Thanks for that link to the Invincible Tequila -
That label is much newer than mine ! (from the '70s)
But the logo is the same.....good to know they're
still in business.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
@FredWeinberg said:
Thanks for that link to the Invincible Tequila -
That label is much newer than mine ! (from the '70s)
But the logo is the same.....good to know they're
still in business.
That was their "blanco", they also have a standard yellow tequilla which may have a different label.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
All MCMVII high relief double eagles were made the same way with the same equipment and dies. Any variation in appearance is part of a normal range of manufacturing. Further, there is no documentary evidence of any special MCMVII being made at any point.
The first 500 of these and the HR 1907 DE were made to show the President that his orders were being carried out. the MCMVII likely used the original 3-part collar (for the 3rd strike, only) that was used for the EHR patterns in February and March 1907.
Calling any of these coins a "proof" is a product of insufficient research and Breenish-guesswork by those making the claim, and then latter "tuchus covering" when caught not knowing what really happened. (I gladly take credit for exposing this in Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908.)
@FredWeinberg said:
My ole' bottle has yellow tequila in it !
I'm surprised it hasn't eaten through the bottle by now!
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.
PS: To establish a difference between the first 500 and any later ones, requires detailed examination of many fin-rim pieces - and this must be done outside of plastic holders.
Roger - 'tuchus covering' and 'exposing' on the same line !
....and the Tequila was always yellow, even back in the '70's.
(you know, kinda like the 50 pesos)
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
@RogerB said:
All MCMVII high relief double eagles were made the same way with the same equipment and dies. Any variation in appearance is part of a normal range of manufacturing. Further, there is no documentary evidence of any special MCMVII being made at any point.
The first 500 of these and the HR 1907 DE were made to show the President that his orders were being carried out. the MCMVII likely used the original 3-part collar (for the 3rd strike, only) that was used for the EHR patterns in February and March 1907.
Calling any of these coins a "proof" is a product of insufficient research and Breenish-guesswork by those making the claim, and then latter "tuchus covering" when caught not knowing what really happened. (I gladly take credit for exposing this in Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908.)
@RogerB said:
PS: To establish a difference between the first 500 and any later ones, requires detailed examination of many fin-rim pieces - and this must be done outside of plastic holders.
You have raised some questions but first I'll need to read the book this weekend.
BTW, the edges of these coins were studied decades before a TPGS was in anyone's mind. Today, they can also be examined before encasement.
One thing you wrote that I never gave any thought to was the operation of a medal press. I should have never guessed that the first two strikes were done without a collar! I should imagine the planchet would spread out a lot after two blows. The collar must have opened very wide and the coin would need to be struck at the same level as the press bed. Correct? Or, was the hole in the press bed huge? Or did a medal press even have a "bed?"
RE: "... first two strikes were done without a collar! "
Didn't say that. The first two were done with a plain collar. This also means the coins were made in small batches to avoid having to swap out the 3-part collar. I.e., give one blow to a bunch, then anneal & acid dip, then give them a 2nd blow anneal & acid dip, medal press collar, then 3rd blow, hope fin is not so high it will be rejected. Repeat.
@RogerB said:
RE: "... first two strikes were done without a collar! "
Didn't say that. The first two were done with a plain collar. This also means the coins were made in small batches to avoid having to swap out the 3-part collar. I.e., give one blow to a bunch, then anneal & acid dip, then give them a 2nd blow anneal & acid dip, medal press collar, then 3rd blow, hope fin is not so high it will be rejected. Repeat.
Was that plain collar a segmented, three-part collar? Otherwise it would have been danged near impossible to get back into the plain collar for the second strike.
If so, there may have been segment lines on the edge of the piece after the first and/or second strikes. If this lines up with the segment gap on the third strike you could never tell. Since the coin design had to be lined up with the anvil die recesses for the third strike, the segment dies probably lined up as well.
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.
@RogerB said:
RE: "... first two strikes were done without a collar! "
Didn't say that. The first two were done with a plain collar. This also means the coins were made in small batches to avoid having to swap out the 3-part collar. I.e., give one blow to a bunch, then anneal & acid dip, then give them a 2nd blow anneal & acid dip, medal press collar, then 3rd blow, hope fin is not so high it will be rejected. Repeat.
I'm reading this in your book now....Thanks. So, a metal press has a hole in the bed (as a regular press). The first two blows used plain collar. After a batch was done the plain collar is replaced by the segmented one for the third blow to finish the entire batch.
i guess the problem I'm having is because I have never seen the operation of a segmented collar while coins are being made. Where are the cams that open it and the entire segmented collar must fit into the same hole in the press bed as a regular collar.
Found out how it worked! Double collar with a normal one around the segmented one. Therefore, at least the outer collar had to be removed each time the struck coin was removed from the press.
Let me commend the work you have produced for all of us in the books RENAISSANCE of AMERICAN COINAGE.
Now, I wish I would have started reading it five years ago when I bought them.
Two different types of segmented collars. Who knew besides you and @jmlanzaf! Now the fun for researchers will be to figure which die combos were used with each type of collar.
RE: "Was that plain collar a segmented, three-part collar?"
Nope.
Just a plain, smooth collar the diameter of the coin inside the lettering. The 3-part collar was identical in diameter, but had incuse lettering and stars. Pressure from the 3rd strike forced the segments apart very slightly and that created the narrow vertical lines. European date production pieces show the same vertical lines for the same reason, except they, of course, got only one blow from a toggle press.
Also, everything was manually placed and aligned. In the book there's a mint estimate of the time it took to make one coin. I don't remember the number off hand.
RE: Segmented collars. There were several mechanical versions of this. The Mint experimented before and during circulation production with both the "cone collar" (British Royal Mint) and a "toggle" collar (Snowden 1885).
But if the coin was removed from the solid plain collar after the first strike for annealing and an acid bath, how was it put back into the solid plain collar for the second strike?Would have been an incredibly tight fit!
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.
Let me commend the work you have produced for all of us in the books RENAISSANCE of AMERICAN COINAGE.
Now, I wish I would have started reading it five years ago when I bought them.
Two different types of segmented collars. Who knew besides you and @jmlanzaf! Now the fun for researchers will be to figure which die combos were used with each type of collar.
I keep seeing it written that it took as many as 5 strikes for these coins. Process was incredibly laborious even for the experts. Regardless of who did the Omegas, why this coin? It was hard to make. It's not the most expensive coin they could have made. It was a coin likely to get a closer look.
And, for God's sake, if you go to all the trouble to try and counterfeit these, why would you sign the damn thing and risk giving it away? It would take an ego even bigger than Insider2. You have to wonder if the sculptor did it without the knowledge of his boss. Couldn't resist the desire to take credit for his work. If so, you'd think the Omega would be a clue to the identity of the sculptor. You wouldn't risk the whole operation to put a meaningless character on the coin, would you?
The plain collar would have been a snug fit. After the first annealing the partial coin had to be fit into the collar and aligned in the die so it matched the design. Nothing really unusual since some medals were made this way.
The article is wrong. Acid was always used after annealing gold. The purpose was to remove "copper scale" which was really traces of cupric oxide (CuO) produced during softening. If the annealing were done correctly, there might be little or no oxide.
MCMVII high relief pieces got 3 blows from a medal press.
Please read the darn book -- all of this is in there; took years to research and collect. Needless for me to keep repeating it....
Sorry -- frustrating that so many don't use the resources some of us "research folks" work so hard to get right, and then publish at considerable personal expense and loss.
@jmlanzaf said:
I keep seeing it written that it took as many as 5 strikes for these coins. Process was incredibly laborious even for the experts. Regardless of who did the Omegas, why this coin? It was hard to make. It's not the most expensive coin they could have made. It was a coin likely to get a closer look.
And, for God's sake, if you go to all the trouble to try and counterfeit these, why would you sign the damn thing and risk giving it away? It would take an ego even bigger than Insider2. You have to wonder if the sculptor did it without the knowledge of his boss. Couldn't resist the desire to take credit for his work. If so, you'd think the Omega would be a clue to the identity of the sculptor. You wouldn't risk the whole operation to put a meaningless character on the coin, would you?
The difficulty in minting this particular coin thus making it an odd choice perhaps adds credence to the theory that the counterfeiters we presented with un-cancelled dies. If you could acquire the dies, that would be a very strong reason to choose this coin over others regardless of the manufacturing difficulties. Or maybe more likely, they were also unaware of how difficult these would be to produce.
@jmlanzaf said:
I keep seeing it written that it took as many as 5 strikes for these coins. Process was incredibly laborious even for the experts. Regardless of who did the Omegas, why this coin? It was hard to make. It's not the most expensive coin they could have made. It was a coin likely to get a closer look.
And, for God's sake, if you go to all the trouble to try and counterfeit these, why would you sign the damn thing and risk giving it away? It would take an ego even bigger than Insider2. You have to wonder if the sculptor did it without the knowledge of his boss. Couldn't resist the desire to take credit for his work. If so, you'd think the Omega would be a clue to the identity of the sculptor. You wouldn't risk the whole operation to put a meaningless character on the coin, would you?
The difficulty in minting this particular coin thus making it an odd choice perhaps adds credence to the theory that the counterfeiters we presented with un-cancelled dies. If you could acquire the dies, that would be a very strong reason to choose this coin over others regardless of the manufacturing difficulties. Or maybe more likely, they were also unaware of how difficult these would be to produce.
Good point, Roger. It's not every day that a set of dies goes walking out the Mint door.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
C'mon all you experts. David and Buffalo just nailed it with your own research. The coins do exist, don't they? And now everyone knows how very, very hard (but not impossible) to make them without a set of genuine dies. Gee, leads credence...uh oh!
Oh Roger, you amaze me. You are clearly an expert. you sit back and read everything and rarely come out and post. Then you post something of importance and what happens...you get irritated and snarkey. You find out that members of this forum either don't read your posts or don't pay attention. You have to repeat answers to questions already asked and it is a waste of your time. You demand people read "the darn book" and you have to keep "repeating".
Well Gee Roger, isn't that the same thing some of your members did to me and let me add Roger when you stop answering questions you answered multiple times in the past, you are "avoiding and dodging" !. Pretty frustrating isn't it Roger? I guess there is no credibility to your post because you don' t want to answer the same questions or correct inaccurate posts over and over.
That's not what bothers me about you Roger. You see, you sat back in your closet and watched me take a pounding for the exact same reasons. You're smart. You read every post carefully. That's what you do. You knew the questions had been answered repeatedly and when I just ignored them, you just kept your mouth shut. You watched this thread deteriorate and then you jumped in and questioned my voracity because I want to serve my country and try to make it great again.
You may be an expert, but you live your life completely different than I do. When I see wrong I step in and try to stop it. When I see a lack of integrity or honor, I put an end to it. I was raised that way. i could never, ever live like you.
@jmlanzaf said:
I keep seeing it written that it took as many as 5 strikes for these coins. Process was incredibly laborious even for the experts. Regardless of who did the Omegas, why this coin? It was hard to make. It's not the most expensive coin they could have made. It was a coin likely to get a closer look.
And, for God's sake, if you go to all the trouble to try and counterfeit these, why would you sign the damn thing and risk giving it away? It would take an ego even bigger than Insider2. You have to wonder if the sculptor did it without the knowledge of his boss. Couldn't resist the desire to take credit for his work. If so, you'd think the Omega would be a clue to the identity of the sculptor. You wouldn't risk the whole operation to put a meaningless character on the coin, would you?
The difficulty in minting this particular coin thus making it an odd choice perhaps adds credence to the theory that the counterfeiters we presented with un-cancelled dies. If you could acquire the dies, that would be a very strong reason to choose this coin over others regardless of the manufacturing difficulties. Or maybe more likely, they were also unaware of how difficult these would be to produce.
Except for two things:
1. they also made a $3 coin - did they also have a $3 die
2. According to 4T's, they weren't using the die to strike. They had created a clay model and then made dies by the normal method. They could have done this with any coin, or a casting of any coin - if they reversed the Janvier lathe.
I am sorry to have doubted your identity. But, in my defense, a member of the board did tell me they were posing as you and I had no reason (at that time) to doubt him.
@RogerB said:
Just to be clear - there are no "proof" MCMVII high relief double eagles and never were.
Would you or the long-time dealer who agreed with your post please expand on this comment. Your book is not where I can get at it.
BTW I take anything in Wikipedia to be an interesting starting point - something to be verified. `
By the way, you do know that PCGS agrees with Roger and the "long-time dealer". NGC sort of disagrees, although they oddly seem to claim that it is the collar is the only identifier of the proof, which is rather odd. In the normal production of a "proof", there should be some die marker.
What do you call a coin with a circulation strike but a proof rim? LOL
For years NGC and PCGS had a similar difference of opinion with regard to certain early issue Peace Dollars. Only in that case I believe PCGS finally came around to NGC's way of thinking.
LIkewise, didn't PCGS have a problem with certifying various copper coins and until more recent years the subject certified copper was to be found only in NGC holders?
I really hate to watch you guys struggle trying to figure this mystery out. As many of you know, good employees frequently are passed for promotion by others that are not good employees but had a connection. The years of frustration lead to bitterness and sometimes vindictive actions occur towards the company. The person who feels they were passed over can't get at the people who screwed them but they can act out against the company, sometimes thru their position.
Now suppose a master engraver was caught up in a bitter fight over a coin. There were two sides and the engraver picked the side that lost the battle. Unfortunately for the engraver, he is never promoted or his work is criticized improperly after the battle is over just because he was on the losing side. This in a small way sounds similar to the Battle between Gaudin and his family against the Mint itself as to the design of the St. Gaudin.
Years go by, and the embittered designer goes home at night and does what he usually does. He turns to his creative side and works on his private art projects. Maybe he even engraves a coin or two at home. His bitterness is consuming him and he begins to do things that are risky. He gets thoughts that are dangerous. Unfortunately, his little home project becomes frustrating as he is not getting the details and results he wants. He concludes he needs an actual die set to help with his home project. He is finding tremendous satisfaction that he is getting closer to getting even with his employer.
Oh, darn it...I can't remember the rest of this part of the story! BTW, Mr. omega was a genious.
@totellthetruth said:
I really hate to watch you guys struggle trying to figure this mystery out. As many of you know, good employees frequently are passed for promotion by others that are not good employees but had a connection. The years of frustration lead to bitterness and sometimes vindictive actions occur towards the company. The person who feels they were passed over can't get at the people who screwed them but they can act out against the company, sometimes thru their position.
Now suppose a master engraver was caught up in a bitter fight over a coin. There were two sides and the engraver picked the side that lost the battle. Unfortunately for the engraver, he is never promoted or his work is criticized improperly after the battle is over just because he was on the losing side. This in a small way sounds similar to the Battle between Gaudin and his family against the Mint itself as to the design of the St. Gaudin.
Years go by, and the embittered designer goes home at night and does what he usually does. He turns to his creative side and works on his private art projects. Maybe he even engraves a coin or two at home. His bitterness is consuming him and he begins to do things that are risky. He gets thoughts that are dangerous. Unfortunately, his little home project becomes frustrating as he is not getting the details and results he wants. He concludes he needs an actual die set to help with his home project. He is finding tremendous satisfaction that he is getting closer to getting even with his employer.
Oh, darn it...I can't remember the rest of this part of the story! BTW, Mr. omega was a genious.
Are we talking about the Italian engraver or the U.S. Mint employee?
I'm confused? Now there is bitter, vindictive engraver who actively sought out a die set? Previously there was a die set just presented by happen-stance to the mafia and an Italian engraver was then brought in. I'm having a hard time reconciling these two tales.
And I probably speak for a lot of forum members when I say that when you start insulting Roger and his integrity/honor, you've gone too far. Regardless if your purpose is to exposure the truth or just make some coin geeks run around chasing their tales, insults don't help.
@RogerB said:
Just to be clear - there are no "proof" MCMVII high relief double eagles and never were.
Would you or the long-time dealer who agreed with your post please expand on this comment. Your book is not where I can get at it.
BTW I take anything in Wikipedia to be an interesting starting point - something to be verified. `
By the way, you do know that PCGS agrees with Roger and the "long-time dealer". NGC sort of disagrees, although they oddly seem to claim that the collar is the only identifier of the proof, which is rather odd. In the normal production of a "proof", there should be some die marker.
What do you call a coin with a circulation strike but a proof rim? LOL
First, I'll suggest you correct/edit this unfortunate misinformation you have posted as uninformed folks who do not have your experience may accept it as true: "NGC sort of disagrees, although **they oddly seem to claim that the COLLAR IS THE ONLY identifier of the [High Relief $20] proof, which is rather odd."
I agree. It is odd if you haven't read their online explanation. HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY HAVE POSTED about these coins! They have shown the diagnostics on the collar and both obverse and reverse dies found on the HR coins they call Proof.
Second, I'm truly sorry that anyone (blinded by whatever) would take a simple request to have more information as anything other than that. Thankfully, someone posted a link somewhere to the NGC defense for Proofs being struck. While I have not made up my mind at this time, I've seen some of these coins slabbed as Proofs. They come from a distinct die pair.
I'll remind you that AFAIK a "Proof Rim" is a distinct characteristic of this method of manufacture. Therefore, "Proof Rims" are seldom encountered on coins struck for circulation. Perhaps if you reword your question so I understand what you are asking I'll try my best to answer.
@RogerB said:
Just to be clear - there are no "proof" MCMVII high relief double eagles and never were.
Would you or the long-time dealer who agreed with your post please expand on this comment. Your book is not where I can get at it.
BTW I take anything in Wikipedia to be an interesting starting point - something to be verified. `
By the way, you do know that PCGS agrees with Roger and the "long-time dealer". NGC sort of disagrees, although they oddly seem to claim that the collar is the only identifier of the proof, which is rather odd. In the normal production of a "proof", there should be some die marker.
What do you call a coin with a circulation strike but a proof rim? LOL
First, I'll suggest you correct/edit this unfortunate misinformation you have posted as uninformed folks who do not have your experience may accept it as true: "NGC sort of disagrees, although **they oddly seem to claim that the COLLAR IS THE ONLY identifier of the [High Relief $20] proof, which is rather odd."
I could actually sit here and explain why my interpretation and wording could be taken as being literally correct. I do say "seem to claim" and it is a possible interpretation of what they say since they indicate that one of multiple die pairs that used to be considered proofs is the only one they still consider a proof because it is uniquely paired with one die pair. But, I'm in the surrender on everything mode, so I just deleted my post which was mostly a joke since, of course, I side with Roger and so contrary to your silly belief, there are NO PROOFS.
Sorry if I may have slightly misread the NGC defense. Although they do indicate that multiple die pairs had been viewed as proofs but now they are calling one die pair when associated with one collar as being proofs. So, I suppose it MAY be inaccurate to interpret that as being the collar which makes it a proof. But they don't really explain why they no longer consider the OTHER DIE PAIRS with different collars to be proofs, as had been done by Akers (I'll leave Breen out of it).
@Davideo said:
I'm confused? Now there is bitter, vindictive engraver who actively sought out a die set? Previously there was a die set just presented by happen-stance to the mafia and an Italian engraver was then brought in. I'm having a hard time reconciling these two tales.
And I probably speak for a lot of forum members when I say that when you start insulting Roger and his integrity/honor, you've gone too far. Regardless if your purpose is to exposure the truth or just make some coin geeks run around chasing their tales, insults don't help.
I believe what he is implying is that Augustus St. Gaudens was bitter and stole the dies because Charles Barber kept modifying his design. Then many years later his family provides the dies to Bonano.
David, please help me understand the rules and etiquette of this forum. An expert here can fire an insult at me, and I am supposed to just lie down and take it. Is that the way it is here? Or am I out of bounds for pointing out his lack of integrity and honor when I respond to his insult with an insult? I'm all ears.
@jmlanzaf said: "Let me rephrase: What do you call a coin struck with circulation dies but a proof collar? LMAO"
IMO, posting nonsense and misquoting organizations or individuals is not a laughing matter. I expect to be corrected (and have been on several occasions for ignorant statements) when I post trash. I use ignorant here in place of uninformed.
Now to answer your "silly" question: "What do you call a coin struck with circulation dies but a proof collar?"
I call that coin a BUSINESS STRIKE. This has been done in many series of coins. Now, when you get up off the floor why don't you tell all of us which series and which dates that Proof collars have been used in combination with non-Proof dies?
I'm also waiting for you to tell me where I can find the information you posted about what solution planchets are washed with. I'll bet it is in one of Roger's books.
I am sorry to have doubted your identity. But, in my defense, a member of the board did tell me they were posing as you and I had no reason (at that time) to doubt him.
ROTFL ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.
YOU accused me of being TTTT and posting as two different people. I let you believe it when I asked you in a PM "How did you know?" "Where did I slip up?" Then YOU proceeded to tell me how YOU figured it all out. ROTFL
What goes around comes around. Your imanagination ran wild and let you be "played" exactly as you accused @totellthetruth of "playing" all of us with his stories. Good night my friend
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "Let me rephrase: What do you call a coin struck with circulation dies but a proof collar? LMAO"
It was a "silly questions" because it was a joke, YRP.
From the other thread, YRP, since you asked. I'm not sure the U.S. Mint has disclosed the specific detergent they use, but it is an aqueous detergent of some type. Would you like me to file an FOIA request in the hopes of getting the brand name?
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "Let me rephrase: What do you call a coin struck with circulation dies but a proof collar? LMAO"
IMO, posting nonsense and misquoting organizations or individuals is not a laughing matter. I expect to be corrected (and have been on several occasions for ignorant statements) when I post trash. I use ignorant here in place of uninformed.
It's not exactly a misquote. It may be a broader interpretation. The exact NGC quote is:
"The deep recesses of the High Relief dies didn’t allow for polishing seen on brilliant proof coins of previous coin types, nor was that mirror-like sheen sought by the designers of this coin. Coins called proof and those called mint state were similar in appearance, thus leading to confusion. Coins with very crisp strikes, heavy swirling die polish lines and other special attributes were called proofs.
Numismatists Walter Breen and David Akers were both of the mind that proof coins were struck and exhibited satin surfaces, numerous die lines and sharper detail. But neither attributed proofs to a single die pair. By the mid-1980’s, however, coins struck from just one die marriage and one collar were associated with these special features and singularly called proofs. The collar identified for striking proofs was used only with this one die pair and was never used again with other dies to make High Relief Double Eagles. As a result, the collar is now referred to as the proof collar."
Now, you can read the second paragraph in one of two ways: Akers never noticed that all their proofs were from the same die pair. OR (as I did), you could interpret the paragraph as saying that Akers attributed proofs to coins from MULTIPLE DIE PAIRS. You really can't say with any certainty which interpretation is correct. You could call NGC and get clarification.
Using my interpretation, NGC is using the fact that only that one COLLAR was used with one die pair as a reason for calling coins from that die pair a proof. That does seem to be using the collar as an important identifier in their initial analysis even if they NOW could use the die pair as the diagnostic.
My statement can be questioned by not totally refuted. It would appear, if you agree with RogerB, NGC is misidentifying the die pair as a proof. Within my interpretation of the 2nd paragraph, they are using the esxistence unique collar to separate die pairs that show a preponderance of polishing lines into business strike and proof strike categories.
I still think my succinct summary and joke was better than this long debate. But you like it this way and I want you to be happy.
What goes around comes around. Your imanagination ran wild and let you be "played" exactly as you accused @totellthetruth of "playing" all of us with his stories. Good night my friend
That leaves out a few details, YRP, like how you explained how you visited Rick Snow. But, no matter, ancient history. My "imanagination" ran wild and you helped poof the thread. And you made a whole lot of people dislike both of us. Well done!!!
@Davideo said:
I'm confused? Now there is bitter, vindictive engraver who actively sought out a die set? Previously there was a die set just presented by happen-stance to the mafia and an Italian engraver was then brought in. I'm having a hard time reconciling these two tales.
And I probably speak for a lot of forum members when I say that when you start insulting Roger and his integrity/honor, you've gone too far. Regardless if your purpose is to exposure the truth or just make some coin geeks run around chasing their tales, insults don't help.
I believe what he is implying is that Augustus St. Gaudens was bitter and stole the dies because Charles Barber kept modifying his design. Then many years later his family provides the dies to Bonano.
He must be speculating about the $3 die. Remember, we already know where the $20 die came from.
Comments
Thanks for that link to the Invincible Tequila -
That label is much newer than mine ! (from the '70s)
But the logo is the same.....good to know they're
still in business.
That was their "blanco", they also have a standard yellow tequilla which may have a different label.
My ole' bottle has yellow tequila in it !
Would you or the long-time dealer who agreed with your post please expand on this comment. Your book is not where I can get at it.
BTW I take anything in Wikipedia to be an interesting starting point - something to be verified. `
All MCMVII high relief double eagles were made the same way with the same equipment and dies. Any variation in appearance is part of a normal range of manufacturing. Further, there is no documentary evidence of any special MCMVII being made at any point.
The first 500 of these and the HR 1907 DE were made to show the President that his orders were being carried out. the MCMVII likely used the original 3-part collar (for the 3rd strike, only) that was used for the EHR patterns in February and March 1907.
Calling any of these coins a "proof" is a product of insufficient research and Breenish-guesswork by those making the claim, and then latter "tuchus covering" when caught not knowing what really happened. (I gladly take credit for exposing this in Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908.)
I'm surprised it hasn't eaten through the bottle by now!
PS: To establish a difference between the first 500 and any later ones, requires detailed examination of many fin-rim pieces - and this must be done outside of plastic holders.
Maybe that was once the worm?
Roger - 'tuchus covering' and 'exposing' on the same line !
....and the Tequila was always yellow, even back in the '70's.
(you know, kinda like the 50 pesos)
You have raised some questions but first I'll need to read the book this weekend.
BTW, the edges of these coins were studied decades before a TPGS was in anyone's mind. Today, they can also be examined before encasement.
One thing you wrote that I never gave any thought to was the operation of a medal press. I should have never guessed that the first two strikes were done without a collar! I should imagine the planchet would spread out a lot after two blows. The collar must have opened very wide and the coin would need to be struck at the same level as the press bed. Correct? Or, was the hole in the press bed huge? Or did a medal press even have a "bed?"
RE: "... first two strikes were done without a collar! "
Didn't say that. The first two were done with a plain collar. This also means the coins were made in small batches to avoid having to swap out the 3-part collar. I.e., give one blow to a bunch, then anneal & acid dip, then give them a 2nd blow anneal & acid dip, medal press collar, then 3rd blow, hope fin is not so high it will be rejected. Repeat.
Was that plain collar a segmented, three-part collar? Otherwise it would have been danged near impossible to get back into the plain collar for the second strike.
If so, there may have been segment lines on the edge of the piece after the first and/or second strikes. If this lines up with the segment gap on the third strike you could never tell. Since the coin design had to be lined up with the anvil die recesses for the third strike, the segment dies probably lined up as well.
I'm reading this in your book now....Thanks. So, a metal press has a hole in the bed (as a regular press). The first two blows used plain collar. After a batch was done the plain collar is replaced by the segmented one for the third blow to finish the entire batch.
i guess the problem I'm having is because I have never seen the operation of a segmented collar while coins are being made.
Where are the cams that open it and the entire segmented collar must fit into the same hole in the press bed as a regular collar.
Mr. Omega must have been a genius! LOL.
Found out how it worked! Double collar with a normal one around the segmented one. Therefore, at least the outer collar had to be removed each time the struck coin was removed from the press.
Studies show Wikipedia to be more accurate than Encyclopedias.
@Insider2
https://cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/wikipedia-as-a-data-source-for-political-scientists-accuracy-and-completeness-of-coverage/DAC48E1EB5C400B92487DADDA63D2216
uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1413
Roger,
Let me commend the work you have produced for all of us in the books RENAISSANCE of AMERICAN COINAGE.
Now, I wish I would have started reading it five years ago when I bought them.
Two different types of segmented collars. Who knew besides you and @jmlanzaf! Now the fun for researchers will be to figure which die combos were used with each type of collar.
RE: "Was that plain collar a segmented, three-part collar?"
Nope.
Just a plain, smooth collar the diameter of the coin inside the lettering. The 3-part collar was identical in diameter, but had incuse lettering and stars. Pressure from the 3rd strike forced the segments apart very slightly and that created the narrow vertical lines. European date production pieces show the same vertical lines for the same reason, except they, of course, got only one blow from a toggle press.
Also, everything was manually placed and aligned. In the book there's a mint estimate of the time it took to make one coin. I don't remember the number off hand.
RE: Segmented collars. There were several mechanical versions of this. The Mint experimented before and during circulation production with both the "cone collar" (British Royal Mint) and a "toggle" collar (Snowden 1885).
But if the coin was removed from the solid plain collar after the first strike for annealing and an acid bath, how was it put back into the solid plain collar for the second strike?Would have been an incredibly tight fit!
You are just never going to give it up, are you?
I keep seeing it written that it took as many as 5 strikes for these coins. Process was incredibly laborious even for the experts. Regardless of who did the Omegas, why this coin? It was hard to make. It's not the most expensive coin they could have made. It was a coin likely to get a closer look.
And, for God's sake, if you go to all the trouble to try and counterfeit these, why would you sign the damn thing and risk giving it away? It would take an ego even bigger than Insider2. You have to wonder if the sculptor did it without the knowledge of his boss. Couldn't resist the desire to take credit for his work. If so, you'd think the Omega would be a clue to the identity of the sculptor. You wouldn't risk the whole operation to put a meaningless character on the coin, would you?
edit
@RogerB This article suggests no acid bath between strikes????
http://www.anacs.com/(A(SI4wiutNzwEkAAAAMmFjM2I5ZDAtOTlhOS00N2Y2LWIxYTgtN2NlYzE1MDMzYjBmm6YNrcCRn7o04gNPqj3PJH4iXX41)S(lpwgeuurnkutyrig3isf3255))/contentPages/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=20&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
True, Roger. The Mint had enough trouble striking them regularly.
Pete
The plain collar would have been a snug fit. After the first annealing the partial coin had to be fit into the collar and aligned in the die so it matched the design. Nothing really unusual since some medals were made this way.
The article is wrong. Acid was always used after annealing gold. The purpose was to remove "copper scale" which was really traces of cupric oxide (CuO) produced during softening. If the annealing were done correctly, there might be little or no oxide.
MCMVII high relief pieces got 3 blows from a medal press.
Please read the darn book -- all of this is in there; took years to research and collect. Needless for me to keep repeating it....
Sorry -- frustrating that so many don't use the resources some of us "research folks" work so hard to get right, and then publish at considerable personal expense and loss.
The difficulty in minting this particular coin thus making it an odd choice perhaps adds credence to the theory that the counterfeiters we presented with un-cancelled dies. If you could acquire the dies, that would be a very strong reason to choose this coin over others regardless of the manufacturing difficulties. Or maybe more likely, they were also unaware of how difficult these would be to produce.
Good point, Roger. It's not every day that a set of dies goes walking out the Mint door.
Pete
C'mon all you experts. David and Buffalo just nailed it with your own research. The coins do exist, don't they? And now everyone knows how very, very hard (but not impossible) to make them without a set of genuine dies. Gee, leads credence...uh oh!
Oh Roger, you amaze me. You are clearly an expert. you sit back and read everything and rarely come out and post. Then you post something of importance and what happens...you get irritated and snarkey. You find out that members of this forum either don't read your posts or don't pay attention. You have to repeat answers to questions already asked and it is a waste of your time. You demand people read "the darn book" and you have to keep "repeating".
Well Gee Roger, isn't that the same thing some of your members did to me and let me add Roger when you stop answering questions you answered multiple times in the past, you are "avoiding and dodging" !. Pretty frustrating isn't it Roger? I guess there is no credibility to your post because you don' t want to answer the same questions or correct inaccurate posts over and over.
That's not what bothers me about you Roger. You see, you sat back in your closet and watched me take a pounding for the exact same reasons. You're smart. You read every post carefully. That's what you do. You knew the questions had been answered repeatedly and when I just ignored them, you just kept your mouth shut. You watched this thread deteriorate and then you jumped in and questioned my voracity because I want to serve my country and try to make it great again.
You may be an expert, but you live your life completely different than I do. When I see wrong I step in and try to stop it. When I see a lack of integrity or honor, I put an end to it. I was raised that way. i could never, ever live like you.
Except for two things:
1. they also made a $3 coin - did they also have a $3 die
2. According to 4T's, they weren't using the die to strike. They had created a clay model and then made dies by the normal method. They could have done this with any coin, or a casting of any coin - if they reversed the Janvier lathe.
Welcome back .
I am sorry to have doubted your identity. But, in my defense, a member of the board did tell me they were posing as you and I had no reason (at that time) to doubt him.
ggg
For years NGC and PCGS had a similar difference of opinion with regard to certain early issue Peace Dollars. Only in that case I believe PCGS finally came around to NGC's way of thinking.
LIkewise, didn't PCGS have a problem with certifying various copper coins and until more recent years the subject certified copper was to be found only in NGC holders?
I really hate to watch you guys struggle trying to figure this mystery out. As many of you know, good employees frequently are passed for promotion by others that are not good employees but had a connection. The years of frustration lead to bitterness and sometimes vindictive actions occur towards the company. The person who feels they were passed over can't get at the people who screwed them but they can act out against the company, sometimes thru their position.
Now suppose a master engraver was caught up in a bitter fight over a coin. There were two sides and the engraver picked the side that lost the battle. Unfortunately for the engraver, he is never promoted or his work is criticized improperly after the battle is over just because he was on the losing side. This in a small way sounds similar to the Battle between Gaudin and his family against the Mint itself as to the design of the St. Gaudin.
Years go by, and the embittered designer goes home at night and does what he usually does. He turns to his creative side and works on his private art projects. Maybe he even engraves a coin or two at home. His bitterness is consuming him and he begins to do things that are risky. He gets thoughts that are dangerous. Unfortunately, his little home project becomes frustrating as he is not getting the details and results he wants. He concludes he needs an actual die set to help with his home project. He is finding tremendous satisfaction that he is getting closer to getting even with his employer.
Oh, darn it...I can't remember the rest of this part of the story! BTW, Mr. omega was a genious.
Are we talking about the Italian engraver or the U.S. Mint employee?
Thanks
I'm confused? Now there is bitter, vindictive engraver who actively sought out a die set? Previously there was a die set just presented by happen-stance to the mafia and an Italian engraver was then brought in. I'm having a hard time reconciling these two tales.
And I probably speak for a lot of forum members when I say that when you start insulting Roger and his integrity/honor, you've gone too far. Regardless if your purpose is to exposure the truth or just make some coin geeks run around chasing their tales, insults don't help.
TICK TICK TICK TICK...............................................
Pete
Anyone who wants to keep useful parts of this thread, it is best to copy them now.
First, I'll suggest you correct/edit this unfortunate misinformation you have posted as uninformed folks who do not have your experience may accept it as true: "NGC sort of disagrees, although **they oddly seem to claim that the COLLAR IS THE ONLY identifier of the [High Relief $20] proof, which is rather odd."
I agree. It is odd if you haven't read their online explanation. HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY HAVE POSTED about these coins! They have shown the diagnostics on the collar and both obverse and reverse dies found on the HR coins they call Proof.
Second, I'm truly sorry that anyone (blinded by whatever) would take a simple request to have more information as anything other than that.
Thankfully, someone posted a link somewhere to the NGC defense for Proofs being struck. While I have not made up my mind at this time, I've seen some of these coins slabbed as Proofs. They come from a distinct die pair.
I'll remind you that AFAIK a "Proof Rim" is a distinct characteristic of this method of manufacture. Therefore, "Proof Rims" are seldom encountered on coins struck for circulation. Perhaps if you reword your question so I understand what you are asking I'll try my best to answer.
Bizarre
I could actually sit here and explain why my interpretation and wording could be taken as being literally correct. I do say "seem to claim" and it is a possible interpretation of what they say since they indicate that one of multiple die pairs that used to be considered proofs is the only one they still consider a proof because it is uniquely paired with one die pair. But, I'm in the surrender on everything mode, so I just deleted my post which was mostly a joke since, of course, I side with Roger and so contrary to your silly belief, there are NO PROOFS.
Sorry if I may have slightly misread the NGC defense. Although they do indicate that multiple die pairs had been viewed as proofs but now they are calling one die pair when associated with one collar as being proofs. So, I suppose it MAY be inaccurate to interpret that as being the collar which makes it a proof. But they don't really explain why they no longer consider the OTHER DIE PAIRS with different collars to be proofs, as had been done by Akers (I'll leave Breen out of it).
I think I would go with:
Normal
Let me rephrase: What do you call a coin struck with circulation dies but a proof collar? LMAO
I believe what he is implying is that Augustus St. Gaudens was bitter and stole the dies because Charles Barber kept modifying his design. Then many years later his family provides the dies to Bonano.
My Ebay Store
David, please help me understand the rules and etiquette of this forum. An expert here can fire an insult at me, and I am supposed to just lie down and take it. Is that the way it is here? Or am I out of bounds for pointing out his lack of integrity and honor when I respond to his insult with an insult? I'm all ears.
@jmlanzaf said: "Let me rephrase: What do you call a coin struck with circulation dies but a proof collar? LMAO"
IMO, posting nonsense and misquoting organizations or individuals is not a laughing matter. I expect to be corrected (and have been on several occasions for ignorant statements) when I post trash. I use ignorant here in place of uninformed.
Now to answer your "silly" question: "What do you call a coin struck with circulation dies but a proof collar?"
I call that coin a BUSINESS STRIKE. This has been done in many series of coins. Now, when you get up off the floor why don't you tell all of us which series and which dates that Proof collars have been used in combination with non-Proof dies?
I'm also waiting for you to tell me where I can find the information you posted about what solution planchets are washed with.
I'll bet it is in one of Roger's books.
He W L L, L Best!
Good night my friend 
ROTFL ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.
YOU accused me of being TTTT and posting as two different people. I let you believe it when I asked you in a PM "How did you know?" "Where did I slip up?" Then YOU proceeded to tell me how YOU figured it all out. ROTFL
What goes around comes around. Your imanagination ran wild and let you be "played" exactly as you accused @totellthetruth of "playing" all of us with his stories. Good night my friend
It was a "silly questions" because it was a joke, YRP.
From the other thread, YRP, since you asked. I'm not sure the U.S. Mint has disclosed the specific detergent they use, but it is an aqueous detergent of some type. Would you like me to file an FOIA request in the hopes of getting the brand name?
https://treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/manufacturing.aspx
news.coinupdate.com/coin-production-at-the-west-point-mint-4406/
It's not exactly a misquote. It may be a broader interpretation. The exact NGC quote is:
"The deep recesses of the High Relief dies didn’t allow for polishing seen on brilliant proof coins of previous coin types, nor was that mirror-like sheen sought by the designers of this coin. Coins called proof and those called mint state were similar in appearance, thus leading to confusion. Coins with very crisp strikes, heavy swirling die polish lines and other special attributes were called proofs.
Numismatists Walter Breen and David Akers were both of the mind that proof coins were struck and exhibited satin surfaces, numerous die lines and sharper detail. But neither attributed proofs to a single die pair. By the mid-1980’s, however, coins struck from just one die marriage and one collar were associated with these special features and singularly called proofs. The collar identified for striking proofs was used only with this one die pair and was never used again with other dies to make High Relief Double Eagles. As a result, the collar is now referred to as the proof collar."
Now, you can read the second paragraph in one of two ways: Akers never noticed that all their proofs were from the same die pair. OR (as I did), you could interpret the paragraph as saying that Akers attributed proofs to coins from MULTIPLE DIE PAIRS. You really can't say with any certainty which interpretation is correct. You could call NGC and get clarification.
Using my interpretation, NGC is using the fact that only that one COLLAR was used with one die pair as a reason for calling coins from that die pair a proof. That does seem to be using the collar as an important identifier in their initial analysis even if they NOW could use the die pair as the diagnostic.
My statement can be questioned by not totally refuted. It would appear, if you agree with RogerB, NGC is misidentifying the die pair as a proof. Within my interpretation of the 2nd paragraph, they are using the esxistence unique collar to separate die pairs that show a preponderance of polishing lines into business strike and proof strike categories.
I still think my succinct summary and joke was better than this long debate. But you like it this way and I want you to be happy.
That leaves out a few details, YRP, like how you explained how you visited Rick Snow. But, no matter, ancient history. My "imanagination" ran wild and you helped poof the thread. And you made a whole lot of people dislike both of us. Well done!!!
He must be speculating about the $3 die. Remember, we already know where the $20 die came from.