One disturbing part of this thread is the number of respondents that seem to accept this image as gospel in that the image captures what the coin actually looks like in hand. And in general, I am not a fan of grading coins in the 65 range and higher from an image. And In this instance, I am not a fan of calling a coin a counterfeit based solely from an image... Especially an image that involves toning. Toning can easily highlight and enhance the detail of the strike.
Even with the images and overlay, is there enough to consider the OP coin a counterfeit? And that answer is No.
There are other disturbing components. Are we going to rely on one coin as an overlay comparison to the OP coin? Hopefully someone can explain how that is even possible given the number of dies used in the mintage which is over 1.7 Million.
This discussion can continue but without the coin and the ability to see it in hand you are merely pissing in the wind. I choose not to piss into the wind even if it means that this may very well be my last post.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
One disturbing part of this thread is the number of respondents that seem to accept this image as gospel in that the image captures what the coin actually looks like in hand. And in general, I am not a fan of grading coins in the 65 range and higher from an image. And In this instance, I am not a fan of calling a coin a counterfeit based solely from an image... Especially an image that involves toning. Toning can easily highlight and enhance the detail of the strike.
Even with the images and overlay, is there enough to consider the OP coin a counterfeit? And that answer is No.
There are other disturbing components. Are we going to rely on one coin as an overlay comparison to the OP coin? Hopefully someone can explain how that is even possible given the number of dies used in the mintage which is over 1.7 Million.
This discussion can continue but without the coin and the ability to see it in hand you are merely pissing in the wind. I choose not to piss into the wind even if it means that this may very well be my last post.
While I understand that grading images is something we do here for fun, the fact is that no one has ever seen an image of a business strike 33-S that compares with this one. Shadowing or toning didn't draw the OP to create a thread about it. It was the level of detail no one had seen before. In life, to good to be true is usually just that.
While I understand that grading images is something we do here for fun, the fact is that no one has ever seen an image of a business strike 33-S that compares with this one. Shadowing or toning didn't draw the OP to create a thread about it. It was the level of detail no one had seen before. In life, to good to be true is usually just that.
I dunno. I’ve pretty much been making a living for the past 40 years on “too good to be true” coins. And I think that the coin is probably real.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
part of the discussion may center on the "level of detail" on the OP coin, but part of it also centers on the lack of detail on the arm. I am in the "you can't accurately grade from online pictures" camp, but the arm we see isn't because of tone, lighting, an artifact of pixelization or something else. it is a lack of detail surrounded by really strong detail. I don't think it can be explained by a grease filled die or some other anomaly, there is simply a lack of detail in that area.
@keets said:
part of the discussion may center on the "level of detail" on the OP coin, but part of it also centers on the lack of detail on the arm. I am in the "you can't accurately grade from online pictures" camp, but the arm we see isn't because of tone, lighting, an artifact of pixelization or something else. it is a lack of detail surrounded by really strong detail. I don't think it can be explained by a grease filled die or some other anomaly, there is simply a lack of detail in that area.
that is odd
The arm could very well be tone or lighting. I've seen a photographer make a VF coin look AU just by changing the lighting. "Detail" requires contrast. "Depth" requires contrast". You really can't separate the lighting from the image. That is also true of the other detail, it may be enhanced by the lighting as it increases shadow and contrast depending on the angle.
@stevek said:
Then again, maybe the "7,200" is just a typo?
A possibility.
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.
@stevek said:
Then again, maybe the "7,200" is just a typo?
A possibility.
It sure is. I still contend it’s not a counterfeit.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
My opinion, based only on the photographs, is that the coin is genuine and is a very early die state with a strong strike and just the right amount of patina and abrasion to accentuate the depth of relief.
The difference in the stars was mentioned earlier in this discussion. An early die state will have sharper edges than a later die state where the edges of the stars have become worn and rounded off. Comparing early die state details with a much later die state example is not the optimal type of comparison for authentication.
Hello,
I sent an email to Mark katz suggesting he should give his side to this story.
well, I did get a reply from him with a surprising twist.
Mark wrote that they were very surprised at the result. However, this coin apparently was a purchase by him from an auction by Heritage Europe. he purchased a box containing numerous items, including this one. Mark also indicated that he and his brother were filming the auction and that there were 2 bidders going for it at the end.
h also said that he would present his story in, hopefully, this forum. I gave him all the info.
I could post his complete reply, but would prefere to have his permission to do that, or would much prefere if he would do it.
so, if that is the way it transpired, and assuming the worst, what kind of liability would HA - Europe have?
@YQQ said:
Hello,
I sent an email to Mark katz suggesting he should give his side to this story.
well, I did get a reply from him with a surprising twist.
Mark wrote that they were very surprised at the result. However, this coin apparently was a purchase by him from an auction by Heritage Europe. he purchased a box containing numerous items, including this one. Mark also indicated that he and his brother were filming the auction and that there were 2 bidders going for it at the end.
h also said that he would present his story in, hopefully, this forum. I gave him all the info.
I could post his complete reply, but would prefere to have his permission to do that, or would much prefere if he would do it.
so, if that is the way it transpired, and assuming the worst, what kind of liability would HA - Europe have?
Thanks for the work done in contacting Katz and giving us a synopsis.
But frankly, unless Katz knows the two bidders, i couldn't care less what Katz thinks about it. I'd like to know what the two bidders think about it, especially the winning bidder in which it would be interesting to know how high he was willing to go and why?
@YQQ said:
Hello,
I sent an email to Mark katz suggesting he should give his side to this story.
well, I did get a reply from him with a surprising twist.
Mark wrote that they were very surprised at the result. However, this coin apparently was a purchase by him from an auction by Heritage Europe. he purchased a box containing numerous items, including this one. Mark also indicated that he and his brother were filming the auction and that there were 2 bidders going for it at the end.
h also said that he would present his story in, hopefully, this forum. I gave him all the info.
I could post his complete reply, but would prefere to have his permission to do that, or would much prefere if he would do it.
so, if that is the way it transpired, and assuming the worst, what kind of liability would HA - Europe have?
Ooooh! Let's play "What if?"
What if Heritage Europe blew a consignment and accidentally sold a unique presentation piece as a common coin, and then found out about it, and then tried to buy it back for the benefit of the consignor, but ran into a buzz saw from somebody else that recognized it as a unique presentation piece?
Would the numismatists at Heritage Europe know that 1933-S half dollars do not come struck like this?
Curious in Colorado
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.
@ColonelJessup said:
I have no idea how many tens of thousands of Walkers I've glanced at, but that piece would always make me stop in my tracks.
This.
And to those of you who think Heritage never misses anything, there was the 1928/1934 'Transitional' silver certificate ( Fr. #1606a ) that went through a weekly internet sale as a regular 1928 a few years back. Icould see this being overlooked, especially in the European office. I'm guessing we'll be hearing ''the rest of the story' sooner rather that never
buying Rhode Island Nationals please email, PM or call 401-295-3000
I looked at the original probable sale (last November) - there were auction lots with 3 ring folders filled with coins in 2x2's and other larger groups like 49 silver dollars...
And again, TWO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SAW THE COIN IN HAND were willing to pay $10k for the coin. This after Heritage-Europe sold the coin in a box lot WHICH THEY WOULD NOT DO IF THEY THOUGHT IT WAS FAKE.
And a bunch of armchair numismatists can tell from one photo that the coin is fake. I love you guys. I'm currently holding a Morgan silver dollar in my hands. Could you please tell me the grade?
@afford said:
Here is my take:
Raw yet could have been sent into PCGS in Europe for a nominal fee for such a coin yet it wasn't. Just read the above post so now we know why it wasn't submitted to the grading companies.
Czech auction, that alone is scary considering the Russian / Chinese factor.
Strange appearance i.e. doesn't look like any piece ever seen in the series.
Relying only on a photo i.e. risky considering I have relied on HAH's and gotten badly burnt in the past.
Someone said this already, when something appears to good it often isn't.
Is there a reason you are impugning an entire nation based on shenanigans from two completely different countries, one of whom is more famous for computer fraud than counterfeiting?
How can we listen to anything you say considering the Mafia/Yakuza factor? [See how stupid it sounds when you string together completely unrelated topics? My apologies if you actually are a member of the Mafia or Yakuza.]
Is there a reason you are impugning an entire nation based on shenanigans from two completely different countries, one of whom is more famous for computer fraud than counterfeiting?
How can we listen to anything you say considering the Mafia/Yakuza factor? [See how stupid it sounds when you string together completely unrelated topics? My apologies if you actually are a member of the Mafia or Yakuza.]
Then don't AH, it is just an opinion nothing more nothing less.
Er...it's just an opinion that the entire Czech Republic is untrustworthy????
Does the detail in these two photos look the same? Coinfacts image on left, Katz on right. This is the detail difference I was seeing on the Ipad when blowing them up.
You're thinking of somewhere else, Afford. When I think of the Czech Republic (Prague), I think beautiful women, great food, smart, friendly and healthy people, clean and safe streets. The average quality of life is excellent. There's nothing sketchy about it.
@bolivarshagnasty said:
Does the detail in these two photos look the same? Coinfacts image on left, Katz on right. This is the detail difference I was seeing on the Ipad when blowing them up.
The one on the left appears to have a horizontal die gouge across the lowest part of Miss Liberty's scoop neckline.
As to the other minute differences in the details, I see them but do not see anything that would condemn either piece. Perhaps there were slight differences in the Working Hubs that made the working dies.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I don't think the coin is fake, but there is something special about it. Don't know if special is positive or negative without seeing it or hearing from someone that viewed it in person.
@bolivarshagnasty said:
Does the detail in these two photos look the same? Coinfacts image on left, Katz on right. This is the detail difference I was seeing on the Ipad when blowing them up.
The one on the left appears to have a horizontal die gouge across the lowest part of Miss Liberty's scoop neckline.
As to the other minute differences in the details, I see them but do not see anything that would condemn either piece. Perhaps there were slight differences in the Working Hubs that made the working dies.
How would one explain the difference in the arm creases? The crease in the arm socket and outer part of arm appear to be different or later die state, yet the Katz example has the "look" of an earliest die state in some areas. What about the lack of detail between the breast covering?
@Cougar1978 said:
AU 58 at best but I question if it’s real. Whoever paid $10k got ripped big time even if real. I would not pay over $180 for a genuine raw AU.
AU 50 retail is about $300 and I doubt anyone except our $10k guy would pay even that for a raw piece.
When I think what $10 k would buy somewhere like GC this kind of thing is sickening.
So there was no under bidder? (that is a pretty serious charge)
We are pretty certain they have seen the coin and also pretty certain no one commenting in this forum has.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Very interesting and enlightening that many of you, who advocate often that grading is subjective, make such positive statements without having the item in hand.
I have no experience with US coins. However, i would have a lot of reservations without coin in hand!
Has anyone of you tried, to compare, to find an equal Fake from someone who might "just" have one?
I am not defending the yea or no sayers here. Just trying to be fair and objective.
here is an section of the reply I received from mark katz:
"I've got this coin in a coin lot (album or box with different coins in it) at a Heritage Europe.
Btw, they often miss good staff in dealer lots, f.e. I've found nice 20$ gold liberty in a 30€ can with kilo circulation coins"
@bolivarshagnasty said:
Does the detail in these two photos look the same? Coinfacts image on left, Katz on right. This is the detail difference I was seeing on the Ipad when blowing them up.
The one on the left appears to have a horizontal die gouge across the lowest part of Miss Liberty's scoop neckline.
As to the other minute differences in the details, I see them but do not see anything that would condemn either piece. Perhaps there were slight differences in the Working Hubs that made the working dies.
How would one explain the difference in the arm creases? The crease in the arm socket and outer part of arm appear to be different or later die state, yet the Katz example has the "look" of an earliest die state in some areas. What about the lack of detail between the breast covering?
Not referring to the OP's coin in question, but just to die making in general in that era, the Engraving Department might make more than one Master Die and/or Master Hub in any given year, and the Chief Engraver or one of his assistants might make slight touch ups to either or both as he/they did so.
Once a Master Die (or two) is achieved, it can be used to raise up multiple Working Hubs, each of which might receive individual touching up. Meanwhile, the Master Die(s) might degrade slightly as it is used to create these Working Hubs. It (they) might be touched up after the degradation is noticed.
The various Working Hubs might degrade and/or be touched up throughout the year. Then the individual Working Dies might be touched up. The retouched 1938 Proof nickel dies, and the design changes of 1939 that they were the precursors of, are strong physical evidence that Chief Engraver John Sinnock paid close attention to the dies made on his watch.
--
Perhaps Sinnock knew that the production of half dollars was about to be ramped up big time (see 1934-following mintage figures compared to the 1921-1933 era) and he wanted to be ready for it. This might (MIGHT!) have been something he caused to be made towards that end.
Or he might just have struck it off on the medal press for the heck of it. He did have a small collection of specially-made commemorative half dollars, sometimes called "Sinnock Proofs." Maybe this is a different kind of "Sinnock Proof." How many of us, if we worked at the Mint with a fair amount of power, could be trusted not to make toys for our collections?
(Does anybody have information as to where Sinnock's special strikes ended up?)
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
perhaps Mark would , or already has, contacted the final 2 bidders. Do not know.
if I were him, I most certainly would have done so to avoid any possible later issues IF it is not real.
Maybe you would want to contact mark also. I suggested 2 times to him to join this forum.
I am 100% convinced that there was no fault on his part. I only know him as an honest person
perhaps Mark would , or already has, contacted the final 2 bidders. Do not know.
if I were him, I most certainly would have done so to avoid any possible later issues IF it is not real.
Maybe you would want to contact mark also. I suggested 2 times to him to join this forum.
I am 100% convinced that there was no fault on his part. I only know him as an honest person
Someone here has already contacted Katz about this.
In my opinion, Katz should post here not only to illuminate this story, but it would also be good "advertising" so to speak for his coin auction company.
All of the comments made here are still speculation. Your comment about Sinnock is a good one though, Tom. Could of, would of, should of aside, we all are aware of his taste for "coin candy".
It is not out of the realm that Sinnock might have played with a 1933-S die. Your reason for him doing so is also valid. Rework it, then hammer it to see what kind of detail it still has is something he would do.
The problem is that there is no presence of the coin in his portfolio. The next question would be how did it get out?
I'd love to speculate that Sinnock had a hand in the coins existence. That's right up his alley.
It's a valid reason but a real longshot.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
Comments
One disturbing part of this thread is the number of respondents that seem to accept this image as gospel in that the image captures what the coin actually looks like in hand. And in general, I am not a fan of grading coins in the 65 range and higher from an image. And In this instance, I am not a fan of calling a coin a counterfeit based solely from an image... Especially an image that involves toning. Toning can easily highlight and enhance the detail of the strike.
Even with the images and overlay, is there enough to consider the OP coin a counterfeit? And that answer is No.
There are other disturbing components. Are we going to rely on one coin as an overlay comparison to the OP coin? Hopefully someone can explain how that is even possible given the number of dies used in the mintage which is over 1.7 Million.
This discussion can continue but without the coin and the ability to see it in hand you are merely pissing in the wind. I choose not to piss into the wind even if it means that this may very well be my last post.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
7200 Euro equals 8835.41 US Dollar
As a buyer: QualityCurrencycom, tychojoe, AurumMiner, Collectorcoins, perfectstrike, ModCrewman, LeeBone, nickel, REALGATOR, MICHAELDIXON, pointfivezero, Walkerguy21D
Trades: georgiacop50
€7,200 is the hammer. It's €8,424 with the juice - 17% Buyer's Premium.
€8,424 = $10,342.48
While I understand that grading images is something we do here for fun, the fact is that no one has ever seen an image of a business strike 33-S that compares with this one. Shadowing or toning didn't draw the OP to create a thread about it. It was the level of detail no one had seen before. In life, to good to be true is usually just that.
I dunno. I’ve pretty much been making a living for the past 40 years on “too good to be true” coins. And I think that the coin is probably real.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
part of the discussion may center on the "level of detail" on the OP coin, but part of it also centers on the lack of detail on the arm. I am in the "you can't accurately grade from online pictures" camp, but the arm we see isn't because of tone, lighting, an artifact of pixelization or something else. it is a lack of detail surrounded by really strong detail. I don't think it can be explained by a grease filled die or some other anomaly, there is simply a lack of detail in that area.
that is odd
The arm could very well be tone or lighting. I've seen a photographer make a VF coin look AU just by changing the lighting. "Detail" requires contrast. "Depth" requires contrast". You really can't separate the lighting from the image. That is also true of the other detail, it may be enhanced by the lighting as it increases shadow and contrast depending on the angle.
e, to good to be true is usually just that.
You mean like the entire Pogue collection?
My My. That's a LOT of money to shell out!
The only thing we know here about the coin up to now is that it is "special".
WHEW!
Pete
Then again, maybe the "7,200" is just a typo?
A possibility.
It sure is. I still contend it’s not a counterfeit.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
My opinion, based only on the photographs, is that the coin is genuine and is a very early die state with a strong strike and just the right amount of patina and abrasion to accentuate the depth of relief.
The difference in the stars was mentioned earlier in this discussion. An early die state will have sharper edges than a later die state where the edges of the stars have become worn and rounded off. Comparing early die state details with a much later die state example is not the optimal type of comparison for authentication.
Hello,
I sent an email to Mark katz suggesting he should give his side to this story.
well, I did get a reply from him with a surprising twist.
Mark wrote that they were very surprised at the result. However, this coin apparently was a purchase by him from an auction by Heritage Europe. he purchased a box containing numerous items, including this one. Mark also indicated that he and his brother were filming the auction and that there were 2 bidders going for it at the end.
h also said that he would present his story in, hopefully, this forum. I gave him all the info.
I could post his complete reply, but would prefere to have his permission to do that, or would much prefere if he would do it.
so, if that is the way it transpired, and assuming the worst, what kind of liability would HA - Europe have?
Thanks for the work done in contacting Katz and giving us a synopsis.
But frankly, unless Katz knows the two bidders, i couldn't care less what Katz thinks about it. I'd like to know what the two bidders think about it, especially the winning bidder in which it would be interesting to know how high he was willing to go and why?
Someone needs to find out who the buyer is, fly overseas and Czech it out.
Ooooh! Let's play "What if?"
What if Heritage Europe blew a consignment and accidentally sold a unique presentation piece as a common coin, and then found out about it, and then tried to buy it back for the benefit of the consignor, but ran into a buzz saw from somebody else that recognized it as a unique presentation piece?
Would the numismatists at Heritage Europe know that 1933-S half dollars do not come struck like this?
Curious in Colorado
I still say it's a fake. in addition to the flat arm and off stars, rays etc. Walking Liberty doesn't wear tennis shoes.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
I agree. But she might wear "well struck" whatever shoes.
Pete
I have no idea how many tens of thousands of Walkers I've glanced at, but that piece would always make me stop in my tracks.
This.
And to those of you who think Heritage never misses anything, there was the 1928/1934 'Transitional' silver certificate ( Fr. #1606a ) that went through a weekly internet sale as a regular 1928 a few years back. Icould see this being overlooked, especially in the European office. I'm guessing we'll be hearing ''the rest of the story' sooner rather that never
I looked at the original probable sale (last November) - there were auction lots with 3 ring folders filled with coins in 2x2's and other larger groups like 49 silver dollars...
And again, TWO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SAW THE COIN IN HAND were willing to pay $10k for the coin. This after Heritage-Europe sold the coin in a box lot WHICH THEY WOULD NOT DO IF THEY THOUGHT IT WAS FAKE.
And a bunch of armchair numismatists can tell from one photo that the coin is fake. I love you guys. I'm currently holding a Morgan silver dollar in my hands. Could you please tell me the grade?
Is there a reason you are impugning an entire nation based on shenanigans from two completely different countries, one of whom is more famous for computer fraud than counterfeiting?
How can we listen to anything you say considering the Mafia/Yakuza factor? [See how stupid it sounds when you string together completely unrelated topics? My apologies if you actually are a member of the Mafia or Yakuza.]
I'm waiting for this to make a visit to our hosts and come out with a TrueView.
Oh dear, but what if it goes to NGC?!?!? Or just into a collection for 20 years.
Shocking that DCarr and RogerB have different opinions on the coin
For what it’s worth, Mark Feld from ATS is in the genuine camp. For those that don’t pop in over there.
Coin dealer's Walker bin - $3.00
United States half dollar 1933-S
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Seems to have some form of doubling on the T/Y of LIBERTY.
Er...it's just an opinion that the entire Czech Republic is untrustworthy????
Does the detail in these two photos look the same? Coinfacts image on left, Katz on right. This is the detail difference I was seeing on the Ipad when blowing them up.
You're thinking of somewhere else, Afford. When I think of the Czech Republic (Prague), I think beautiful women, great food, smart, friendly and healthy people, clean and safe streets. The average quality of life is excellent. There's nothing sketchy about it.
So much debate over something none of us have seen first-hand.
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Insert witicism here. [ xxx ]
...for sure the chicken did
I heard it was the Rooster.
The one on the left appears to have a horizontal die gouge across the lowest part of Miss Liberty's scoop neckline.
As to the other minute differences in the details, I see them but do not see anything that would condemn either piece. Perhaps there were slight differences in the Working Hubs that made the working dies.
I don't think the coin is fake, but there is something special about it. Don't know if special is positive or negative without seeing it or hearing from someone that viewed it in person.
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
How would one explain the difference in the arm creases? The crease in the arm socket and outer part of arm appear to be different or later die state, yet the Katz example has the "look" of an earliest die state in some areas. What about the lack of detail between the breast covering?
AU 58 at best but I question if it’s real. Whoever paid $10k got ripped big time even if real. I would not pay over $180 for a genuine raw AU.
AU 50 retail is about $300 and I doubt anyone except our $10k guy would pay even that for a raw piece.
When I think what $10 k would buy somewhere like GC this kind of thing is sickening.
So there was no under bidder? (that is a pretty serious charge)
We are pretty certain they have seen the coin and also pretty certain no one commenting in this forum has.
Very interesting and enlightening that many of you, who advocate often that grading is subjective, make such positive statements without having the item in hand.
I have no experience with US coins. However, i would have a lot of reservations without coin in hand!
Has anyone of you tried, to compare, to find an equal Fake from someone who might "just" have one?
I am not defending the yea or no sayers here. Just trying to be fair and objective.
here is an section of the reply I received from mark katz:
"I've got this coin in a coin lot (album or box with different coins in it) at a Heritage Europe.
Btw, they often miss good staff in dealer lots, f.e. I've found nice 20$ gold liberty in a 30€ can with kilo circulation coins"
Not referring to the OP's coin in question, but just to die making in general in that era, the Engraving Department might make more than one Master Die and/or Master Hub in any given year, and the Chief Engraver or one of his assistants might make slight touch ups to either or both as he/they did so.
Once a Master Die (or two) is achieved, it can be used to raise up multiple Working Hubs, each of which might receive individual touching up. Meanwhile, the Master Die(s) might degrade slightly as it is used to create these Working Hubs. It (they) might be touched up after the degradation is noticed.
The various Working Hubs might degrade and/or be touched up throughout the year. Then the individual Working Dies might be touched up. The retouched 1938 Proof nickel dies, and the design changes of 1939 that they were the precursors of, are strong physical evidence that Chief Engraver John Sinnock paid close attention to the dies made on his watch.
--
Perhaps Sinnock knew that the production of half dollars was about to be ramped up big time (see 1934-following mintage figures compared to the 1921-1933 era) and he wanted to be ready for it. This might (MIGHT!) have been something he caused to be made towards that end.
Or he might just have struck it off on the medal press for the heck of it. He did have a small collection of specially-made commemorative half dollars, sometimes called "Sinnock Proofs." Maybe this is a different kind of "Sinnock Proof." How many of us, if we worked at the Mint with a fair amount of power, could be trusted not to make toys for our collections?
(Does anybody have information as to where Sinnock's special strikes ended up?)
TD
Stevek
perhaps Mark would , or already has, contacted the final 2 bidders. Do not know.
if I were him, I most certainly would have done so to avoid any possible later issues IF it is not real.
Maybe you would want to contact mark also. I suggested 2 times to him to join this forum.
I am 100% convinced that there was no fault on his part. I only know him as an honest person
Someone here has already contacted Katz about this.
In my opinion, Katz should post here not only to illuminate this story, but it would also be good "advertising" so to speak for his coin auction company.
The only thing the auction guy needs to say is, “two people really wanted that coin!”
All of the comments made here are still speculation. Your comment about Sinnock is a good one though, Tom. Could of, would of, should of aside, we all are aware of his taste for "coin candy".
It is not out of the realm that Sinnock might have played with a 1933-S die. Your reason for him doing so is also valid. Rework it, then hammer it to see what kind of detail it still has is something he would do.
The problem is that there is no presence of the coin in his portfolio. The next question would be how did it get out?
I'd love to speculate that Sinnock had a hand in the coins existence. That's right up his alley.
It's a valid reason but a real longshot.
Pete