was incorrect?
As this post was about twenty cent pieces, and I was challenging their proof counts, as you obviously believe accuracy is important, do you not think it is important that if we know something is wrong to address it?
As you obviously know the archives, please check my information on the twenty cent proofs as that was the subject I had originally presented and you had challenged in general by bringing the LS Dollars proof counts I presented.
I deleted my previous responses to your original posts as this was getting sidetracked from the original topic and series.
Obviously I make typos, but I find it funny that you skip the important questions. For example, you claim knowledge on pre-1858 proofs, but will not address or support your assertions. Not important now, a topic for a different thread if you wish, will gladly discuss there.
This is another one of those issues where technology is different for the young. Much is made about bringing new / younger people into the hobby. I know this is a small niche book, but would it not be better to be on the side of the rising tide, giving an example of how we can adapt to changing environments?
You never make money on a book like this considering ALL the work that has gone into it. The widest dissemination of the hours and hours of labor and writing seems to me to be the best reward for such a stirling effort.
<< <i>After you sell all the hard copies, has any consideration been given to making this an eBook? >>
We have not discussed an eBook, but that certainly is a possibility. We are currently updating the website which has all of the information that is in the book, and access is completely free. While not in an eBook format, it does serve a similar purpose. Thanks for the suggestion and we'll look into alternative electronic formats.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Probably because you deleted the original message with numerous questions and replaced it with a totally
different one. The part I quoted was deleted, which is not acceptable.
As this post was about twenty cent pieces, and I was challenging their proof counts, as you obviously believe accuracy is important, do you not think it is important that if we know something is wrong to address it?
You went about it the wrong way. The OP announced the publication of a book and you attacked it before
publication. This is also not acceptable.
As you obviously know the archives, please check my information on the twenty cent proofs as that was the subject I had originally presented and you had challenged in general by bringing the LS Dollars proof counts I presented.
I did not challenge your twenty-cent figures. I merely pointed out the double standard involved.
I deleted my previous responses to your original posts as this was getting sidetracked from the original topic and series.
Obviously I make typos, but I find it funny that you skip the important questions. For example, you claim knowledge on pre-1858 proofs, but will not address or support your assertions. Not important now, a topic for a different thread if you wish, will gladly discuss there. >>
You are still asking, in effect, that I do the research for you. I will pass.
<< <i>You still have not answered the questions.
As this post was about twenty cent pieces, and I was challenging their proof counts, as you obviously believe accuracy is important, do you not think it is important that if we know something is wrong to address it?
You went about it the wrong way. The OP announced the publication of a book and you attacked it before publication. This is also not acceptable. >>
You skipped the first question:
If you believed I was incorrect in my 1860 Dollar proof counts, why not just write me? This way I can see if I was wrong and update accordingly if the information was incorrect? IMO, you addressed this wrong, you should have brought it to my attention when you discovered it as you found it to be an issue.
On their work being published, it is published/copyrighted/.... online, and they invited people to review. A published work does not have to be in a physical book form. In addition, when they did the same in February, I addressed it then with the same subjects, which went unanswered and unsupported.
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=909405&highlight_key=y&keyword1=Twenty
<< <i>It's too bad that Lane's OP, intended just to bring us up to date on the status of the pending new double dime book, has been hijacked, and turned into an inane argument over details in the book. This is neither the time nor the place for such dispute. Perhaps MS70 put it best ... "*Sigh* The joys of coin collecting." John and Lane have worked hard to bring this new book to fruition, and they should not be criticized for their efforts, at least not in this thread. Every author of any numismatic reference work agonizes over the details in their work, wondering if there might be one more detail, one more variety, or some other element which should be included, and often chooses to delay publication in the hope that the overall work will be improved if just a little more time were spent. In engineering we call this 'creeping elegance', and in truth the extra time spent belaboring details seldom appreciably improves the overall work. I, for one, look forward to the publication of this book, and commend Lane and John for their significant contribution to numismatic study. And if, once published, we find a detail or two which need to be corrected, then so be it. We're all human. >>
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>It's too bad that Lane's OP, intended just to bring us up to date on the status of the pending new double dime book, has been hijacked, and turned into an inane argument over details in the book. This is neither the time nor the place for such dispute. Perhaps MS70 put it best ... "*Sigh* The joys of coin collecting." John and Lane have worked hard to bring this new book to fruition, and they should not be criticized for their efforts, at least not in this thread. Every author of any numismatic reference work agonizes over the details in their work, wondering if there might be one more detail, one more variety, or some other element which should be included, and often chooses to delay publication in the hope that the overall work will be improved if just a little more time were spent. In engineering we call this 'creeping elegance', and in truth the extra time spent belaboring details seldom appreciably improves the overall work. I, for one, look forward to the publication of this book, and commend Lane and John for their significant contribution to numismatic study. And if, once published, we find a detail or two which need to be corrected, then so be it. We're all human. >>
Would it not be better to address something incorrect before it is printed? Your right, we are human, and will make mistakes. Once it is printed though, it becomes a reference. You know how many people have stated over the years that it was in print by Breen or someone else, and therefore it must be true, irrelevant that it was proven false. On the 1875-S so called branch mint proof, John told me when I spoke to him that he knew of no supporting documents or otherwise regarding the San Fran Mint striking these as proofs or anything special. Yet they are asserting this as a fact on this subject.
There are also several experts in this field of archives, U.S. Mint history and other information. I know some have offered these authors assistance, such as providing them documentation to support the correct information.
Perhaps so, but you completely missed the point of my comments. This thread, intended only to bring interested parties up to date on the progress of the book, is neither the time nor the place for public criticism. Perhaps a private communication with the authors, one presented in a less confrontational manner, might bear more fruit.
<< <i>
Would it not be better to address something incorrect before it is printed? >>
Of course digital works can be updated at any time and if you track your purchases, you can send notice of updates to purchasers.
But.. we all know how you feel about that.
In regards to posts by Kevin and by Denga, my impression, which could be wrong, is that the main purpose of the book by Brunner & Frost is to itemize die varieties in detail. I suggest and I hope that Denga starts his own thread regarding when the Philadelphia Mint first sold Proof sets to the general public. I, for one, am very interested in the subject matter. I agree with some of the other participants, though, that this is not the most appropriate thread for such a discussion. Although Denga reports that Proof sets were sold to the public before 1858, does the year 1858 have special significance in that context for other reasons, perhaps relating to the marketing of Proof sets or the use of mail-order forms? Were sales more secretive prior to 1858? I would like for these questions to be answered in a new thread.
Brunner & Frost make imply, at least in the online version, that they are not focusing upon archival records. Indeed, they are not claiming to have done path breaking archival research or to have documented all the intentions of Mint employees in regard to 20c pieces. This book is mainly of use to people who are interested in die varieties. The authors deserve a great deal of credit for locating and analyzing the die characteristics of many individual coins. It is fair to the authors to consider whether they fulfilled their objectives. If their interpretations of such die varieties are thorough and accurate, then they may have done a wonderful job! Identifying and tracking die varieties is time-consuming and requires skill. We should thank Brunner & Frost for their efforts and detailed research
At a glance, their discussion of the 1875-S 20c pieces that are often catalogued as Proofs seems fair in regard to the die characteristics. The authors are not aiming to put forth a new definition of the term 'Proof.' I discuss the meaning of the term in many of my articles about 19th century silver coins, which I hope that Kevin and Denga will read.
Even though it is unsurprising that a book on die varieties would not thoroughly cover 1876-CC 20c pieces, I am disappointed that my research regarding 1876-CC, which is easily accessible via the Internet, is not cited by name. I have examined a large percentage of known 1876-CC 20c pieces. Indeed, I have examined more than one, certainly gradable, sub-60 1876-CC. The authors are welcome to quote me by name regarding the number extant.
Am I already being implicitly quoted? In 2009, I was the only researcher, as far as I know, who argued that fewer than 20 survive, a point which is made in the current online version of this book by Brunner & Frost. Before 2009, most others put forth far higher numbers, often saying that there are as many as 30 or even more.
I cite a list of articles on 1876-CC 20c pieces here, in a preview of a Jan. 2013 FUN auction
Three 1876-CC Twenty Cent Coins Sell in Spring 2009; Less than Twenty are Known! (Part 2 - Rarity, Quality & Condition Rankings)
I am no longer as enthusiastic about the Eliasberg 1876-CC.
The Incredible Gene Gardner Collection, part 2: Famous Coins in the June 23rd Auction
<< <i>In regards to posts by Kevin and by Denga, my impression, which could be wrong, is that the main purpose of the book by Brunner & Frost is to itemize die varieties in detail. I suggest and I hope that Denga starts his own thread regarding when the Philadelphia Mint first sold Proof sets to the general public. I, for one, am very interested in the subject matter. I agree with some of the other participants, though, that this is not the most appropriate thread for such a discussion. Although Denga reports that Proof sets were sold to the public before 1858, does the year 1858 have special significance in that context for other reasons, perhaps relating to the marketing of Proof sets or the use of mail-order forms? Were sales more secretive prior to 1858? I would like for these questions to be answered in a new thread.
Brunner & Frost make imply, at least in the online version, that they are not focusing upon archival records. Indeed, they are not claiming to have done path breaking archival research or to have documented all the intentions of Mint employees in regard to 20c pieces. This book is mainly of use to people who are interested in die varieties. The authors deserve a great deal of credit for locating and analyzing the die characteristics of many individual coins. It is fair to the authors to consider whether they fulfilled their objectives. If their interpretations of such die varieties are thorough and accurate, then they may have done a wonderful job! Identifying and tracking die varieties is time-consuming and requires skill. We should thank Brunner & Frost for their efforts and detailed research
At a glance, their discussion of the 1875-S 20c pieces that are often catalogued as Proofs seems fair in regard to the die characteristics. The authors are not aiming to put forth a new definition of the term 'Proof.' I discuss the meaning of the term in many of my articles about 19th century silver coins, which I hope that Kevin and Denga will read.
Even though it is unsurprising that a book on die varieties would not thoroughly cover 1876-CC 20c pieces, I am disappointed that my research regarding 1876-CC, which is easily accessible via the Internet, is not cited by name. I have examined a large percentage of known 1876-CC 20c pieces. Indeed, I have examined more than one, certainly gradable, sub-60 1876-CC. The authors are welcome to quote me by name regarding the number extant.
Am I already being implicitly quoted? In 2009, I was the only researcher, as far as I know, who argued that fewer than 20 survive, a point which is made in the current online version of this book by Brunner & Frost. Before 2009, most others put forth far higher numbers, often saying that there are as many as 30 or even more.
I cite a list of articles on 1876-CC 20c pieces here, in a preview of a Jan. 2013 FUN auction
Three 1876-CC Twenty Cent Coins Sell in Spring 2009; Less than Twenty are Known! (Part 2 - Rarity, Quality & Condition Rankings)
I am no longer as enthusiastic about the Eliasberg 1876-CC.
The Incredible Gene Gardner Collection, part 2: Famous Coins in the June 23rd Auction >>
Hi Greg,
I did start a separate thread on the Early American Proofs, Denga (R.W. Julian) has not responded to this. Your right, kinda got sidetracked with the discussion with Julian.
I agree that Brunner & Frost's book, after reviewing focuses on all die marriages, and does a good job on it. My only concern was on the proof counts, that were copied from Breen, and are incorrect based on the archive records.
On the 1875-S, I agree it has proof like strike and surfaces. My concern was there statement that it was struck to commemorate a new issue at the San Francisco Mint. This subject has been studied from all angles for years. There is no evidence to this effect anywhere.
My goal in presenting these subjects was two fold, they previously requested reviews of their material, I was trying to help them make their book as factual as possible for the material therein, and that once in writing in book form, it will become referenced, and if incorrect, then becomes a problem. I thought it better to present them with issues in their book before it was published rather than criticize it after.
In speaking with Steven (MrHalfDime), I understood his perspective, that there were possibly other ways that I could have presented the information.
Kevin