<< <i>I think there is at least 1 out there and to me, it would be naive/gullible to believe there is not. >>
While I believe some may exist, there is no evidence nor first person account so I think it's fine to believe either way.
<< <i>I think this is why there was such an uproar when the "other" was fabricated. >>
Beliefs can be strong, even when there is no evidence. However, I don't think there's any reason avoid making the other when it would be so easy to show one exists. PCGS has even said they would authenticate one for free. In the run up to issuance, there was ample opportunity to stop it by having one certified anonymously or having photos leaked anonymously which I suggested, but none of that happened.
So while I believe some may exist, given that no one has come forward even anonymously, I think it's acceptable to make fantasy pieces. Beliefs are good, but there's no reason to be trapped by ones that are so easily proven. And if any do exist, it seems like the owners may prefer the fantasy pieces to exist than taking action to stop their production. So it also appears acceptable from the perspective of theoretical owners as well. >>
Speaking entirely hypothetically, if I did own one (which I do not!) I would not necessarily entrust it out of my hands to a TPG unless they agreed to bring their traveling slabbing equipment to my Swiss bank vault and do it there.
If a TPG had one in house and the Secret Service got wind of it, they would be there to seize it immediately and the TPG would have no choice but to surrender it.
Back in 1977 when the alleged 1977/6 cent came in to Coin World, we sent it, with the owner's permission, to the Mint Lab for authentication with the Director of the Mint's personal guarantee that the coin would be returned, no matter what the findings.
The Mint first told us that the overdate was genuine, and we printed the story, and after Fred Weinberg got his copy of the paper and started offering $100 each for additional copies the Mint suddenly called us and told us that
A. The overdate was not genuine, and B. They would not be returning the coin after all. >>
I think the moral of the story here is that it would have been better to get the coin back before printing the story. Once you let the news out, it was probably out of the Mint Director's hands. Unfortunately, some of these things are only learned after the fact.
I was thinking the coin could be taken in for onsite grading out of the country, say at PCGS Paris. If that's still too much risk, I think it might be fine to anonymously post high resolution photos on the Internet. If that's still too much, then it's ok to have the fantasy coins.
<< <i>I think there is at least 1 out there and to me, it would be naive/gullible to believe there is not. >>
While I believe some may exist, there is no evidence nor first person account so I think it's fine to believe either way.
<< <i>I think this is why there was such an uproar when the "other" was fabricated. >>
Beliefs can be strong, even when there is no evidence. However, I don't think there's any reason avoid making the other when it would be so easy to show one exists. PCGS has even said they would authenticate one for free. In the run up to issuance, there was ample opportunity to stop it by having one certified anonymously or having photos leaked anonymously which I suggested, but none of that happened.
So while I believe some may exist, given that no one has come forward even anonymously, I think it's acceptable to make fantasy pieces. Beliefs are good, but there's no reason to be trapped by ones that are so easily proven. And if any do exist, it seems like the owners may prefer the fantasy pieces to exist than taking action to stop their production. So it also appears acceptable from the perspective of theoretical owners as well. >>
Speaking entirely hypothetically, if I did own one (which I do not!) I would not necessarily entrust it out of my hands to a TPG unless they agreed to bring their traveling slabbing equipment to my Swiss bank vault and do it there.
If a TPG had one in house and the Secret Service got wind of it, they would be there to seize it immediately and the TPG would have no choice but to surrender it.
Back in 1977 when the alleged 1977/6 cent came in to Coin World, we sent it, with the owner's permission, to the Mint Lab for authentication with the Director of the Mint's personal guarantee that the coin would be returned, no matter what the findings.
The Mint first told us that the overdate was genuine, and we printed the story, and after Fred Weinberg got his copy of the paper and started offering $100 each for additional copies the Mint suddenly called us and told us that
A. The overdate was not genuine, and B. They would not be returning the coin after all. >>
I think the moral of the story here is that it would have been better to get the coin back before printing the story. Once you let the news out, it was probably out of the Mint Director's hands. Unfortunately, some of these things are only learned after the fact.
I was thinking the coin could be taken in for onsite grading out of the country, say at PCGS Paris. If that's still too much risk, I think it might be fine to anonymously post high resolution photos on the Internet. If that's still too much, then it's ok to have the fantasy coins. >>
We were a newspaper! What the bleep did they think we were going to do with the story???
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>I think there is at least 1 out there and to me, it would be naive/gullible to believe there is not. >>
While I believe some may exist, there is no evidence nor first person account so I think it's fine to believe either way.
<< <i>I think this is why there was such an uproar when the "other" was fabricated. >>
Beliefs can be strong, even when there is no evidence. However, I don't think there's any reason avoid making the other when it would be so easy to show one exists. PCGS has even said they would authenticate one for free. In the run up to issuance, there was ample opportunity to stop it by having one certified anonymously or having photos leaked anonymously which I suggested, but none of that happened.
So while I believe some may exist, given that no one has come forward even anonymously, I think it's acceptable to make fantasy pieces. Beliefs are good, but there's no reason to be trapped by ones that are so easily proven. And if any do exist, it seems like the owners may prefer the fantasy pieces to exist than taking action to stop their production. So it also appears acceptable from the perspective of theoretical owners as well. >>
Speaking entirely hypothetically, if I did own one (which I do not!) I would not necessarily entrust it out of my hands to a TPG unless they agreed to bring their traveling slabbing equipment to my Swiss bank vault and do it there.
If a TPG had one in house and the Secret Service got wind of it, they would be there to seize it immediately and the TPG would have no choice but to surrender it.
Back in 1977 when the alleged 1977/6 cent came in to Coin World, we sent it, with the owner's permission, to the Mint Lab for authentication with the Director of the Mint's personal guarantee that the coin would be returned, no matter what the findings.
The Mint first told us that the overdate was genuine, and we printed the story, and after Fred Weinberg got his copy of the paper and started offering $100 each for additional copies the Mint suddenly called us and told us that
A. The overdate was not genuine, and B. They would not be returning the coin after all. >>
I think the moral of the story here is that it would have been better to get the coin back before printing the story. Once you let the news out, it was probably out of the Mint Director's hands. Unfortunately, some of these things are only learned after the fact.
I was thinking the coin could be taken in for onsite grading out of the country, say at PCGS Paris. If that's still too much risk, I think it might be fine to anonymously post high resolution photos on the Internet. If that's still too much, then it's ok to have the fantasy coins. >>
We were a newspaper! What the bleep did they think we were going to do with the story??? >>
Well, you did get your story so that part was successful. You just didn't get the owner's coin back.
My guess is that the Mint Director didn't consider press and the politics that would be involved. Once your article and Fred's offer came out, I'm guessing you alerted other people with different priorities the Mint Director had to answer to. I'm not saying that's ideal but it's how I think it went down.
<< <i>And so we can see the complexities, and why the '64 D Peace Dollar may stay in hiding for another hundred years. >>
I still think anonymous photos posted to the Internet would be a very safe way to go. I'm also guessing it's probably not worth the trouble for theoretical owners
<< <i>What evidence do you have that they exist? >>
No evidence, but on the other hand, nobody (I think) denies that they did exist at one time. At one point, the Director of the Mint declared that all of them had been destroyed. Later on, two (I think) turned up in the possession of the government. Which means that he government does not know for a fact what happened to all of the coins.
Conclusion- more could exist.
Yes- again, I know that's not proof. On the other hand, can anyone prove all of the coins were destroyed? Seems to me, if you concede that the coins at one time did exist, the burden of proof is on those who claim none do now.
<< <i>And so we can see the complexities, and why the '64 D Peace Dollar may stay in hiding for another hundred years. >>
I still think anonymous photos posted to the Internet would be a very safe way to go. I'm also guessing it's probably not worth the trouble for theoretical owners >>
Can the gummint track down YOUR posts if it really, really wants to?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think there is at least 1 out there and to me, it would be naive/gullible to believe there is not. >>
While I believe some may exist, there is no evidence nor first person account so I think it's fine to believe either way.
<< <i>I think this is why there was such an uproar when the "other" was fabricated. >>
Beliefs can be strong, even when there is no evidence. However, I don't think there's any reason avoid making the other when it would be so easy to show one exists. PCGS has even said they would authenticate one for free. In the run up to issuance, there was ample opportunity to stop it by having one certified anonymously or having photos leaked anonymously which I suggested, but none of that happened.
So while I believe some may exist, given that no one has come forward even anonymously, I think it's acceptable to make fantasy pieces. Beliefs are good, but there's no reason to be trapped by ones that are so easily proven. And if any do exist, it seems like the owners may prefer the fantasy pieces to exist than taking action to stop their production. So it also appears acceptable from the perspective of theoretical owners as well. >>
Speaking entirely hypothetically, if I did own one (which I do not!) I would not necessarily entrust it out of my hands to a TPG unless they agreed to bring their traveling slabbing equipment to my Swiss bank vault and do it there.
If a TPG had one in house and the Secret Service got wind of it, they would be there to seize it immediately and the TPG would have no choice but to surrender it.
Back in 1977 when the alleged 1977/6 cent came in to Coin World, we sent it, with the owner's permission, to the Mint Lab for authentication with the Director of the Mint's personal guarantee that the coin would be returned, no matter what the findings.
The Mint first told us that the overdate was genuine, and we printed the story, and after Fred Weinberg got his copy of the paper and started offering $100 each for additional copies the Mint suddenly called us and told us that
A. The overdate was not genuine, and
B. They would not be returning the coin after all. >>
I think the moral of the story here is that it would have been better to get the coin back before printing the story. Once you let the news out, it was probably out of the Mint Director's hands. Unfortunately, some of these things are only learned after the fact.
I was thinking the coin could be taken in for onsite grading out of the country, say at PCGS Paris. If that's still too much risk, I think it might be fine to anonymously post high resolution photos on the Internet. If that's still too much, then it's ok to have the fantasy coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think there is at least 1 out there and to me, it would be naive/gullible to believe there is not. >>
While I believe some may exist, there is no evidence nor first person account so I think it's fine to believe either way.
<< <i>I think this is why there was such an uproar when the "other" was fabricated. >>
Beliefs can be strong, even when there is no evidence. However, I don't think there's any reason avoid making the other when it would be so easy to show one exists. PCGS has even said they would authenticate one for free. In the run up to issuance, there was ample opportunity to stop it by having one certified anonymously or having photos leaked anonymously which I suggested, but none of that happened.
So while I believe some may exist, given that no one has come forward even anonymously, I think it's acceptable to make fantasy pieces. Beliefs are good, but there's no reason to be trapped by ones that are so easily proven. And if any do exist, it seems like the owners may prefer the fantasy pieces to exist than taking action to stop their production. So it also appears acceptable from the perspective of theoretical owners as well. >>
Speaking entirely hypothetically, if I did own one (which I do not!) I would not necessarily entrust it out of my hands to a TPG unless they agreed to bring their traveling slabbing equipment to my Swiss bank vault and do it there.
If a TPG had one in house and the Secret Service got wind of it, they would be there to seize it immediately and the TPG would have no choice but to surrender it.
Back in 1977 when the alleged 1977/6 cent came in to Coin World, we sent it, with the owner's permission, to the Mint Lab for authentication with the Director of the Mint's personal guarantee that the coin would be returned, no matter what the findings.
The Mint first told us that the overdate was genuine, and we printed the story, and after Fred Weinberg got his copy of the paper and started offering $100 each for additional copies the Mint suddenly called us and told us that
A. The overdate was not genuine, and
B. They would not be returning the coin after all. >>
I think the moral of the story here is that it would have been better to get the coin back before printing the story. Once you let the news out, it was probably out of the Mint Director's hands. Unfortunately, some of these things are only learned after the fact.
I was thinking the coin could be taken in for onsite grading out of the country, say at PCGS Paris. If that's still too much risk, I think it might be fine to anonymously post high resolution photos on the Internet. If that's still too much, then it's ok to have the fantasy coins. >>
We were a newspaper! What the bleep did they think we were going to do with the story???
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think there is at least 1 out there and to me, it would be naive/gullible to believe there is not. >>
While I believe some may exist, there is no evidence nor first person account so I think it's fine to believe either way.
<< <i>I think this is why there was such an uproar when the "other" was fabricated. >>
Beliefs can be strong, even when there is no evidence. However, I don't think there's any reason avoid making the other when it would be so easy to show one exists. PCGS has even said they would authenticate one for free. In the run up to issuance, there was ample opportunity to stop it by having one certified anonymously or having photos leaked anonymously which I suggested, but none of that happened.
So while I believe some may exist, given that no one has come forward even anonymously, I think it's acceptable to make fantasy pieces. Beliefs are good, but there's no reason to be trapped by ones that are so easily proven. And if any do exist, it seems like the owners may prefer the fantasy pieces to exist than taking action to stop their production. So it also appears acceptable from the perspective of theoretical owners as well. >>
Speaking entirely hypothetically, if I did own one (which I do not!) I would not necessarily entrust it out of my hands to a TPG unless they agreed to bring their traveling slabbing equipment to my Swiss bank vault and do it there.
If a TPG had one in house and the Secret Service got wind of it, they would be there to seize it immediately and the TPG would have no choice but to surrender it.
Back in 1977 when the alleged 1977/6 cent came in to Coin World, we sent it, with the owner's permission, to the Mint Lab for authentication with the Director of the Mint's personal guarantee that the coin would be returned, no matter what the findings.
The Mint first told us that the overdate was genuine, and we printed the story, and after Fred Weinberg got his copy of the paper and started offering $100 each for additional copies the Mint suddenly called us and told us that
A. The overdate was not genuine, and
B. They would not be returning the coin after all. >>
I think the moral of the story here is that it would have been better to get the coin back before printing the story. Once you let the news out, it was probably out of the Mint Director's hands. Unfortunately, some of these things are only learned after the fact.
I was thinking the coin could be taken in for onsite grading out of the country, say at PCGS Paris. If that's still too much risk, I think it might be fine to anonymously post high resolution photos on the Internet. If that's still too much, then it's ok to have the fantasy coins. >>
We were a newspaper! What the bleep did they think we were going to do with the story??? >>
Well, you did get your story so that part was successful. You just didn't get the owner's coin back.
My guess is that the Mint Director didn't consider press and the politics that would be involved. Once your article and Fred's offer came out, I'm guessing you alerted other people with different priorities the Mint Director had to answer to. I'm not saying that's ideal but it's how I think it went down.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>And so we can see the complexities, and why the '64 D Peace Dollar may stay in hiding for another hundred years. >>
I still think anonymous photos posted to the Internet would be a very safe way to go. I'm also guessing it's probably not worth the trouble for theoretical owners
<< <i>What evidence do you have that they exist? >>
No evidence, but on the other hand, nobody (I think) denies that they did exist at one time. At one point, the Director of the Mint declared that all of them had been destroyed. Later on, two (I think) turned up in the possession of the government. Which means that he government does not know for a fact what happened to all of the coins.
Conclusion- more could exist.
Yes- again, I know that's not proof. On the other hand, can anyone prove all of the coins were destroyed? Seems to me, if you concede that the coins at one time did exist, the burden of proof is on those who claim none do now.
I won't hold my breath waiting...
<< <i>
<< <i>And so we can see the complexities, and why the '64 D Peace Dollar may stay in hiding for another hundred years. >>
I still think anonymous photos posted to the Internet would be a very safe way to go. I'm also guessing it's probably not worth the trouble for theoretical owners
Can the gummint track down YOUR posts if it really, really wants to?
<< <i>Can the gummint track down YOUR posts if it really, really wants to? >>
If you have to ask ...
Oh, wait . . .
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
