@GoldenEgg said:
Argh! Way to rub it in my face, Dan!
Seriously though, you're doing more with it than I ever could in my collection. Though, it would have been the centerpiece.
I was scrolling through random eBay listings and I spotted it from a mile away (so to speak) shortly after it was listed. I was uncertain at the time what it was, exactly, but I really wanted it so as to use it in making a die. Obviously, I had no idea who else might be interested in it. But I wanted it as soon as possible so I made the deal. Although risky, I took the risk and scheduled a substantial "snipe" bid (higher than your offer). But I was able to secure it before that became necessary. After it was already in my hands and you had made the offer, the seller called me wanting to buy it back, so as to sell it to you. He was distraught at losing out on the potential of netting a lot more for it. After I had it in my hand I was confident in the authenticity. I could have ignored his call, but to be reasonable I offered the seller a fair amount of additional money. So the total amount I ended up paying is in the same ballpark as your offer.
Kudos to you for spotting it and recognizing the possible significance, just as I had done.
If you PM me your mailing address, I will send you one of the over-strikes as a "consolation" prize.
@dcarr said:
I was scrolling through random eBay listings and I spotted it from a mile away (so to speak) shortly after it was listed. I was uncertain at the time what it was, exactly, but I really wanted it so as to use it in making a die. Obviously, I had no idea who else might be interested in it. But I wanted it as soon as possible so I made the deal. Although risky, I took the risk and scheduled a substantial "snipe" bid (higher than your offer). But I was able to secure it before that became necessary. After it was already in my hands and you had made the offer, the seller called me wanting to buy it back, so as to sell it to you. He was distraught at losing out on the potential of netting a lot more for it. After I had it in my hand I was confident in the authenticity. I could have ignored his call, but to be reasonable I offered the seller a fair amount of additional money. So the total amount I ended up paying is in the same ballpark as your offer.
Kudos to you for spotting it and recognizing the possible significance, just as I had done.
If you PM me your mailing address, I will send you one of the over-strikes as a "consolation" prize.
You were willing to pay more than $6,000 for it, but sent the guy an offer for $500? That's crazy! But, I really do appreciate what you're doing with the piece. Many collectors will now have the benefit of seeing this design in use. It will be a very popular issue.
Are there any additional characteristics of the cast from your in-hand observation that affirm its authenticity, besides the rough surfaces?
@dcarr said:
I was scrolling through random eBay listings and I spotted it from a mile away (so to speak) shortly after it was listed. I was uncertain at the time what it was, exactly, but I really wanted it so as to use it in making a die. Obviously, I had no idea who else might be interested in it. But I wanted it as soon as possible so I made the deal. Although risky, I took the risk and scheduled a substantial "snipe" bid (higher than your offer). But I was able to secure it before that became necessary. After it was already in my hands and you had made the offer, the seller called me wanting to buy it back, so as to sell it to you. He was distraught at losing out on the potential of netting a lot more for it. After I had it in my hand I was confident in the authenticity. I could have ignored his call, but to be reasonable I offered the seller a fair amount of additional money. So the total amount I ended up paying is in the same ballpark as your offer.
Kudos to you for spotting it and recognizing the possible significance, just as I had done.
If you PM me your mailing address, I will send you one of the over-strikes as a "consolation" prize.
You were willing to pay more than $6,000 for it, but sent the guy an offer for $500? That's crazy! But, I really do appreciate what you're doing with the piece. Many collectors will now have the benefit of seeing this design in use. It will be a very popular issue.
Are there any additional characteristics of the cast from your in-hand observation that affirm its authenticity, besides the rough surfaces?
Thank you for the offer.
The $500 I offered was via PayPal gift, so I would have had no recourse (no way to get a refund) if he didn't send the casting or if it wasn't genuine. My backup plan was, of course, to bid in the auction. Actually, I was already the high bidder at the time I made the $500 offer.
I had an XRF test done on it and it is of a bronze formula that was in use at the time (1921), but less common today.
But the main reasoning for authentication is that the detail and relief height is correct, but also superior to any other original renditions of the coin or model. It would be very difficult to take a lesser coin or model and generate this casting from it.
From Dan's website he says the relief of the casting is basically double that of production 1921 coins when the scale is considered. DeFrancisci wanted that thing to be done in HIGH relief - similar to the original St Gaudens Double Eagle.
I suppose they probably reduced the relief while transferring the design with the Janvier lathe. As everyone knows, It was reduced further still for the 1922-35 issues. The coins we all know and love would have been staggeringly beautiful were it possible to practically implement the design on a large scale. The lettering and fine detail is SO much more beautiful than what we're producing today.
Now I'd like to figure out how to get Dan access to the obverse bronze so we can have a proper coin the way it was intended to be.
BTW, my 1917 1 oz and 2 oz coins are on order. Can't wait. To all the naysayers out there, I understand your position, but I'M HAVING FUN with my coins.
@BryceM said:
From Dan's website he says the relief of the casting is basically double that of production 1921 coins when the scale is considered. DeFrancisci wanted that thing to be done in HIGH relief - similar to the original St Gaudens Double Eagle.
I suppose they probably reduced the relief while transferring the design with the Janvier lathe. As everyone knows, It was reduced further still for the 1922-35 issues. The coins we all know and love would have been staggeringly beautiful were it possible to practically implement the design on a large scale. The lettering and fine detail is SO much more beautiful than what we're producing today.
Now I'd like to figure out how to get Dan access to the obverse bronze so we can have a proper coin the way it was intended to be.
BTW, my 1917 1 oz and 2 oz coins are on order. Can't wait. To all the naysayers out there, I understand your position, but I'M HAVING FUN with my coins.
It would definitely be interesting to study and measure the obverse casting. Based on the published photo of the obverse plaster, I suspect that the US Mint did not alter the relief detail or height very much (if at all) for the actual 1921 coins. The reverse was a different story, as we now know.
For the obverse of my current products, I used as a model the best-struck 1921 that I could find. It had detail equal to a proof. Here it is, in fact: ebay.com/itm/182407010724
Wow what a score Dan. A piece of history for sure. Just out of curiosity how did it come to be on your radar on eBay. Saved searches? Got a tip? Daily leg work? Not telling? I'm sure if it was widely viewed it would have been a bidding war. Just goes to show there are still treasures to be found out there.... if your looking hard enough. Congrats......BS
Absolutely incredible. I ordered a few of them today, but wish I had ordered a few more, especially of the limited to 50 coin. Did not see the limit when I ordered some others.
@BruceS said:
Wow what a score Dan. A piece of history for sure. Just out of curiosity how did it come to be on your radar on eBay. Saved searches? Got a tip? Daily leg work? Not telling? I'm sure if it was widely viewed it would have been a bidding war. Just goes to show there are still treasures to be found out there.... if your looking hard enough. Congrats......BS
Ps. Does the seller know the provenance?
It was a random thing that just happened to show up in something different I was looking for.
Of course, this is not the type of thing that a person would search specifically for, especially since it was not previously known to exist.
Love the 1917 peace bought several ! understand WW1 100th Anniversary ! but the broken sword peace dollar would have been better with 1920 closer to date it was designed! 1917 doesn't really jive with peace dollar
Now that you have the model in hand, do you have any speculation as to what the hole was for? Any metal rub or scratches that would indicate that it was hung somewhere or looped?
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.
@1940coupe said:
Love the 1917 peace bought several ! understand WW1 100th Anniversary ! but the broken sword peace dollar would have been better with 1920 closer to date it was designed! 1917 doesn't really jive with peace dollar
My plan is to also do similar (but different) products four years from now in 2021 for the 100th anniversary of the first Peace Dollar and the last Morgan Dollar. This year I'm doing products related to the 100th anniversary of WW1.
@CaptHenway said:
Now that you have the model in hand, do you have any speculation as to what the hole was for? Any metal rub or scratches that would indicate that it was hung somewhere or looped?
I don't see any wallowing of the hole or metal wear that would indicate it was ever hung and jostled about. But if the hanging was done carefully and it was left undisturbed, there wouldn't be any evidence or affects from that. I did apply some light machine oil to preserve it, and that acted as a type of weak solvent which resulted in the removal of some grime. It appeared the type of grime was consistent with atmospheric deposits from dirty air.
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.
Fantastic backstory! I believe that it has a found the most appropriate home and caretaker. I can't think of a more deserving outcome. It did not just end up in someone's collection, but was used to produce future numismatic treasures that many of us can enjoy. Well done Dan!
I'm curious about the history of this piece. Like where was it for these last near hundred years? Did it bounce around at 10 different flea markets or was it sitting in a desk drawer for 8 decades?
"I'll split the atom! I am the fifth dimension! I am the eighth wonder of the world!" -Gef the talking mongoose.
@kiyote said:
I'm curious about the history of this piece. Like where was it for these last near hundred years? Did it bounce around at 10 different flea markets or was it sitting in a desk drawer for 8 decades?
Cant wait to get mine ! But I really cant wait for Dans 2021 purposed peace dollar ! was wondering Dan Carr if US mint makes 100th anniversary peace dollar with 2021 date would that cause problem for your proposed 2021 peace dollar over strike cause you avoid dates of coins made by mint Question for Dan CarrOnly please
@1940coupe said:
Cant wait to get mine ! But I really cant wait for Dans 2021 purposed peace dollar ! was wondering Dan Carr if US mint makes 100th anniversary peace dollar with 2021 date would that cause problem for your proposed 2021 peace dollar over strike cause you avoid dates of coins made by mint Question for Dan CarrOnly please
I doubt the USMint will make a silver 2021 Peace dollar. Too much trouble -- I believe it literally requires an act of Congress.
But I fully expect a gold version. Just like they did for the 100th anniversary of the WLH, SLQ, and Merc... except maybe they'll go all-out for a high-relief Proof version.
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
@1940coupe said:
Cant wait to get mine ! But I really cant wait for Dans 2021 purposed peace dollar ! was wondering Dan Carr if US mint makes 100th anniversary peace dollar with 2021 date would that cause problem for your proposed 2021 peace dollar over strike cause you avoid dates of coins made by mint Question for Dan CarrOnly please
I doubt the USMint will make a silver 2021 Peace dollar. Too much trouble -- I believe it literally requires an act of Congress.
But I fully expect a gold version. Just like they did for the 100th anniversary of the WLH, SLQ, and Merc... except maybe they'll go all-out for a high-relief Proof version.
doesn't matter if its gold ! if it has 2021 date ! Question for Dan Carr
To clear up any confusion of thread readers:
1. The book "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" accurately quotes various documents relating to the Peace dollar. Any inconsistencies in description of the casts ordered in New York by James Fraser and others, is left to the reader to determine.
2. Fraser was the sculptor who ordered the casts for US Mint use and his comments are considered of greater reliability than those of others.
3. The documents are referenced to their location in NARA and other archives. Anyone can examine them and reach their own conclusions.
4. Nothing prevented de Francisci from making later casts from his models. He had many one-sided casts of his works made for use on a large display panel, and this might (or might not) have been one of those display samples. (Others are in the Smithsonian.)
5. The composition of the item recently sold at auction on ebay cannot be determined from photos. It also cannot be authenticated from photos.
6. If someone has access to the ebay item, evaluation and authentication by several competent numismatic experts would be the best next step. The preferred situation would be to have SI curators examine the item and compare it to others in their collection – especially if it is not magnetic.
@RogerB said:
To clear up any confusion of thread readers:
1. The book "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" accurately quotes various documents relating to the Peace dollar. Any inconsistencies in description of the casts ordered in New York by James Fraser and others, is left to the reader to determine.
2. Fraser was the sculptor who ordered the casts for US Mint use and his comments are considered of greater reliability than those of others.
3. The documents are referenced to their location in NARA and other archives. Anyone can examine them and reach their own conclusions.
Frasier said the casts were bronze. A later (26 December) letter from Fraser to Mint Director Baker indicates:
James Earle Fraser said:
... an added expense of $30 for two bronze casts of the models of the Peace Dollar".
Philadelphia Mint superintendent Styer said they were bronze:
Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Styer said:
I beg to advise you that we received at 2:30 P.M. today the plaster casts of both sides, and bronze castings of the obverse side of the models for the "Peace Dollar". The messenger who delivered these models stated to Mr. Morgan that Mr. Fraser said that the casting was poor, and suggested that we get an electrotype from obverse as well as the reverse side and if better than the one made in New York, to use it. Mr. Morgan is of the opinion that Mr. Fraser meant the casting was a little rough but he thinks it is not so much so as to give us trouble in reduction.
The bronze casting of the reverse was a failure and we must now get our electrotype from the reverse plaster cast here. It would be impossible to get electrotypes of both sides and make our reductions in time to produce coins this year. Mr. Morgan is quite satisfied that he will be able to get a satisfactory reduction from the casting made in New York.
Unless something unforeseen happens, and by using the New York casting, we ought to have dies for coinage by December 29th.
Respectfully, Freas Styer, Superinendent
That letter seems entirely competent and succinct, with no evidence contradicting it.
In your book, you said the casts were bronze:
@RogerB said:
the Peace dollar was an entirely mechanical reduction from either the bronze cast from 1921 or the artist model’s and galvano from 1922 or later.
They didn’t need galvanos in 1921 because hubs were reduced from copper or bronze casts.
That last statement is apparently half true - the 1921 obverse hub was from the casting but the reverse hub was from a galvano, according to Styer.
@RogerB said:
4. Nothing prevented de Francisci from making later casts from his models. He had many one-sided casts of his works made for use on a large display panel, and this might (or might not) have been one of those display samples. (Others are in the Smithsonian.)
This is true. However, no other broken sword casts have turned up in 95 years, not in private hands, in US Mint archives, or in the Smithsonian Institution. Some time after Morgan removed the sword from the 1921 master hub and coins were struck, De Francisci made new plasters which were close to the 1921 coins but with slight differences in the facial profile. These last plasters lacked the broken sword. These were apparently not made for the US Mint. They were made for De Francisci himself. If he had any personal bronze castings made for his "display board" they would have likely been from these plasters without the broken sword. There was a public disagreement with the broken sword iconography, and so De Francisci would probably have wanted his display board to show the model that was closest to the struck coins (without broken sword).
@RogerB said:
5. The composition of the item recently sold at auction on ebay cannot be determined from photos. It also cannot be authenticated from photos.
I have determined the composition. It is non-magnetic. I had an XRF test performed on it. The results indicate bronze, of a type typically used at that time (1921) and less used today. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I will post them when I get a chance.
@RogerB said:
6. If someone has access to the ebay item, evaluation and authentication by several competent numismatic experts would be the best next step. The preferred situation would be to have SI curators examine the item and compare it to others in their collection – especially if it is not magnetic.
Hopefully, the above will be helpful.
Your post is adding to the "confusion" in my opinion. But I welcome any contrasting information. I have yet to see any reference to "iron" casts other than your statements in this thread. If you have ANY reference which indicates iron casts, please cite it here, so as to truly clear up the "confusion".
@RogerB said:
If Mr. Carr will read the book, his questions will be answered -- As for his confusion, that is a matter for his own resolution.
Seriously? Ok, now I just gotta chime in with my 2 cents worth. Your comments on this thread were wrong - you're like the Donald of numismatics- you just can't admit it when you've misspoke. All you have to do is say "I misspoke" and nobody's gonna think the worse of you - refusing to own up to it is flat out embarrassing.
TDN - Very early in the thread I mistakenly mentioned bronze casts - which where normal for 1921. I attempted to correct that, and that introduced confusion for some. Did I misspeak - yes, and I said that long ago. The comments a couple of posts above are as accurate as can be made with the information available.
@RogerB said:
TDN - Very early in the thread I mistakenly mentioned bronze casts - which where normal for 1921. I attempted to correct that, and that introduced confusion for some. Did I misspeak - yes, and I said that long ago. The comments a couple of posts above are as accurate as can be made with the information available.
Good answer. You wouldn't believe the latitude you can get when this tack is taken.
Roger, in my opinion you didn't clear up any confusion. Your very first reply to this thread is still unedited and says it has to be magnetic to be legitimate, I'm assuming it's unedited because you still stand by that. Your second reply is completed changed and no longer has your comment that it should be an iron casting. I'm really slow so bear with me, I understand I can read your book and look up the various documents and archive material but I'm interested in your opinion here on this forum since you chose to comment on the thread and honestly I value your interpretation of all the various research over my own. My understanding is that in your opinion
If the casting is the one James Fraser ordered in New York for the US mint it should be cast iron?
If it's a bronze cast it could be a later cast by de Francisci from his own models but would have to be authenticated by many experts?
Going backward rarely takes us forward.
RE your questions.
"If the casting is the one James Fraser ordered in New York for the US mint it should be cast iron?"
Fraser was in NYC with a copy of each side of the coin models. He was awaiting a call from de Francisci that the designs had been approved. He was then to have 2 casts in iron made of each side and take them to the Philadelphia Mint, thus saving a day or two of time. His letters mention only iron casts. We know that at least one of each side made it to the Mint when de Francisci noticed that one of them was imperfect but said that George Morgan didn't think that would be a problem. The second pair of casts are not mentioned in any of Fraser's or de Francisci's papers. They might have also been sent to the Mint, or kept by de Francisci or by Fraser. Of course, we've often seen these kinds of things end up in junk and eventually yard sales - note the 1916 MacNeil quarter obverse with dolphins.
"If it's a bronze cast it could be a later cast by de Francisci from his own models but would have to be authenticated by many experts?"
If the item sold on ebay is not iron, then it could have been made at the time of the original iron ones, or later. De Francisci had one or more display boards including one-sided casts of his medals, bas reliefs, and coins. (The Smithsonian has the two 1921 Peace dollars with screw threads attached that were used on the display.)
In any event, the ebay item would have to be evaluated and authenticated. That would be simpler if it was iron, because of Fraser's documents. If it is not iron, then the process is more difficult because of the absence of a direct link to Fraser's comments.
That's really all that can be said until the owner comes forth with the ebay item for careful examination.
What an awesome find! Dan's bronze casting has to be legitimate , not sure how an expert examination could verify exactly who originally made it or when. Seems like Roger would be excited about this find rather than imo raining on the parade.
I quite agree, not that it matters, but this is an excellent find. A "You Suck" award ought to be given out!
I guess what I don't understand is that was not brought up first, and then a gentlemanly discussion entertained after that. I don't have an ax to grind in this, but am wondering if Roger is then saying Dan's citations are inaccurate?
Honestly, as a scientist I don't understand how the hypothesis that this be bronze and authentic has been systematically disproved or alternatively that this can not be accomplished. I sense a bit of softening in Roger's stance, and hope for a bit of dispassion in the discussions.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
The additional photos also suggest the ebay item might be an electrotype (aka: 'galvano'). But like everything else about the item, that awaits independent examination.
@RogerB said:
The additional photos also suggest the ebay item might be an electrotype (aka: 'galvano'). But like everything else about the item, that awaits independent examination.
It will be interesting to read the results.
Electrotypes are generally a copper shell filled with some other material (such as lead), and a seam is typically visible.
I have thoroughly examined the casting and there is no seam. An XRF test on the front matches a similar test on the reverse. Both tests show bronze. The insides of the drill hole show nothing but solid bronze. A "ping" test also indicates that it is solid bronze.
Comments
Argh! Way to rub it in my face, Dan!
Seriously though, you're doing more with it than I ever could in my collection. Though, it would have been the centerpiece.
I agree, CC...it is pretty extraordinary. And I can't wait to see mine!
Lance.
I was scrolling through random eBay listings and I spotted it from a mile away (so to speak) shortly after it was listed. I was uncertain at the time what it was, exactly, but I really wanted it so as to use it in making a die. Obviously, I had no idea who else might be interested in it. But I wanted it as soon as possible so I made the deal. Although risky, I took the risk and scheduled a substantial "snipe" bid (higher than your offer). But I was able to secure it before that became necessary. After it was already in my hands and you had made the offer, the seller called me wanting to buy it back, so as to sell it to you. He was distraught at losing out on the potential of netting a lot more for it. After I had it in my hand I was confident in the authenticity. I could have ignored his call, but to be reasonable I offered the seller a fair amount of additional money. So the total amount I ended up paying is in the same ballpark as your offer.
Kudos to you for spotting it and recognizing the possible significance, just as I had done.
If you PM me your mailing address, I will send you one of the over-strikes as a "consolation" prize.
You were willing to pay more than $6,000 for it, but sent the guy an offer for $500? That's crazy! But, I really do appreciate what you're doing with the piece. Many collectors will now have the benefit of seeing this design in use. It will be a very popular issue.
Are there any additional characteristics of the cast from your in-hand observation that affirm its authenticity, besides the rough surfaces?
Thank you for the offer.
The $500 I offered was via PayPal gift, so I would have had no recourse (no way to get a refund) if he didn't send the casting or if it wasn't genuine. My backup plan was, of course, to bid in the auction. Actually, I was already the high bidder at the time I made the $500 offer.
I had an XRF test done on it and it is of a bronze formula that was in use at the time (1921), but less common today.
But the main reasoning for authentication is that the detail and relief height is correct, but also superior to any other original renditions of the coin or model. It would be very difficult to take a lesser coin or model and generate this casting from it.
From Dan's website he says the relief of the casting is basically double that of production 1921 coins when the scale is considered. DeFrancisci wanted that thing to be done in HIGH relief - similar to the original St Gaudens Double Eagle.
I suppose they probably reduced the relief while transferring the design with the Janvier lathe. As everyone knows, It was reduced further still for the 1922-35 issues. The coins we all know and love would have been staggeringly beautiful were it possible to practically implement the design on a large scale. The lettering and fine detail is SO much more beautiful than what we're producing today.
Now I'd like to figure out how to get Dan access to the obverse bronze so we can have a proper coin the way it was intended to be.
BTW, my 1917 1 oz and 2 oz coins are on order.
Can't wait. To all the naysayers out there, I understand your position, but I'M HAVING FUN with my coins.
It would definitely be interesting to study and measure the obverse casting. Based on the published photo of the obverse plaster, I suspect that the US Mint did not alter the relief detail or height very much (if at all) for the actual 1921 coins. The reverse was a different story, as we now know.
For the obverse of my current products, I used as a model the best-struck 1921 that I could find. It had detail equal to a proof. Here it is, in fact: ebay.com/itm/182407010724
Wow what a score Dan. A piece of history for sure. Just out of curiosity how did it come to be on your radar on eBay. Saved searches? Got a tip? Daily leg work? Not telling? I'm sure if it was widely viewed it would have been a bidding war. Just goes to show there are still treasures to be found out there.... if your looking hard enough. Congrats......BS
Ps. Does the seller know the provenance?
eBay ID-bruceshort978
Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager.
Absolutely incredible. I ordered a few of them today, but wish I had ordered a few more, especially of the limited to 50 coin. Did not see the limit when I ordered some others.
It was a random thing that just happened to show up in something different I was looking for.
Of course, this is not the type of thing that a person would search specifically for, especially since it was not previously known to exist.
Love the 1917 peace bought several ! understand WW1 100th Anniversary ! but the broken sword peace dollar would have been better with 1920 closer to date it was designed! 1917 doesn't really jive with peace dollar
Now that you have the model in hand, do you have any speculation as to what the hole was for? Any metal rub or scratches that would indicate that it was hung somewhere or looped?
Good for you dcarr. Killer item.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
My plan is to also do similar (but different) products four years from now in 2021 for the 100th anniversary of the first Peace Dollar and the last Morgan Dollar. This year I'm doing products related to the 100th anniversary of WW1.
I don't see any wallowing of the hole or metal wear that would indicate it was ever hung and jostled about. But if the hanging was done carefully and it was left undisturbed, there wouldn't be any evidence or affects from that. I did apply some light machine oil to preserve it, and that acted as a type of weak solvent which resulted in the removal of some grime. It appeared the type of grime was consistent with atmospheric deposits from dirty air.
OK thanks.
Looking forward to being able to buy a 2021 dated High Relief Peace Dollar... can we do pre-orders????
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
does this make anyone else wonder what else might have been at sale were picker picked this up of historical importance that is lost to history ?
Fantastic backstory! I believe that it has a found the most appropriate home and caretaker. I can't think of a more deserving outcome. It did not just end up in someone's collection, but was used to produce future numismatic treasures that many of us can enjoy. Well done Dan!
Fantastic story, what a beautiful piece of history. Thanks for sharing Dan, and excellent acquisition!
all around collector of many fine things
The hole was to test the iron content.
I'm excited Daniel Carr obtained this bronze numismatic treasure and is now making his coin art with it !
I am looking forward to getting the 3 broken sword fantasies ordered up at 10:04AM 1-22-17.
I'd love to get some of these 1917 Broken Swords struck in deep cameo proofs, please ???
This informative and detailed thread made me join this outstanding website.
Thanks!
Lindy
Mine should be here soon too. Can't wait. This is probably the most anxious I've been waiting for a Carr package. #epic!
Well, just Love coins, period.
I'm curious about the history of this piece. Like where was it for these last near hundred years? Did it bounce around at 10 different flea markets or was it sitting in a desk drawer for 8 decades?
Aren't we all!
My 1st post to this forum. I just have to say.
I thought Daniel Carr's 1964 Peace Dollar was a great idea and they look amazing.
The new 1917 Peace Dollar with it's backstory and future story. Off the charts in every way.
Welcome to the CARRty!
My overstrike just came in. You outdid yourself Dan. These are spectacular!
Cant wait to get mine ! But I really cant wait for Dans 2021 purposed peace dollar ! was wondering Dan Carr if US mint makes 100th anniversary peace dollar with 2021 date would that cause problem for your proposed 2021 peace dollar over strike cause you avoid dates of coins made by mint Question for Dan CarrOnly please
I doubt the USMint will make a silver 2021 Peace dollar. Too much trouble -- I believe it literally requires an act of Congress.
But I fully expect a gold version. Just like they did for the 100th anniversary of the WLH, SLQ, and Merc... except maybe they'll go all-out for a high-relief Proof version.
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
doesn't matter if its gold ! if it has 2021 date ! Question for Dan Carr
I'm definitely in for the 2021 Peace to go along with the Buff 5c, Merc 10c, Stdg Lib 25c, and WL 50c.
To clear up any confusion of thread readers:
1. The book "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" accurately quotes various documents relating to the Peace dollar. Any inconsistencies in description of the casts ordered in New York by James Fraser and others, is left to the reader to determine.
2. Fraser was the sculptor who ordered the casts for US Mint use and his comments are considered of greater reliability than those of others.
3. The documents are referenced to their location in NARA and other archives. Anyone can examine them and reach their own conclusions.
4. Nothing prevented de Francisci from making later casts from his models. He had many one-sided casts of his works made for use on a large display panel, and this might (or might not) have been one of those display samples. (Others are in the Smithsonian.)
5. The composition of the item recently sold at auction on ebay cannot be determined from photos. It also cannot be authenticated from photos.
6. If someone has access to the ebay item, evaluation and authentication by several competent numismatic experts would be the best next step. The preferred situation would be to have SI curators examine the item and compare it to others in their collection – especially if it is not magnetic.
Hopefully, the above will be helpful.
Frasier said the casts were bronze. A later (26 December) letter from Fraser to Mint Director Baker indicates:
Philadelphia Mint superintendent Styer said they were bronze:
That letter seems entirely competent and succinct, with no evidence contradicting it.
In your book, you said the casts were bronze:
That last statement is apparently half true - the 1921 obverse hub was from the casting but the reverse hub was from a galvano, according to Styer.
This is true. However, no other broken sword casts have turned up in 95 years, not in private hands, in US Mint archives, or in the Smithsonian Institution. Some time after Morgan removed the sword from the 1921 master hub and coins were struck, De Francisci made new plasters which were close to the 1921 coins but with slight differences in the facial profile. These last plasters lacked the broken sword. These were apparently not made for the US Mint. They were made for De Francisci himself. If he had any personal bronze castings made for his "display board" they would have likely been from these plasters without the broken sword. There was a public disagreement with the broken sword iconography, and so De Francisci would probably have wanted his display board to show the model that was closest to the struck coins (without broken sword).
I have determined the composition. It is non-magnetic. I had an XRF test performed on it. The results indicate bronze, of a type typically used at that time (1921) and less used today. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I will post them when I get a chance.
Your post is adding to the "confusion" in my opinion. But I welcome any contrasting information. I have yet to see any reference to "iron" casts other than your statements in this thread. If you have ANY reference which indicates iron casts, please cite it here, so as to truly clear up the "confusion".
If Mr. Carr will read the book, his questions will be answered -- As for his confusion, that is a matter for his own resolution.
Seriously? Ok, now I just gotta chime in with my 2 cents worth. Your comments on this thread were wrong - you're like the Donald of numismatics- you just can't admit it when you've misspoke. All you have to do is say "I misspoke" and nobody's gonna think the worse of you - refusing to own up to it is flat out embarrassing.
TDN - Very early in the thread I mistakenly mentioned bronze casts - which where normal for 1921. I attempted to correct that, and that introduced confusion for some. Did I misspeak - yes, and I said that long ago. The comments a couple of posts above are as accurate as can be made with the information available.
.
Good answer. You wouldn't believe the latitude you can get when this tack is taken.
Roger, in my opinion you didn't clear up any confusion. Your very first reply to this thread is still unedited and says it has to be magnetic to be legitimate, I'm assuming it's unedited because you still stand by that. Your second reply is completed changed and no longer has your comment that it should be an iron casting. I'm really slow so bear with me, I understand I can read your book and look up the various documents and archive material but I'm interested in your opinion here on this forum since you chose to comment on the thread and honestly I value your interpretation of all the various research over my own. My understanding is that in your opinion
If the casting is the one James Fraser ordered in New York for the US mint it should be cast iron?
If it's a bronze cast it could be a later cast by de Francisci from his own models but would have to be authenticated by many experts?
Going backward rarely takes us forward.
RE your questions.
"If the casting is the one James Fraser ordered in New York for the US mint it should be cast iron?"
Fraser was in NYC with a copy of each side of the coin models. He was awaiting a call from de Francisci that the designs had been approved. He was then to have 2 casts in iron made of each side and take them to the Philadelphia Mint, thus saving a day or two of time. His letters mention only iron casts. We know that at least one of each side made it to the Mint when de Francisci noticed that one of them was imperfect but said that George Morgan didn't think that would be a problem. The second pair of casts are not mentioned in any of Fraser's or de Francisci's papers. They might have also been sent to the Mint, or kept by de Francisci or by Fraser. Of course, we've often seen these kinds of things end up in junk and eventually yard sales - note the 1916 MacNeil quarter obverse with dolphins.
"If it's a bronze cast it could be a later cast by de Francisci from his own models but would have to be authenticated by many experts?"
If the item sold on ebay is not iron, then it could have been made at the time of the original iron ones, or later. De Francisci had one or more display boards including one-sided casts of his medals, bas reliefs, and coins. (The Smithsonian has the two 1921 Peace dollars with screw threads attached that were used on the display.)
In any event, the ebay item would have to be evaluated and authenticated. That would be simpler if it was iron, because of Fraser's documents. If it is not iron, then the process is more difficult because of the absence of a direct link to Fraser's comments.
That's really all that can be said until the owner comes forth with the ebay item for careful examination.
Thank you Roger. That clears up your previous posts for me.
What an awesome find! Dan's bronze casting has to be legitimate , not sure how an expert examination could verify exactly who originally made it or when. Seems like Roger would be excited about this find rather than imo raining on the parade.
Personally, I feel that this pedantic bickering has derailed an otherwise fun and insanely interesting thread.
I quite agree, not that it matters, but this is an excellent find. A "You Suck" award ought to be given out!
I guess what I don't understand is that was not brought up first, and then a gentlemanly discussion entertained after that. I don't have an ax to grind in this, but am wondering if Roger is then saying Dan's citations are inaccurate?
Honestly, as a scientist I don't understand how the hypothesis that this be bronze and authentic has been systematically disproved or alternatively that this can not be accomplished. I sense a bit of softening in Roger's stance, and hope for a bit of dispassion in the discussions.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Yeah that link really confuses things. Maybe Roger found new evidence since that was created and hasn't updated it yet???
This is not true, according to your book.
A 26 December 1921 letter from Fraser to Mint Director Baker (referenced and quoted in your book):
Do you have ANY letter or other document from Fraser that you can cite which mentions "iron" casts ?
I could not find any such thing in the book.
The additional photos also suggest the ebay item might be an electrotype (aka: 'galvano'). But like everything else about the item, that awaits independent examination.
It will be interesting to read the results.
Electrotypes are generally a copper shell filled with some other material (such as lead), and a seam is typically visible.
I have thoroughly examined the casting and there is no seam. An XRF test on the front matches a similar test on the reverse. Both tests show bronze. The insides of the drill hole show nothing but solid bronze. A "ping" test also indicates that it is solid bronze.