<< <i>"This Ike coin is serious numismatic history."
I think on this point, most everyone can agree.
Second, most people tell me they prefer the (current) Unique 1976 Proof Ike Dollar to the (current) mintage two 1975 Proof No S dime.
Third, I get a phone call or email nearly every week from someone thinking they have found the second 1976 Ike Dollar. So much so, that recently the Price Guide editor revised the online article on this coin he had written many years ago to include reference to the fact that the US Mint struck millions of no S 1976 business strike Ikes that exist out there in addition to this one proof example. What is surprising to me is just how many (and how diverse) non numismatic folks call me on finding the second example of this coin. Everyone from waitresses who got one in change as a tip to the Head of a Church recently who received one from a very old congregation member. Many start the call with just how this find is a life changer for them and the break they have been waiting for. I always direct them to their local coin shop first to ask to see a 1975 or 1976 proof set to compare a proof to a mint state Ike dollar coin. I invite them to also send off their coin for authentication to either PCGS or NGC depending upon where they are calling from but caution them on the costs involved and to try to get an opinion first from their local coin shop if such a submission seems warranted after comparing their coin to the coin in the proof set (with the S mint mark). I try to take the time with everyone contacting me. I tell most everyone that it is a very long shot that they have found a second example of a Philadelphia no S proof Ike, but not impossible. The calls and emails have slowed a bit though recently since PCGS edited its online article on the coin.
Wondercoin. >>
If you have not already done so, "Follow the Metal" and document it. ...and ditto for the actual No S mm die used.
For the record, I firmly believe that wondercoin's 1976 "No S" 40% silver Proof dollar is not a "wrong planchet error," nor an error of any other sort. I believe that it was quite intentionally struck on a 40% silver planchet to match the three previous "No S" 40% silver Proof strikings. It belongs in the Judd catalogue, not an error catalogue.
Of course I cannot prove anything about the circumstances of its birth. Perhaps some Mint or Treasury personage still had one of the three-piece "No S" 40% silver Proof sets, and wanted an example of the new version of the dollar to go with it. Perhaps one was made for President Ford, or for each of the three coin designers, and perhaps one or more four-coin sets still exist. This is, of course, all speculation and fantasy.
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.
<< <i>For the record, I firmly believe that wondercoin's 1976 "No S" 40% silver Proof dollar is not a "wrong planchet error," nor an error of any other sort. I believe that it was quite intentionally struck on a 40% silver planchet to match the three previous "No S" 40% silver Proof strikings. It belongs in the Judd catalogue, not an error catalogue.
Of course I cannot prove anything about the circumstances of its birth. Perhaps some Mint or Treasury personage still had one of the three-piece "No S" 40% silver Proof sets, and wanted an example of the new version of the dollar to go with it. Perhaps one was made for President Ford, or for each of the three coin designers, and perhaps one or more four-coin sets still exist. This is, of course, all speculation and fantasy.
TD >>
I also believe that it is a pattern. I believe that the silver IKE dollars were made in San Fransisco. If all production 1976 Philidelphia IKES were copper nickel, then we need to trace the source of the 40% silver stock to determine the relative rarity of a no mintmark silver Ike dollar coins existence, either proof or not. If Philidelphia was producing silver 1976 IKES for Unc sets, then the 40% coils would be available on site and it would have been no problem for them to Blank a coil, or to cut a sheet from one of those many coils, and use it in Pattern production. This becomes of interest in that in the first example, we may be able to tie the source of that silver stock to a single roll of stock (or a portion thereof), whereas in the second example, we can trace it back to a whole bunch of different coils of silver stock. Therefore, the probability of that planchets production in these examples are different.
PS...because it can become somewhat difficult at times to know if a given pattern was authorized or not, it can also become difficult to properly classify it in order to understand it's probability of existence. Attempting to establish and understand a given error or pattern coins proper technical classifications can be trying.
<< <i>For the record, I firmly believe that wondercoin's 1976 "No S" 40% silver Proof dollar is not a "wrong planchet error," nor an error of any other sort. I believe that it was quite intentionally struck on a 40% silver planchet to match the three previous "No S" 40% silver Proof strikings. It belongs in the Judd catalogue, not an error catalogue.
Of course I cannot prove anything about the circumstances of its birth. Perhaps some Mint or Treasury personage still had one of the three-piece "No S" 40% silver Proof sets, and wanted an example of the new version of the dollar to go with it. Perhaps one was made for President Ford, or for each of the three coin designers, and perhaps one or more four-coin sets still exist. This is, of course, all speculation and fantasy.
TD >>
I also believe that it is a pattern. I am a bit confused about what IKE dollars were made from the different compositions in 1976 and where. If all production 1976 Philidelphia IKES were copper nickel, then we need to trace the source of the 40% silver stock to determine the relative rarity of a no mintmark silver Ike dollar coins existence, either proof or not. If Philidelphia was producing silver 1976 IKES for Unc sets, then the 40% coils would be available on site and it would have been no problem for them to Blank a coil, or to cut a sheet from one of those many coils, and use it in Pattern production. This becomes of interest in that in the first example, we may be able to tie the source of that silver stock to a single roll of stock (or a portion thereof), whereas in the second example, we can trace it back to a whole bunch of different coils of silver stock. Therefore, the probability of that planchets production in these examples are different.
PS...because it can become somewhat difficult at times to know if a given pattern was authorized or not, it can also become difficult to properly classify it in order to understand it's probability of existence. Attempting to establish and understand a given error or pattern coins proper technical classifications can be trying. >>
It would have been a heckuva lot simpler to make the 40% silver quarter, half and dollar planchets in San Francisco, where they were going to be mass producing the three coins, and ship a few planchets for the ceremonial first striking to Philadelphia rather than shipping three coils to Philadelphia to be blanked.
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>For the record, I firmly believe that wondercoin's 1976 "No S" 40% silver Proof dollar is not a "wrong planchet error," nor an error of any other sort. I believe that it was quite intentionally struck on a 40% silver planchet to match the three previous "No S" 40% silver Proof strikings. It belongs in the Judd catalogue, not an error catalogue.
Of course I cannot prove anything about the circumstances of its birth. Perhaps some Mint or Treasury personage still had one of the three-piece "No S" 40% silver Proof sets, and wanted an example of the new version of the dollar to go with it. Perhaps one was made for President Ford, or for each of the three coin designers, and perhaps one or more four-coin sets still exist. This is, of course, all speculation and fantasy.
TD >>
I also believe that it is a pattern. I am a bit confused about what IKE dollars were made from the different compositions in 1976 and where. If all production 1976 Philidelphia IKES were copper nickel, then we need to trace the source of the 40% silver stock to determine the relative rarity of a no mintmark silver Ike dollar coins existence, either proof or not. If Philidelphia was producing silver 1976 IKES for Unc sets, then the 40% coils would be available on site and it would have been no problem for them to Blank a coil, or to cut a sheet from one of those many coils, and use it in Pattern production. This becomes of interest in that in the first example, we may be able to tie the source of that silver stock to a single roll of stock (or a portion thereof), whereas in the second example, we can trace it back to a whole bunch of different coils of silver stock. Therefore, the probability of that planchets production in these examples are different.
PS...because it can become somewhat difficult at times to know if a given pattern was authorized or not, it can also become difficult to properly classify it in order to understand it's probability of existence. Attempting to establish and understand a given error or pattern coins proper technical classifications can be trying. >>
It would have been a heckuva lot simpler to make the 40% silver quarter, half and dollar planchets in San Francisco, where they were going to be mass producing the three coins, and ship a few planchets for the ceremonial first striking to Philadelphia rather than shipping three coils to Philadelphia to be blanked. >>
I agree. I got a bit befuddled for a bit. I thought the silvers were done in SF, then got my brain got stuck. I have little doubt that Philidelphia was capable of holding a few left over coils or portions thereof, but I really do not know and am more inclined to agree with your supposition.
Tying this coin to only a few blanks just makes it more interesting as a proof wrong stock pattern coin. ...as an authorized event, or to the contrary.
Is it a pattern, or is it an error, or is it both? If we cannot prove that this coin is indeed an intentional pattern, then we can also classify it as an error coin. Even if we can prove that this individual coin is a pattern, can we also prove that any and all other similiar coins that may exist are also patterns, and not wrong stock errors? If we cannot differentiate between them with certainty, then we cannot determine their true origin and statistical rarity. For ease of understanding true rarity, I would classify these "Pattern" error types as transitional U.S. composition wrong stock, proof pattern errors. That missing S mintmark was not used in normal proof production, and the coin is not on the normal metals. The one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted die that is different from that which was originally intended for use.
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs".
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it. I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks. Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly. I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx
<< <i>"This Ike coin is serious numismatic history."
I have tried to lay out a brief understanding of the probability of wrong stock errors. You have a unique dollar that is being compared to the very cool no S mintmark dimes. I assume that all of the dimes made when the No S examples were produced are all on normal blanks. With 2 no S dimes out of maybe 3 million coins existing, and none others discovered in many years, the odds of those two coins being produced are fairly easy to compute. Ditto your One lone example of no S dollar... if struck on a normal planchet. This stuff can happen in any given year. It does not, but it can.
Consider how many coin blanks are available to make No S dimes. Compare that to how many 40% silver blanks were available to make your No S dollar. Extrapolate that over the years.
When figured over many years of production, it is not genius to understand how many more years it will take before we see another coin like your combined error (pattern?) wrong stock No S mintmark dollar to show up as compared to the the likelyhood of seeing another normal metal No S coin. My finite math is too many years behind me now, but I venture that all of us can understand that the difference in the probability of occurance between either of the the two similiar but different types of random events is substantial.
Some may take short cuts in the coin hobby and get loose with their nomenclature, and this probably has more to do with marketing pressure and dollar chasing. We all stand less chance of getting hustled out of our prized possessions when we understand what we actually have.
You have a monster coin there. It even rattles my wrong denomination wrong stock proof Kenndy... and I believe that it is also currently unique.
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it. I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks. Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly. I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it. I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks. Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly. I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories. Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications. If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark. As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within it's design parameters, the S mintmark. In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added. Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error. It is an intentional error. It is a die error. It is has also become a pattern. One that lacks full production die design implementation. I classify these as a type of die trial. So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up?
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it. I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks. Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly. I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories. Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications. If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark. As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within it's design parameters, the S mintmark. In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added. Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error. It is an intentional error. It is a die error. It is has also become a pattern. One that lacks full production die design implementation. I classify these as a type of die trial. So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up? >>
So, whatchacallit? I call it a No S proof obv die trial struck on a transitional U.S. composition wrong stock error coin. If we can prove that it was intentionally made as a proof pattern, I would then add the word pattern into the description, probably right after the word error and before the word coin. You can call it what you want. Just make sure that you can understand it for what it is at least well enough to establish it's rarity.
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it. I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks. Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly. I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories. Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications. If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark. As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within it's design parameters, the S mintmark. In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added. Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error. It is an intentional error. It is a die error. It is has also become a pattern. One that lacks full production die design implementation. I classify these as a type of die trial. So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up? >>
Try not to confuse "proof" dies as a design unto themselves since "proof" is a form of manufacture, not design.
Occasionally, designs intended for the proof manufacturing process get used in business strike presses and vice versa.
Implying that the "S" Mintmark is "part of the design" is erroneous.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it. I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks. Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly. I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories. Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications. If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark. As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within it's design parameters, the S mintmark. In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added. Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error. It is an intentional error. It is a die error. It is has also become a pattern. One that lacks full production die design implementation. I classify these as a type of die trial. So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up? >>
Try not to confuse "proof" dies as a design unto themselves since "proof" is a form of manufacture, not design.
Occasionally, designs intended for the proof manufacturing process get used in business strike presses and vice versa.
Implying that the "S" Mintmark is "part of the design" is erroneous. >>
Sometimes proof dies are used as business strike coin dies. In this case, the production proof dies were intended to have a S mintmark. The business strikes were not, and no S minted business strikes were coined. Therefore, the no s is a obv die trial. It is an incomplete proof production die. It is not a simple philidelphia business strike die. It was partially prepared as a proof die to strike Cameo proof only coins...if but just a few.
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it. I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks. Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly. I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories. Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications. If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark. As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within it's design parameters, the S mintmark. In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added. Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error. It is an intentional error. It is a die error. It is has also become a pattern. One that lacks full production die design implementation. I classify these as a type of die trial. So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up? >>
Try not to confuse "proof" dies as a design unto themselves since "proof" is a form of manufacture, not design.
Occasionally, designs intended for the proof manufacturing process get used in business strike presses and vice versa.
Implying that the "S" Mintmark is "part of the design" is erroneous. >>
Sometimes proof dies are used as business strike coin dies. In this case, the production proof dies were intended to have a S mintmark. The business strikes were not, and no S minted business strikes were coined. Therefore, the no s is a obv die trial. It is an incomplete proof production die. It is not a simple philidelphia business strike die. It was partially prepared as a proof die to strike Cameo proof only coins...if but just a few. >>
The 1976-s Silver Business Strike had an S Mint mark.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it. I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks. Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly. I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories. Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications. If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark. As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within it's design parameters, the S mintmark. In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added. Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error. It is an intentional error. It is a die error. It is has also become a pattern. One that lacks full production die design implementation. I classify these as a type of die trial. So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up? >>
Try not to confuse "proof" dies as a design unto themselves since "proof" is a form of manufacture, not design.
Occasionally, designs intended for the proof manufacturing process get used in business strike presses and vice versa.
Implying that the "S" Mintmark is "part of the design" is erroneous. >>
Sometimes proof dies are used as business strike coin dies. In this case, the production proof dies were intended to have a S mintmark. The business strikes were not, and no S minted business strikes were coined. Therefore, the no s is a obv die trial. It is an incomplete proof production die. It is not a simple philidelphia business strike die. It was partially prepared as a proof die to strike Cameo proof only coins...if but just a few. >>
The 1976-s Silver Business Strike had an S Mint mark. >>
Ah, I wondered about that after I re-read it. Did not remember. I just did not think that it read right and I stand corrected.
If this is the case, I would think that we have an improperly prepared proof die. It is still not correct for normal production usage as a cameo proof die. It is still a die trial, but of a slightly different flavor. We have a different probability of die occurance.
Like I said, it is hard to write this stuff correctly.
Wondercoin may have the rarest known proof wrong stock pattern coin. I believe that I may have the only known proof wrong stock wrong denomination error coin. So, anyone got the other leg...the proof wrong composition wrong stock error coin (ie: 1971 40% silver proof half)?
The Dollar in question is a Pattern coin. (either intentional or unintentional)
This IKE coin is a No S obv. die trial error. That qualifies it as a pattern, either intentional or unintentional. When the No S Die was used, it struck a metal that was correct for that years San Fransisco proof production. With respect to that years normal proof coinage, it is a die trial error and not a wrong stock error. The 40% silver planchet the coin was struck on was a correct metal for it's intended usage on normal S mint proof coins.
However, the coin is also a wrong stock error. It is a 40% silver non mintmarked coin. All Philidelphia production coins lacked mintmarks and were struck on cu/ni planchets. With respect to the normal non mintmarked cu./ni. dollar coins, the 40% silver Ike is on the wrong stock. It does not really matter if the coin is a proof coin or a business strike coin as neither one of them were intended for production as 40% silver Philidelphia no mintmark coins. Therefore any unintended production usage of the 40% metal on a philidelphia die coin would also make the struck coin a wrong stock error.
In all likelyhood, the coin was made as a pattern coin ( 1 of 4?) intended as a presentation piece. If a 40% proof blank was sent from SF to Philidelphia, we have an intentional pattern coin that mates an improperly prepared proof die with an intentional wrong composition planchet stock. The 40% stock is a correct stock for the S mintmarked proof coins. But, it is intentionally being transitioned from use as San Fransisco only proof coinage metal, to usage in the production of a silver Philidelphia coin. (in leau of the normal Philidelphia cu/ni production stock). I refer to this as the use of transitional U.S. composition wrong stock. We are producing a Philidelphia 40% silver wrong stock coin... in proof.
There is also the possibility that the coin was produced with an improperly prepared No S proof die that shipped to San Fransisco and struck on one of the silver planchets located there. Here we have an inproperly prepared die trial error that is mated to one of many normal silver planchets that were available. Limited to it's own S.F. Mint production events, it is not a wrong stock error coin. But, when taken in context to the normal full years U.S. Mint production run, it becomes a wrong stock error. Although there was normal cu/ni Philidelphia dollar coinage, no 40% production P mint silver coins were released.
The IKE is not on the wrong metal stock for a proof coin of that year. The IKE is on the wrong metal stock for a Philidelphia coin of that mint, that year. It's lineage as a wrong stock error is not linked to it's status as a proof coin, it's lineage is linked to wrong stock classification by virture of it's relationship to the mint of it's production.
The dollar in question is an improperly prepared No S proof obv die trial. (intentional or otherwise) It is also a very rare type of wrong composition wrong stock... the Proof transitional composition wrong stock. (intentional or otherwise).
This coin begs the question of pattern coin, or error coin, or both. For many established numismatists, the issue of classification as a pattern, or as an error, is one of intent.
I do not limit classification as either pattern or error to the strict issue of intent. For ease in my understanding, I cross list and classify such coins into BOTH, errors AND patterns, when possible. I then further subgroup them, by intentional and unintentional, when it is appropriate to the understanding of the nature of their manufacture, their relationship to normal production, and to the establishment of their rarity.
In reality, we can unintentionally create a pattern coin, and we can intentionally create an error.
I'm catching up and have to voice some questions, comments and opinions on this coin. I've known the story of discovery behind it for many years.
1. I am presumably in the upper-ish end of Ike collectors. I know and interact frequently with many of the other individuals with top sets as well, and we have talked numerous times about this coin. To be blatantly honest and truthful, not one of us is very interested - or even interested at all in owning this coin. While it is clearly unique, it's far more of a simple curiosity to us rather than a desirable or "must own" coin that is drooled over. All of us would much rather own a coin that has a low known total population of 10 or 15 or so; this implies the coin is truly rare, but has the ability to be found and therefore pursued/collected. This sustains the collector's thrill of the hunt. Denver strikes on 40% silver planchets might be an example - very few known, but invariably one pops up every couple years. No other 76 No-S proof Ikes will almost assuredly ever be found; why bother looking, let alone desiring if it's going to be locked away indefinitely?
2. After seeing the pictures in the post, this coin is most certainly not undergraded in my opinion, and quite honestly I would personally not put it above PR65CAM. What aspects do others feel make it worthy of a grade higher than PR66CAM?
3. I read this statement from the owner:
<< <i>That is 1,848 coins in that grade of PR69DCAM. So, I have a fairly good idea at what the grade of PR69DCAM looks like at PCGS these days. >>
Well, no, not really. To me that simply means the owner has a good idea of what PCGS will put in a PR69DCAM holder, not that he knows what constitutes a true PR69DCAM Ike. I can line up 20 PR69DCAM Ikes next to another large proof coin like 20 PR69DCAM silver eagles, and it doesn't take a seasoned collector to quickly see that the Ikes are over-graded 19 times out of 20. A true PR69DCAM Ike is far more scarce than what the TPGs have done to the series. Setting aside 1978 when the mint started employing chrome plated dies, I challenge anyone to find and Ike that is fully frosted across 100% of all relief and has spotless, deep mirror fields - not an easy task if you've ever tried. A Silver eagle is not and Ike and vice-versa, however, the technicality of what constitutes that grade/designation should be the same for those two coins as well as any other coin series. To argue differently is hypocritical.
4. Exactly how does this coin get valued at 150K in the PCGS price guide, when it has never sold at auction for near this price, besides once prior to the owner for many times less money? All of us in the Ike community are wondering and questioning this - especially when we all view it as more like a 25K - 50K coin.
5. Perhaps the draw of this coin makes an impact on error or pattern collectors more than any other group. What value does this group of people place on this coin?
<< <i>I'm catching up and have to voice some questions, comments and opinions on this coin. I've known the story of discovery behind it for many years.
1. I am presumably in the upper-ish end of Ike collectors. I know and interact frequently with many of the other individuals with top sets as well, and we have talked numerous times about this coin. To be blatantly honest and truthful, not one of us is very interested - or even interested at all in owning this coin. While it is clearly unique, it's far more of a simple curiosity to us rather than a desirable or "must own" coin that is drooled over. All of us would much rather own a coin that has a low known total population of 10 or 15 or so; this implies the coin is truly rare, but has the ability to be found and therefore pursued/collected. This sustains the collector's thrill of the hunt. Denver strikes on 40% silver planchets might be an example - very few known, but invariably one pops up every couple years. No other 76 No-S proof Ikes will almost assuredly ever be found; why bother looking, let alone desiring if it's going to be locked away indefinitely?
2. After seeing the pictures in the post, this coin is most certainly not undergraded in my opinion, and quite honestly I would personally not put it above PR65CAM. What aspects do others feel make it worthy of a grade higher than PR66CAM?
3. I read this statement from the owner:
<< <i>That is 1,848 coins in that grade of PR69DCAM. So, I have a fairly good idea at what the grade of PR69DCAM looks like at PCGS these days. >>
Well, no, not really. To me that simply means the owner has a good idea of what PCGS will put in a PR69DCAM holder, not that he knows what constitutes a true PR69DCAM Ike. I can line up 20 PR69DCAM Ikes next to another large proof coin like 20 PR69DCAM silver eagles, and it doesn't take a seasoned collector to quickly see that the Ikes are over-graded 19 times out of 20. A true PR69DCAM Ike is far more scarce than what the TPGs have done to the series. Setting aside 1978 when the mint started employing chrome plated dies, I challenge anyone to find and Ike that is fully frosted across 100% of all relief and has spotless, deep mirror fields - not an easy task if you've ever tried. A Silver eagle is not and Ike and vice-versa, however, the technicality of what constitutes that grade/designation should be the same for those two coins as well as any other coin series. To argue differently is hypocritical.
4. Exactly how does this coin get valued at 150K in the PCGS price guide, when it has never sold at auction for near this price, besides once prior to the owner for many times less money? All of us in the Ike community are wondering and questioning this - especially when we all view it as more like a 25K - 50K coin.
5. Perhaps the draw of this coin makes an impact on error or pattern collectors more than any other group. What value does this group of people place on this coin? >>
I like pop 1 coins. I like them more when they are virtually normal production coins. I also prefer intentional error proof coins that look identical to the other normal production coins. In this case, I see an intentional (inproperly prepared) incomplete obv die trial pattern, although technically speaking it is actually not proven as such, so I also see an error. I would argue strongly with the Mint that it is an error if ever the day came that they sought to take it as one of their illegaly released pattern coins. Hey, the mint may have made 3 proofs but can they prove that during the year another no s die did not make it's way to San Fransisco around the same time? Not really. There are some rare and valuable pop1 or pop2 coins such as the 1866 Dupont No Motto coins that seem to be legal to own. Who cares if nobody else has one? Tough luck, it is the rarest of a rare type coin. The coin is also a Philidelphia proof coin...in silver. This coin is also an incredibly rare wrong stock error, either unintentional (for now anyways), or intentional. (transitional stock pattern coin). Normal scarce date coins can be worth millions of dollars. This coin should not be an exception to that just because it is even more rare. It should blow away almost all other coins, period. There are some really rare and valuable error coins.. The extremely rare proof error coins should be at the top of the value range. They are a rare production type, and they are the some of the coolest. The rarest of type can teach the owner things that other numismatists may never have the opportunity to learn if the coin itself is unique. You do not just own a coin, you become the worlds expert in the coin. Pop 1 is one thing but pop 1 as a type is another. To this numismatist, I enjoy the educational opportunity of owning an extremely rare coin more than I could ever enjoy the ego trip of ownership. Why else would dedicated collector specialists spend 50 years learning and still bother to learn if it was just a money guy ego game? When we stop respecting the rarest coins the most, and we just value the competitor look at me coins, something grows dim in the world of coin collecting. A coin like this does not come around very often, in fact they really do not come around at all. It really matters not that this coin is an IKE. Years ago my blue 53s fbl gem ben was just a ben, and nobody cared. Times and popularity change. But an error pattern coin like this is timeless and once gone, it becomes a forever lost opportunity. So, to a very well healed and very experienced collector, what is it worth? Whatever they have to pay to get it.
I would value the coin as being worth between 2 and 5 million dollars, but I would never sell it. It would remain a prized family heirloom. It would remain unobtainable. It would remain priceless.
I think I understand your points and am in general agreement with most of them.
But I believe you are looking at the coin from too narrow a perspective. Perhaps Ike collectors don't have a lot of interest (which I find slightly surprising) but there are a lot of type collectors and others who would almost have to compete for the coin if they wanted it.
I have to believe the coin would fetch a very high price even today but it seems prices of moderns are held back simply by the fact people hesitate to pay up for coins that have never sold at very high prices before and few moderns have. This is changing though as evidenced by the high price for the '75-no S dome that sold ecently. It will become more commonplace as more rarities or very highly desirable coins hit the mar- ket.
I think I understand your points and am in general agreement with most of them.
But I believe you are looking at the coin from too narrow a perspective. Perhaps Ike collectors don't have a lot of interest (which I find slightly surprising) but there are a lot of type collectors and others who would almost have to compete for the coin if they wanted it.
I have to believe the coin would fetch a very high price even today but it seems prices of moderns are held back simply by the fact people hesitate to pay up for coins that have never sold at very high prices before and few moderns have. This is changing though as evidenced by the high price for the '75-no S dome that sold ecently. It will become more commonplace as more rarities or very highly desirable coins hit the mar- ket. >>
I probably fried myself out looking at funny bits of metal a long time ago. Years back I remember getting sales literature that used within it, as a part of their sales pitch, a line that said something to the effect that the best appreciating investment coins "had to have a fundamental reason to rise in value". That was the way that I always saw it too. It turned out pretty much that way. The No S dollar has that covered in a whole bunch of ways. And, I really did not bother to reference the fact that it is also a one year only type, and a historical bicentenial one year type at that. The transitional use wrong composition wrong stock reality really blows me away. How often do we get to see that one? Maybe in another 62 years. This coin will look better than I will. The No S Dollar is definetly a type coin collectors, or an extreme sports coin collectors, Nirvana. As the internet grows, and more and more info flows onto it, the future will seek out and prize the rarest, and the coolest obscure, rarities.. I would bet my coin collecting on it...oops, I already did. lol
I think I understand your points and am in general agreement with most of them.
But I believe you are looking at the coin from too narrow a perspective. Perhaps Ike collectors don't have a lot of interest (which I find slightly surprising) but there are a lot of type collectors and others who would almost have to compete for the coin if they wanted it.
I have to believe the coin would fetch a very high price even today but it seems prices of moderns are held back simply by the fact people hesitate to pay up for coins that have never sold at very high prices before and few moderns have. This is changing though as evidenced by the high price for the '75-no S dome that sold ecently. It will become more commonplace as more rarities or very highly desirable coins hit the mar- ket. >>
The ....... uhhhh......75 No S Dime had some fairly hefty endorsements which, IMO, is why it sold for so much. Way out of line with the other No S Proof coins which exist. Again, IMO.
I do understand the intrigue with No S Proof Coins as they are exactly as desirable as say the 55/55 or the 09-SVDB but none have even approached $100K much less multiples of $100K.
With the proper "endorsement", I have no doubt that the IKE would generate some heavy interest. But only to No S Collectors. I seriously doubt that pattern collectors would be interested and I seriously doubt that an error collector would have much interest. I do know that the IKE Folks would have no interest in chasing this coin.
While it is unique and interesting, it is still an Eisenhower Dollar.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I think I understand your points and am in general agreement with most of them.
But I believe you are looking at the coin from too narrow a perspective. Perhaps Ike collectors don't have a lot of interest (which I find slightly surprising) but there are a lot of type collectors and others who would almost have to compete for the coin if they wanted it.
I have to believe the coin would fetch a very high price even today but it seems prices of moderns are held back simply by the fact people hesitate to pay up for coins that have never sold at very high prices before and few moderns have. This is changing though as evidenced by the high price for the '75-no S dome that sold ecently. It will become more commonplace as more rarities or very highly desirable coins hit the mar- ket. >>
The ....... uhhhh......75 No S Dime had some fairly hefty endorsements which, IMO, is why it sold for so much. Way out of line with the other No S Proof coins which exist. Again, IMO.
I do understand the intrigue with No S Proof Coins as they are exactly as desirable as say the 55/55 or the 09-SVDB but none have even approached $100K much less multiples of $100K.
With the proper "endorsement", I have no doubt that the IKE would generate some heavy interest. But only to No S Collectors. I seriously doubt that pattern collectors would be interested and I seriously doubt that an error collector would have much interest. I do know that the IKE Folks would have no interest in chasing this coin.
While it is unique and interesting, it is still an Eisenhower Dollar. >>
In reality, with a knowledgeable buyer and a knowledgeable seller, the coin is only as valuable as the sellers hands are strong, and the buyer hands are full.
Whether deserving or not, the Ike will likely always find its way on a list of No S coins just as we see here. And, it was true that none of them ever changed hands at $100,000 or more prior to the actual auction of that 1975 mintage two dime. But, that all changed back in 2011, with a $349,600 sale on that dime. The Ike is Unique and linked to the 200th year of our country, which the dime is not. I would not be surprised if the coin became the first $1,000,000 "modern" coin at some point during Justin's ownership of it. The only thing holding it back will be the likelihood that it will not trade hands for more than a generation. Great coins can tend to rise faster in value when appearing at auction multiple times over a few decades (e.g. 1913 nickels).
As I have said before, my only challenge now is making sure my daughter gets a "fair shake" with her brother becoming the future curator of this great coin.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Whether deserving or not, the Ike will likely always find its way on a list of No S coins just as we see here. And, it was true that none of them ever changed hands at $100,000 or more prior to the actual auction of that 1975 mintage two dime. But, that all changed back in 2011, with a $349,600 sale on that dime. The Ike is Unique and linked to the 200th year of our country, which the dime is not. I would not be surprised if the coin became the first $1,000,000 "modern" coin at some point during Justin's ownership of it. The only thing holding it back will be the likelihood that it will not trade hands for more than a generation. Great coins can tend to rise faster in value when appearing at auction multiple times over a few decades (e.g. 1913 nickels).
As I have said before, my only challenge now is making sure my daughter gets a "fair shake" with her brother becoming the future curator of this great coin.
Wondercoin >>
Lets have a bit of fun with this. 50 years or so ago, I can remember having a discussion with other coin heads about proper classifications of errors and patterns. It is late nite here now but I will give it a shot anyways. The dimes are unintentional die trial proof pattern coins. But, they are also perfect proofs. They look the same as if they were made as proofs in Philidelphia in 1975 on normal metal stock. Your coin may be one of the 3 original intentional die trial wrong stock pattern coins, and therefore it may also be a perfect proof. The metal was there at the Philly Mint, not too much of it, but it was there. However, if it was made in error in SF as an unintentional pattern, it would be an imperfect proof. This is because it is struck as a proof on a metal stock that was not used to produce proof coins in Philidelphia that year. We can break down proof errors and patterns into intentional and unintentional. We can sub divide proofs into perfect and imperfect. Some collectors value perfect proofs over imperfect proofs. They probably build date sets, and dealers love selling common date coins that are available. I value rarity. I gave up date sets years ago. I spend my funds on rare coins, and not on costly common date hole fillers.
I had my fun putting together sets years ago and am actually working on full steps now. The common date holes will be cherrypick monsters or MS64 and up gems. It's fun to cherrypick. Everyone gets to choose what they like to collect. The coin market probably should not decide values or import based on lack of understanding, or, lack of information.
<< <i>I'm catching up and have to voice some questions, comments and opinions on this coin. I've known the story of discovery behind it for many years.
1. I am presumably in the upper-ish end of Ike collectors. I know and interact frequently with many of the other individuals with top sets as well, and we have talked numerous times about this coin. To be blatantly honest and truthful, not one of us is very interested - or even interested at all in owning this coin. While it is clearly unique, it's far more of a simple curiosity to us rather than a desirable or "must own" coin that is drooled over. All of us would much rather own a coin that has a low known total population of 10 or 15 or so; this implies the coin is truly rare, but has the ability to be found and therefore pursued/collected. This sustains the collector's thrill of the hunt. Denver strikes on 40% silver planchets might be an example - very few known, but invariably one pops up every couple years. No other 76 No-S proof Ikes will almost assuredly ever be found; why bother looking, let alone desiring if it's going to be locked away indefinitely?
2. After seeing the pictures in the post, this coin is most certainly not undergraded in my opinion, and quite honestly I would personally not put it above PR65CAM. What aspects do others feel make it worthy of a grade higher than PR66CAM?
3. I read this statement from the owner:
<< <i>That is 1,848 coins in that grade of PR69DCAM. So, I have a fairly good idea at what the grade of PR69DCAM looks like at PCGS these days. >>
Well, no, not really. To me that simply means the owner has a good idea of what PCGS will put in a PR69DCAM holder, not that he knows what constitutes a true PR69DCAM Ike. I can line up 20 PR69DCAM Ikes next to another large proof coin like 20 PR69DCAM silver eagles, and it doesn't take a seasoned collector to quickly see that the Ikes are over-graded 19 times out of 20. A true PR69DCAM Ike is far more scarce than what the TPGs have done to the series. Setting aside 1978 when the mint started employing chrome plated dies, I challenge anyone to find and Ike that is fully frosted across 100% of all relief and has spotless, deep mirror fields - not an easy task if you've ever tried. A Silver eagle is not and Ike and vice-versa, however, the technicality of what constitutes that grade/designation should be the same for those two coins as well as any other coin series. To argue differently is hypocritical.
4. Exactly how does this coin get valued at 150K in the PCGS price guide, when it has never sold at auction for near this price, besides once prior to the owner for many times less money? All of us in the Ike community are wondering and questioning this - especially when we all view it as more like a 25K - 50K coin.
5. Perhaps the draw of this coin makes an impact on error or pattern collectors more than any other group. What value does this group of people place on this coin? >>
I am curious. How would you value a 1976 No S proof if it was on a copper nickel planchet as compared to a silver planchet? Which coin would the IKE collectors pursue if they were both available, and why? Lets assume they are both produced in SF as errors. The No S dies were shipped to SF and struck on SF proof planchets. I would refer to the cu/ni coin as a unintentional pattern perfect proof, and the silver coin as an unintentional pattern imperfect proof (transitional composition). Which would the date and mint collectors be more likely to chase after, if either... and why? How about if they were both made in Philidelphia, and they made only one or the other? The cu/ni would be an intentional pattern perfect proof and the silver one an intentional pattern transitional composition perfect proof. What about if the types were mixed between production facilities and intents? Anyone? lol
Bronze... Actually, a few years back, one if the "Biggest" Ike enthusiasts out there was extremely interested in this coin until he/she discovered from me the coin was not for sale at any price. Addionally, not too long ago, I was asked by a very well respected (non Ike) dealer in the community if I would consider selling the coin for $400,000 (no check in hand, just an inquiry) and I politely told them the coin was set aside for Justin and not for sale. So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would).
Regarding valuing the coin in any price guide, many years ago (before the 1975 no s sale) the first guide to value the Ike was the Pattern Book with a starting price of $100,000. With the passage of a great deal of time and a $350,000 auction sale of a dime that had a sheet value of about $40,000 or $50,000 close to the time my Ike was valued at $100,000 if memory serves me right, I, too, have to respectfully question a bit why the PCGS guide is at $150,000. Except my question is why the coin is not valued close to, or higher than, the dime at this point. But, again, you do not see me posting new threads here hyping the coin or questioning the Price Guide, etc. But, if someone states the coin is worth $25,000 or $50,000, or no one wants to own it, etc, I believe it is fair game for me to voice my retort to those claims.
On a side note, Justin is a "big boy" and quite capable of handling himself in public, but I have kept him away from these boards as he cherishes this coin and might not be as diplomatic as I try to be when some folks have little good to say about the coin (for really not good reason) And, while all of the exchanges are certainly reasonable, I would not want Justin's fate to be that of so many other young board members who get over enthusiastic in their replies.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Seems reasonable. Expressing thoughts and opinions is OK. It should be done in good form and spirit. If a noted price guide publishes a book price on a very rare coin, it is probably not in good form to deride the values shown without real strong arguement. Even if the arguement is reasonably sound, any diminuation in value quoted by statement should be supported by more than mere attestation. Nobody needs to trash a nice coin.
To Wondercoins' Top 100 Modern Coins Set.....congratulations on what you have accomplished so far.
But looking over the populations on a few of those coins, PCGS doesn't give any credit for having pop 1 coins do they? For example, the 1992-D 1C Close AM, MS MS62BN Pop 1/0, the MS62 among all those 70 coin grades really pulls down the GPA. Why not a rarity point average, RGA? The Pop 1 MS62 grade should equal MS70 since it is the best coin to own in it's category. And it's so unlikely a 70 coin would ever surface for this coin. Perhaps they could tablet up an average point system with the Pop numbers alone. If you have 70 Pop 1's and 20 Pop 2's and 10 Pop 3's, 70 + 40 + 30 = 140/100 = a 1.4 RGA The closer to the number 1 would show the combined rarity of the coins in the Registry set.
Just a thought, Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>As I have said before, my only challenge now is making sure my daughter gets a "fair shake" with her brother becoming the future curator of this great coin.
Wondercoin >>
I'll sell ya my Prototype for $60 grand.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Bronze... Actually, a few years back, one if the "Biggest" Ike enthusiasts out there was extremely interested in this coin until he/she discovered from me the coin was not for sale at any price. Addionally, not too long ago, I was asked by a very well respected (non Ike) dealer in the community if I would consider selling the coin for $400,000 (no check in hand, just an inquiry) and I politely told them the coin was set aside for Justin and not for sale. So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would).
Regarding valuing the coin in any price guide, many years ago (before the 1975 no s sale) the first guide to value the Ike was the Pattern Book with a starting price of $100,000. With the passage of a great deal of time and a $350,000 auction sale of a dime that had a sheet value of about $40,000 or $50,000 close to the time my Ike was valued at $100,000 if memory serves me right, I, too, have to respectfully question a bit why the PCGS guide is at $150,000. Except my question is why the coin is not valued close to, or higher than, the dime at this point. But, again, you do not see me posting new threads here hyping the coin or questioning the Price Guide, etc. But, if someone states the coin is worth $25,000 or $50,000, or no one wants to own it, etc, I believe it is fair game for me to voice my retort to those claims.
On a side note, Justin is a "big boy" and quite capable of handling himself in public, but I have kept him away from these boards as he cherishes this coin and might not be as diplomatic as I try to be when some folks have little good to say about the coin (for really not good reason) And, while all of the exchanges are certainly reasonable, I would not want Justin's fate to be that of so many other young board members who get over enthusiastic in their replies.
Wondercoin. >>
Why do you continue to tie the dime and IKE together on the one hand then talk about IKE Collectors on the other? The two are totally unrelated. It'll either be sold as a No S Coin or it'll be sold as an IKE. The No S crowd would probably have more interest which is what bronze is stating.
The reality is that the only claim to currently accepted fame that the coin has is that its a No S coin. Otherwise, it's just an IKE and as sad as it may seem, the collecting world in general just doesn't get that excited about IKE's despite the efforts of the IKE Group or even with PCGS showing James and JC's collections at Long Beach back a few years ago. I was hoping it would, but it just didn't.
It may be more than a single generation because it's been MULTIPLE generations since the IKE Dollar fell out of production. Perhaps the only possible hope would be in the elimination of the paper dollar so that folks get more tuned into dollar coins that aren't 90% silver?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Bronze... Actually, a few years back, one if the "Biggest" Ike enthusiasts out there was extremely interested in this coin until he/she discovered from me the coin was not for sale at any price. Addionally, not too long ago, I was asked by a very well respected (non Ike) dealer in the community if I would consider selling the coin for $400,000 (no check in hand, just an inquiry) and I politely told them the coin was set aside for Justin and not for sale. So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would).
Regarding valuing the coin in any price guide, many years ago (before the 1975 no s sale) the first guide to value the Ike was the Pattern Book with a starting price of $100,000. With the passage of a great deal of time and a $350,000 auction sale of a dime that had a sheet value of about $40,000 or $50,000 close to the time my Ike was valued at $100,000 if memory serves me right, I, too, have to respectfully question a bit why the PCGS guide is at $150,000. Except my question is why the coin is not valued close to, or higher than, the dime at this point. But, again, you do not see me posting new threads here hyping the coin or questioning the Price Guide, etc. But, if someone states the coin is worth $25,000 or $50,000, or no one wants to own it, etc, I believe it is fair game for me to voice my retort to those claims.
On a side note, Justin is a "big boy" and quite capable of handling himself in public, but I have kept him away from these boards as he cherishes this coin and might not be as diplomatic as I try to be when some folks have little good to say about the coin (for really not good reason) And, while all of the exchanges are certainly reasonable, I would not want Justin's fate to be that of so many other young board members who get over enthusiastic in their replies.
Wondercoin. >>
Why do you continue to tie the dime and IKE together on the one hand then talk about IKE Collectors on the other? The two are totally unrelated. It'll either be sold as a No S Coin or it'll be sold as an IKE. The No S crowd would probably have more interest which is what bronze is stating.
The reality is that the only claim to currently accepted fame that the coin has is that its a No S coin. Otherwise, it's just an IKE and as sad as it may seem, the collecting world in general just doesn't get that excited about IKE's despite the efforts of the IKE Group or even with PCGS showing James and JC's collections at Long Beach back a few years ago. I was hoping it would, but it just didn't.
It may be more than a single generation because it's been MULTIPLE generations since the IKE Dollar fell out of production. Perhaps the only possible hope would be in the elimination of the paper dollar so that folks get more tuned into dollar coins that aren't 90% silver? >>
"Why do you continue to tie the dime and IKE together on the one hand then talk about IKE Collectors on the other? The two are totally unrelated."
Really? The two are totally unrelated?
Maybe Wondercoin understands that the dimes and the dollars are both related to each other because they are both No S proof coins. Maybe Wiondercoin understands that the coin really is the rarest proof IKE on the face of the planet, and a simple little fact like that one might actually have serious collector appeal to a very well heeled and experienced Ike series collector who just may fancy the idea of having a Unique masterpiece in their collection. Or maybe, could it be possible that some of the people that collect Ike dollars by series may also just happen to understand, respect, and collect rare coins of all type? And then of course, it could have something to do with Wondercoin just knowing the simple facts that there are people who actually understand and covet priceless rarities, and then there are people who enjoy ripping into other peoples coins becauise they will never own them. Ah, but that is just idle speculation, and not a proof.
<< <i>As I have said before, my only challenge now is making sure my daughter gets a "fair shake" with her brother becoming the future curator of this great coin.
Wondercoin >>
I'll sell ya my Prototype for $60 grand. >>
That is a lot of money for a die pair even if people assume that it is preproduction. I suspect at open auction, it would realize a different amount.
<< <i>As I have said before, my only challenge now is making sure my daughter gets a "fair shake" with her brother becoming the future curator of this great coin.
Wondercoin >>
I'll sell ya my Prototype for $60 grand. >>
That is a lot of money for a die pair even if people assume that it is preproduction. I suspect at open auction, it would realize a different amount. >>
Which is why it has not been sold. BUT, it's still RARE.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I would personally love to own the prototype Ike and it would not be a stretch that the ultimate buyer of this Ike many years from now might want that one as well. Remember, coins like Trade Dollars, Two Cent and Three Cent pieces and even patterns ,etc. were not always as popular as they are today. I think Ikes have a great future ahead of them. Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
So, how are the 3 coins related? The 2 dimes are believed to have been struck in San Fransisco with a proof Obv die that lacked the S mintmark. That would make them Unintentional, perfect proof, improperly prepared production design obv die trial, pattern coins ...or maybe just call them unintentional perfect proofs for short. The Ike is much more interesting. Capt suggested that it would be easier to send a few silver proof blanks from San Fransisco Mint to Philidelphia than it would be to ship coils across the country. I agree. But consider this... If those blanks had been shipped from SF to Philly, the mint in Philly would have had to set the machinery up to strike proof coins. Possible, sure. But smart? Maybe not. They're going to stop business strike production lines and set up their machines to strike 3 proof coins? Maybe not. Maybe instead of going through all of that trouble, Philly may have decided on an easier course of action. Lets just assume that the mint could strike 2,000 coins per proof die and they struck 4 million S proof dollars in SF. That means that Philidelphia probably sent around 2,000 S mintmarked obv proof dies to SF that year. If I needed a few proof coins struck without a S mintmark to use as presentation trial strikes, would it not be more expediant for me to just send 1,999 S mintmarked Obv dies to SF and include in that shipment an additional proof die that I just did not bother to add a mintmark to? If SF did not have any current proof style S mintmark punches on location, I could have also included one within that shipment. I would tell SF mint to strike 3 pattern No S proof Obv coins to send back to me. I would also probably have instructed them to then add the S mintmark to the No S die after the striking of the 3 No S proof coins was completed. This would then have allowed the SF mint to make full S mintmarked proof production usage out of the die. Why waste an expensive and very usable proof die? If this happened, we have a intentional, transitional composition, improperly prepared production obv die trial, imperfect proof, pattern coin. Kinda makes us wonder what else that die would have been capable of producing does it not? So, did this happen? Who is to say? Now, if the coin was made in SF but it was made by a No S obv die being sent to SF by mistake and then being used to strike a silver No S proof coin, we have the same designations, but the coin is now unintentional. Basically, we have an unintentional transitional composition imperfect proof pattern coin. And lastly, let us assume that the 3 silver planchets were sent to Philly to make a few No S proof coins inside that Mint. We are creating an intentional transitional compostiion improperly prepared production obv die trial perfect proof. It is a silver Philidelphia proof coin. So, the dimes ( if made by mistake in SF) are presumed to be unintentional perfect proof pattern coins, and the dollar (if produced on purpose in Philly) is presumed to be an intentional (transitional composition) perfect proof pattern coin.
If we go back to 1968 dime proofs and run the total proof only dime production numbers from 1968 up into 1976, we can compare the mathematical probability of occurance between the 2 seperate but similiar occurances. Compare the 4 million or so silver proof planchets used in 1976 to all of those previous cu/ni dime proof coins and we can get an idea of the relative probability of occurance between the two coin events. The difference in probability of event occurance is substantial. Regardless perfection or otherwise, and regardles intention or not, the silver composition dollar is the more rare coin. It is a one year only type. Nobody should be dissing that dollar coin, and, it should not be priced as a lessor value coin due to marketing gimmics and coin business pressure. Numismatics rules, and the coin buisness has no right to ruin.
<< <i>So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would). >>
Sorry, but not gossip. Simply the honest truth from 5 of the top ten or so Ike collectors I speak with on a regular basis. I have no problem or the slightest regret speaking what I know to be fact.
I didn't post to attack or bash, but instead attempted to spin some mental gears from other viewpoints that others are negating/overlooking. I've stated my and other's personal thoughts, and clearly these differing opinions have upset some people. Quite frankly, I see an enormous amount of effort thus far from some posters on this thread desperately trying to rationalize and "defend" this coin. If some collectors feel differently than what I've mentioned, and its worth "2 - 5 million" to them, well, admittedly and truthfully I'll be laughing to myself, but by all means: have at it. It's not my place to tell another how to spend their money, nor even my remote concern - let alone worry about what they consider and regard as valuable and "priceless". I am merely suggesting that perhaps they recognize there are indeed many others that do not share the same viewpoints about this particular coin.
I would propose the notion that a public auction of this coin would help determine desirability of this coin. Like it or not, the amount of money people are willing to pay for a coin is generally a direct or at the very least a least proportional reflection on demand/desirability of a coin. However, we know that will not happen to this coin for at least a great number of years or even at all during many of our lifetimes as stated previously - and that is certainly fine. That being said, and regardless of how much people comment good or bad towards this coin, it will continue to be supported by various speculation and opinion only.
<< <i>So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would). >>
Sorry, but not gossip. Simply the honest truth from 5 of the top ten or so Ike collectors I speak with on a regular basis. I have no problem or the slightest regret speaking what I know to be fact.
I didn't post to attack or bash, but instead attempted to spin some mental gears from other viewpoints that others are negating/overlooking. I've stated my and other's personal thoughts, and clearly these differing opinions have upset some people. Quite frankly, I see an enormous amount of effort thus far from some posters on this thread desperately trying to rationalize and "defend" this coin. If some collectors feel differently than what I've mentioned, and its worth "2 - 5 million" to them, well, admittedly and truthfully I'll be laughing to myself, but by all means: have at it. It's not my place to tell another how to spend their money, nor even my remote concern - let alone worry about what they consider and regard as valuable and "priceless". I am merely suggesting that perhaps they recognize there are indeed many others that do not share the same viewpoints about this particular coin.
I would propose the notion that a public auction of this coin would help determine desirability of this coin. Like it or not, the amount of money people are willing to pay for a coin is generally a direct or at the very least a least proportional reflection on demand/desirability of a coin. However, we know that will not happen to this coin for at least a great number of years or even at all during many of our lifetimes as stated previously - and that is certainly fine. That being said, and regardless of how much people comment good or bad towards this coin, it will continue to be supported by various speculation and opinion only.
<< <i>So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would). >>
Sorry, but not gossip. Simply the honest truth from 5 of the top ten or so Ike collectors I speak with on a regular basis. I have no problem or the slightest regret speaking what I know to be fact.
I didn't post to attack or bash, but instead attempted to spin some mental gears from other viewpoints that others are negating/overlooking. I've stated my and other's personal thoughts, and clearly these differing opinions have upset some people. Quite frankly, I see an enormous amount of effort thus far from some posters on this thread desperately trying to rationalize and "defend" this coin. If some collectors feel differently than what I've mentioned, and its worth "2 - 5 million" to them, well, admittedly and truthfully I'll be laughing to myself, but by all means: have at it. It's not my place to tell another how to spend their money, nor even my remote concern - let alone worry about what they consider and regard as valuable and "priceless". I am merely suggesting that perhaps they recognize there are indeed many others that do not share the same viewpoints about this particular coin.
I would propose the notion that a public auction of this coin would help determine desirability of this coin. Like it or not, the amount of money people are willing to pay for a coin is generally a direct or at the very least a least proportional reflection on demand/desirability of a coin. However, we know that will not happen to this coin for at least a great number of years or even at all during many of our lifetimes as stated previously - and that is certainly fine. That being said, and regardless of how much people comment good or bad towards this coin, it will continue to be supported by various speculation and opinion only. >>
I do not buy this at any price, if the top 10 Ike sets today had a chance to pick up this coin years ago I find it hard to believe they would not love to have it. I am not a modern collector but I think it is COOL. Since it is NOT AVAILIBLE nor will be anytime in the near FUTURE I can see where some would say it is not "worthy"
I got to give wondercoin props as I would sell anything I have if enough 100 dollar bills were stacked high enough. After taking the money I would tell my son he really would not have wanted the coin as he wants to be independent and make it on his own. ( just kidding )
Looks like quite a bit of bitterness by some.
19lyds get the major "you suck" for his Ike. Can not think of a better way to have a wicked cool coin that finding it in the wild. ( raw unslabbed unknown cheap)
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
1. I am presumably in the upper-ish end of Ike collectors. I know and interact frequently with many of the other individuals with top sets as well, and we have talked numerous times about this coin.
bronze6827, I'm insulted that you haven't discussed this coin with me before.
So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son Let's go through the issues one by one. Poor taste...yeah, kinda. On the other hand Mitch has no plans to ever sell the coin, right? And he is a big boy, so what's the harm? I have my own opinion on the coin and am very interested in what others think. I wish there another place I gather to talk with my fellow Ike collector's where Mitch wouldn't be subjected to our analysis...but this is where I hang out and this is where the discussion is happening. Plus, like I said, he is a big boy. On the idea of "don't talk about the coin because it is my son's heirloom"...eh. I could say the same thing about all my coins. Does that mean no one gets to say anything bad about them now? No one knows your son. No one knows my son. I'm not sure why his name keeps getting sprinkled throughout this thread.
<< <i>So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would). >>
Sorry, but not gossip. Simply the honest truth from 5 of the top ten or so Ike collectors I speak with on a regular basis. I have no problem or the slightest regret speaking what I know to be fact.
I didn't post to attack or bash, but instead attempted to spin some mental gears from other viewpoints that others are negating/overlooking. I've stated my and other's personal thoughts, and clearly these differing opinions have upset some people. Quite frankly, I see an enormous amount of effort thus far from some posters on this thread desperately trying to rationalize and "defend" this coin. If some collectors feel differently than what I've mentioned, and its worth "2 - 5 million" to them, well, admittedly and truthfully I'll be laughing to myself, but by all means: have at it. It's not my place to tell another how to spend their money, nor even my remote concern - let alone worry about what they consider and regard as valuable and "priceless". I am merely suggesting that perhaps they recognize there are indeed many others that do not share the same viewpoints about this particular coin.
I would propose the notion that a public auction of this coin would help determine desirability of this coin. Like it or not, the amount of money people are willing to pay for a coin is generally a direct or at the very least a least proportional reflection on demand/desirability of a coin. However, we know that will not happen to this coin for at least a great number of years or even at all during many of our lifetimes as stated previously - and that is certainly fine. That being said, and regardless of how much people comment good or bad towards this coin, it will continue to be supported by various speculation and opinion only. >>
Anyone can have an opinion of value. An opinion of value is only that and no more. It is an opinion. You wanted to know what some other collectors thought of the coins potential valuation. The only IKEs that I own are two cheap proofs sitting in their original proof sets, and I think that one is way cooler than the other because it still has the chewing marks where my dog was eating at the mint plastic. My dog is long gone and I still cherish the memories of him having a blast just going to town and chewing away to his hearts content.
What do the top 5 or so IKE collectors have to do with the value of this coin other than maybe lament the fact that they do not own it? I posted about what this coin is and how it ties in to other rare pattern proof coin type, and it seems to have gone sailing right over some readers heads. This coin is a RARE type of mint production proof coin. One that seldom occurs. It is a transitional composition die trial pattern proof. Any attempt to link this IKE coins valuation to a few collectors that may want to poopoo the coin is like saying that the 1955 DDO lincoln cent valuation has something to do with, or should have some type of limitations set upon it by, the Lincoln date and mint set collectors. Look at the value of that 1955 DDO coin and understand that a huge number of them were put away and still exist. Despite their available numbers, they carry a substantional value. That valuation is not the Lincoln cent date set collectors at work, that is coin collectors at play. Maybe tying this transitional pattern proof to the Ike collector is more akin to saying that the 1913 Liberty nickel value is somehow tied to a few of the top Liberty nickel set collectors. Really? How many dedicated Liberty nickel date and mint set collectors are really out there? Can you imagine the limitations of the value of the 1913 if it were limited to the top 5 Liberty nickel date set collectors? Or maybe, how about the lonely 3 legged Buffalo nickel. Imagine linking it's value to just buff collectors who,..uh, lets forget them Buff guys, they are willing to pay through the nose for their coins just because they can make out a part of a design on the coin. The point is made. A coin like this one has an appeal that transends any limited grouping of series collectors. I have no way to know the value of this coin. It is not likely to come up for sale anytime soon. Wondercoin has already stated that he has plans to withhold the coin from the market. Therefore, any valuation suggested herin is mere speculation and suggestion and no more. In reality, the coin is priceless as it's owner is in strong enough hands to keep it from those who would seek to Rip it from him at stupid cheap money. Reality dictates that anyone who desires to own the coin can only but just imagine the lost opportunity afforded to them. Perhaps part of the reason for that is that Mitch believes that he cannot get a rational amount of money out of this coin which is rightfully suggested by a full understanding of its historical significance, and it's relative value as a true American Rarity, modern or otherwise. That coin is a Philidelphia No S Silver Bicentenial proof Dollar coin, and it is the only known surviving specimen. It is a production ready design effort that highlights the pinnacle of the Mint coiners abilities to create a cleaner suggestion of those many national representatives that were soon to follow. Maybe it will never go up for sale in our lifetimes because it's current owner knows that a relative few disinterested have done their best to diminish the true valuation and import of this national treasure.
Neca63. My son Justin has been "involved" with coins since the time he was five years old. Between 2007-2010, he built a near perfect set of Mint State Presidential Dollars "homemade" by, among other things, searching tens upon tens of thousands of coins in sealed bricks along with his sister. In fact, he won the Young Numismatist of the Year award from PCGS in 2009 for his spectacular registry set. Shortly thereafter, the current #1 collector of Ike Dollars approached Justin and asked to purchase the five or ten coins in Justin's Pres. dollar set that he needed as the #2 set collector. Justin sold him the coins and to this day, Justin is personally thanked by the #1 Ike and Pres $1 collector in the comment section of the registry set for the coins Justin and his sister sold to him. If Justin decides to enter the field of Numismatics as his career (he is currently entering his final year at UCLA as a Chemistry major and weighing his many, many career options), the #1 Ike collector also spoke of possiblly having Justin help him with a major project so I can only assume the current #1 set collector of Ikes is also (yet another) Not one of the "five top Ike collectors" referenced in Bronze's triple posted reply.
But, all of that aside, I decided to not sell this coin for one reason and one reason only (and having nothing to do with current demand for the coin as I personally believe the coin could set the world record price for a modern coin right this moment). Justin asked me for it many years ago as the only possession I own that he wanted me to try to pass down to him if possible. He had/has no interest in my pattern Liberty nickel collection, my Hall of Fame Washington quarters set or any other coin I currently own. And, I own a number of coins worth as much as the five Ike guys value this Ike at. For some reason as a young man (but he did meet Pres. Ford as a young boy) Justin chose this Ike dollar (and back at the time of the request, worth even far less than it is today) as the coin he made that request for and I am going to try to make that happen for him (while at the same time trying to make sure his sister never has a bad feeling about him receiving this one coin from me).
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I am having breakfast with Justin this morning (we are out of the country). I briefly explained to him why I have been posting comments on line during our family time here. He is a fan of the old "Get Smart" show and quickly came up with this dialog in line with the old show....
Mr. Smart: "Most Ike Dollar collectors think your coin is worth as little as $25,000 -$50,000 and really wouldn't want it even at that price".
The other guy: "Mr. Smart, I find that very hard to believe".
Mr. Smart: "Would you believe five out of the top ten Ike guys feel that way"?
The other guy: "I find that very hard to believe Mr. Smart".
Mr. Smart: "Would you believe that two of the top three underbidders for the coin back at the last auction have no interest in it today"?
The other guy: "I still find that very hard to believe"
Mr. Smart: "Would you believe the girl downstairs selling Girl Scout cookies would not accept the Ike as full payment for a box of Thin Mints"?
The other guy: "That I would believe". Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Leo. You make an excellent point. I was unable to attend the last PCGS luncheon in Chicago last month, but I was informed that Don Willis spoke to this very subject. I am told (but have not verified) that pop 1 coins will soon receive triple weight in the registry, while pop tops will receive double weight. If true, this may be a very interesting development for the pursuit of the very finest registry coins. And, I too, believe an approach like this makes good sense.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Mitch, I am not trying to bismirch the reputations, or the dedicated efforts of, the top 5 IKE registry set collectors. I am making a point that whomever the "top 5 guys are" that may not be 'interested' in your coin are not in any way to be considered the final authorities on the matter of the valuation of priceless Rare transitional pattern proof coins. No personal slight toward anyone was intended. I was just trying to share some rather obscured information that I find interesting with other like minded collectors. I certainly am in no position to claim priviledge to being the final authority on the value of anyone elses collectibles, and, I feel that no one else is either. We have auctions and marketplaces for that sort of thing. Be that as it may, I tend to infer that anyone who may attempt to deride the value of rare and valuable collectibles of historical import may have ulterior motive that may not be in line with reality. Common politness suggests that a bit of good will (and common sense) offered while in the evaluation of anothers prized possessions is warranteed.
Neca. I totally agree with you. On top of that, reference to top Ike guys is generally to the Mint State collectors, while this particular coin is a proof and a whole different group of Ike collectors seriously collect the proofs from what I know. For example, the "regular issue" 1976 PR70DCAM Ike that sold at Heritage for more than $25,000 at auction back in 2011 did not sell to an Ike collector at all, but to a type collector. If memory serves me right, Ike collectors valued that coin at a small fraction of what it ultimately fetched at auction. I was the original submittor of that coin at PCGS, but did not keep it for Justin's personal set (see below) as we both liked the coin in his collection as much, if not slightly more than the PR70DCAM coin.
Additionally, if discussing proof Ike collectors, I believe my son Justin has the nicest collection of full monster deep cameo truly near perfect proof Ikes in the world. In fact, a few years back, I offered to Rick Tomaska to set up a "show down" of sorts at a Long Beach show where Justin would present his set of 11 monster DCAM near flawless proof Ikes against the finest collection Rick could assemble from his outstanding customer base. I thought it would be a great way to showcase just how rare these proof Ikes truly are with near 100% monster DCAM near flawless surfaces. Rick agreed with me and told me he would keep such an event in mind. My/Justin offer still stands ... on the proof side of Ike collecting if a showdown of the best sets in the world is ever organized, we will try to be there with what I believe to be the nicest proof set in existence- grades on holders notwithstanding. So, on the proof side of Ike collecting, make no mistake about it that Justin is yet another collector in the top 5. Which also shows why reference to the top 5 or top 10 is very difficult to identify as in many cases the top MS collectors are not the Top proof collectors and vice versa (not to mention the top Ike variety guys may be yet a third group of Ike collectors).
Bottom line... we like Ike as much as the next guy!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Neca. I totally agree with you. On top of that, reference to top Ike guys is generally to the Mint State collectors, while this particular coin is a proof and a whole different group of Ike collectors seriously collect the proofs from what I know. For example, the "regular issue" 1976 PR70DCAM Ike that sold at Heritage for more than $25,000 at auction back in 2011 did not sell to an Ike collector at all, but to a type collector. If memory serves me right, Ike collectors valued that coin at a small fraction of what it ultimately fetched at auction. I was the original submittor of that coin at PCGS, but did not keep it for Justin's personal set (see below) as we both liked the coin in his collection as much, if not slightly more than the PR70DCAM coin.
Additionally, if discussing proof Ike collectors, I believe my son Justin has the nicest collection of full monster deep cameo truly near perfect proof Ikes in the world. In fact, a few years back, I offered to Rick Tomaska to set up a "show down" of sorts at a Long Beach show where Justin would present his set of 11 monster DCAM near flawless proof Ikes against the finest collection Rick could assemble from his outstanding customer base. I thought it would be a great way to showcase just how rare these proof Ikes truly are with near 100% monster DCAM near flawless surfaces. Rick agreed with me and told me he would keep such an event in mind. My/Justin offer still stands ... on the proof side of Ike collecting if a showdown of the best sets in the world is ever organized, we will try to be there with what I believe to be the nicest proof set in existence- grades on holders notwithstanding. So, on the proof side of Ike collecting, make no mistake about it that Justin is yet another collector in the top 5. Which also shows why reference to the top 5 or top 10 is very difficult to identify as in many cases the top MS collectors are not the Top proof collectors and vice versa (not to mention the top Ike variety guys may be yet a third group of Ike collectors).
Bottom line... we like Ike as much as the next guy!
Comments
<< <i>"This Ike coin is serious numismatic history."
I think on this point, most everyone can agree.
Second, most people tell me they prefer the (current) Unique 1976 Proof Ike Dollar to the (current) mintage two 1975 Proof No S dime.
Third, I get a phone call or email nearly every week from someone thinking they have found the second 1976 Ike Dollar. So much so, that recently the Price Guide editor revised the online article on this coin he had written many years ago to include reference to the fact that the US Mint struck millions of no S 1976 business strike Ikes that exist out there in addition to this one proof example. What is surprising to me is just how many (and how diverse) non numismatic folks call me on finding the second example of this coin. Everyone from waitresses who got one in change as a tip to the Head of a Church recently who received one from a very old congregation member. Many start the call with just how this find is a life changer for them and the break they have been waiting for. I always direct them to their local coin shop first to ask to see a 1975 or 1976 proof set to compare a proof to a mint state Ike dollar coin. I invite them to also send off their coin for authentication to either PCGS or NGC depending upon where they are calling from but caution them on the costs involved and to try to get an opinion first from their local coin shop if such a submission seems warranted after comparing their coin to the coin in the proof set (with the S mint mark). I try to take the time with everyone contacting me. I tell most everyone that it is a very long shot that they have found a second example of a Philadelphia no S proof Ike, but not impossible. The calls and emails have slowed a bit though recently since PCGS edited its online article on the coin.
Wondercoin. >>
If you have not already done so, "Follow the Metal" and document it.
...and ditto for the actual No S mm die used.
Of course I cannot prove anything about the circumstances of its birth. Perhaps some Mint or Treasury personage still had one of the three-piece "No S" 40% silver Proof sets, and wanted an example of the new version of the dollar to go with it. Perhaps one was made for President Ford, or for each of the three coin designers, and perhaps one or more four-coin sets still exist. This is, of course, all speculation and fantasy.
TD
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>For the record, I firmly believe that wondercoin's 1976 "No S" 40% silver Proof dollar is not a "wrong planchet error," nor an error of any other sort. I believe that it was quite intentionally struck on a 40% silver planchet to match the three previous "No S" 40% silver Proof strikings. It belongs in the Judd catalogue, not an error catalogue.
Of course I cannot prove anything about the circumstances of its birth. Perhaps some Mint or Treasury personage still had one of the three-piece "No S" 40% silver Proof sets, and wanted an example of the new version of the dollar to go with it. Perhaps one was made for President Ford, or for each of the three coin designers, and perhaps one or more four-coin sets still exist. This is, of course, all speculation and fantasy.
TD >>
I also believe that it is a pattern.
I believe that the silver IKE dollars were made in San Fransisco.
If all production 1976 Philidelphia IKES were copper nickel, then we need to trace the source of the 40% silver stock to determine the relative rarity of a no mintmark silver Ike dollar coins existence, either proof or not.
If Philidelphia was producing silver 1976 IKES for Unc sets, then the 40% coils would be available on site and it would have been no problem for them to Blank a coil, or to cut a sheet from one of those many coils, and use it in Pattern production.
This becomes of interest in that in the first example, we may be able to tie the source of that silver stock to a single roll of stock (or a portion thereof), whereas in the second example, we can trace it back to a whole bunch of different coils of silver stock.
Therefore, the probability of that planchets production in these examples are different.
PS...because it can become somewhat difficult at times to know if a given pattern was authorized or not, it can also become difficult to properly classify it in order to understand it's probability of existence.
Attempting to establish and understand a given error or pattern coins proper technical classifications can be trying.
<< <i>
<< <i>For the record, I firmly believe that wondercoin's 1976 "No S" 40% silver Proof dollar is not a "wrong planchet error," nor an error of any other sort. I believe that it was quite intentionally struck on a 40% silver planchet to match the three previous "No S" 40% silver Proof strikings. It belongs in the Judd catalogue, not an error catalogue.
Of course I cannot prove anything about the circumstances of its birth. Perhaps some Mint or Treasury personage still had one of the three-piece "No S" 40% silver Proof sets, and wanted an example of the new version of the dollar to go with it. Perhaps one was made for President Ford, or for each of the three coin designers, and perhaps one or more four-coin sets still exist. This is, of course, all speculation and fantasy.
TD >>
I also believe that it is a pattern.
I am a bit confused about what IKE dollars were made from the different compositions in 1976 and where.
If all production 1976 Philidelphia IKES were copper nickel, then we need to trace the source of the 40% silver stock to determine the relative rarity of a no mintmark silver Ike dollar coins existence, either proof or not.
If Philidelphia was producing silver 1976 IKES for Unc sets, then the 40% coils would be available on site and it would have been no problem for them to Blank a coil, or to cut a sheet from one of those many coils, and use it in Pattern production.
This becomes of interest in that in the first example, we may be able to tie the source of that silver stock to a single roll of stock (or a portion thereof), whereas in the second example, we can trace it back to a whole bunch of different coils of silver stock.
Therefore, the probability of that planchets production in these examples are different.
PS...because it can become somewhat difficult at times to know if a given pattern was authorized or not, it can also become difficult to properly classify it in order to understand it's probability of existence.
Attempting to establish and understand a given error or pattern coins proper technical classifications can be trying. >>
It would have been a heckuva lot simpler to make the 40% silver quarter, half and dollar planchets in San Francisco, where they were going to be mass producing the three coins, and ship a few planchets for the ceremonial first striking to Philadelphia rather than shipping three coils to Philadelphia to be blanked.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>For the record, I firmly believe that wondercoin's 1976 "No S" 40% silver Proof dollar is not a "wrong planchet error," nor an error of any other sort. I believe that it was quite intentionally struck on a 40% silver planchet to match the three previous "No S" 40% silver Proof strikings. It belongs in the Judd catalogue, not an error catalogue.
Of course I cannot prove anything about the circumstances of its birth. Perhaps some Mint or Treasury personage still had one of the three-piece "No S" 40% silver Proof sets, and wanted an example of the new version of the dollar to go with it. Perhaps one was made for President Ford, or for each of the three coin designers, and perhaps one or more four-coin sets still exist. This is, of course, all speculation and fantasy.
TD >>
I also believe that it is a pattern.
I am a bit confused about what IKE dollars were made from the different compositions in 1976 and where.
If all production 1976 Philidelphia IKES were copper nickel, then we need to trace the source of the 40% silver stock to determine the relative rarity of a no mintmark silver Ike dollar coins existence, either proof or not.
If Philidelphia was producing silver 1976 IKES for Unc sets, then the 40% coils would be available on site and it would have been no problem for them to Blank a coil, or to cut a sheet from one of those many coils, and use it in Pattern production.
This becomes of interest in that in the first example, we may be able to tie the source of that silver stock to a single roll of stock (or a portion thereof), whereas in the second example, we can trace it back to a whole bunch of different coils of silver stock.
Therefore, the probability of that planchets production in these examples are different.
PS...because it can become somewhat difficult at times to know if a given pattern was authorized or not, it can also become difficult to properly classify it in order to understand it's probability of existence.
Attempting to establish and understand a given error or pattern coins proper technical classifications can be trying. >>
It would have been a heckuva lot simpler to make the 40% silver quarter, half and dollar planchets in San Francisco, where they were going to be mass producing the three coins, and ship a few planchets for the ceremonial first striking to Philadelphia rather than shipping three coils to Philadelphia to be blanked. >>
I agree.
I got a bit befuddled for a bit.
I thought the silvers were done in SF, then got my brain got stuck.
I have little doubt that Philidelphia was capable of holding a few left over coils or portions thereof, but I really do not know and am more inclined to agree with your supposition.
Tying this coin to only a few blanks just makes it more interesting as a proof wrong stock pattern coin.
...as an authorized event, or to the contrary.
If we cannot prove that this coin is indeed an intentional pattern, then we can also classify it as an error coin.
Even if we can prove that this individual coin is a pattern, can we also prove that any and all other similiar coins that may
exist are also patterns, and not wrong stock errors?
If we cannot differentiate between them with certainty, then we cannot determine their true origin and statistical rarity.
For ease of understanding true rarity, I would classify these "Pattern" error types as transitional U.S. composition wrong stock, proof pattern errors.
That missing S mintmark was not used in normal proof production, and the coin is not on the normal metals.
The one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted die that is different from that which was originally intended for use.
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs".
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it.
I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks.
Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly.
I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx
<< <i>"This Ike coin is serious numismatic history."
I have tried to lay out a brief understanding of the probability of wrong stock errors.
You have a unique dollar that is being compared to the very cool no S mintmark dimes.
I assume that all of the dimes made when the No S examples were produced are all on normal blanks.
With 2 no S dimes out of maybe 3 million coins existing, and none others discovered in many years, the odds of those two coins being produced are fairly easy to compute.
Ditto your One lone example of no S dollar... if struck on a normal planchet.
This stuff can happen in any given year. It does not, but it can.
Consider how many coin blanks are available to make No S dimes.
Compare that to how many 40% silver blanks were available to make your No S dollar.
Extrapolate that over the years.
When figured over many years of production, it is not genius to understand how many more years it will take before we see another coin like your combined error (pattern?) wrong stock No S mintmark dollar to show up as compared to the the likelyhood of seeing another normal metal No S coin.
My finite math is too many years behind me now, but I venture that all of us can understand that the difference in the probability of occurance between either of the the two similiar but different types of random events is substantial.
Some may take short cuts in the coin hobby and get loose with their nomenclature, and this probably has more to do with marketing pressure and dollar chasing.
We all stand less chance of getting hustled out of our prized possessions when we understand what we actually have.
You have a monster coin there.
It even rattles my wrong denomination wrong stock proof Kenndy... and I believe that it is also currently unique.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it.
I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks.
Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly.
I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it.
I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks.
Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly.
I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories.
Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications.
If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark.
As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within
it's design parameters, the S mintmark.
In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added.
Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error.
It is an intentional error. It is a die error.
It is has also become a pattern.
One that lacks full production die design implementation.
I classify these as a type of die trial.
So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it.
I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks.
Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly.
I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories.
Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications.
If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark.
As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within
it's design parameters, the S mintmark.
In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added.
Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error.
It is an intentional error. It is a die error.
It is has also become a pattern.
One that lacks full production die design implementation.
I classify these as a type of die trial.
So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up? >>
So, whatchacallit?
I call it a No S proof obv die trial struck on a transitional U.S. composition wrong stock error coin.
If we can prove that it was intentionally made as a proof pattern, I would then add the word pattern into the description, probably right after the word error and before the word coin.
You can call it what you want.
Just make sure that you can understand it for what it is at least well enough to establish it's rarity.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it.
I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks.
Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly.
I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories.
Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications.
If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark.
As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within
it's design parameters, the S mintmark.
In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added.
Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error.
It is an intentional error. It is a die error.
It is has also become a pattern.
One that lacks full production die design implementation.
I classify these as a type of die trial.
So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up? >>
Try not to confuse "proof" dies as a design unto themselves since "proof" is a form of manufacture, not design.
Occasionally, designs intended for the proof manufacturing process get used in business strike presses and vice versa.
Implying that the "S" Mintmark is "part of the design" is erroneous.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it.
I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks.
Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly.
I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories.
Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications.
If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark.
As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within
it's design parameters, the S mintmark.
In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added.
Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error.
It is an intentional error. It is a die error.
It is has also become a pattern.
One that lacks full production die design implementation.
I classify these as a type of die trial.
So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up? >>
Try not to confuse "proof" dies as a design unto themselves since "proof" is a form of manufacture, not design.
Occasionally, designs intended for the proof manufacturing process get used in business strike presses and vice versa.
Implying that the "S" Mintmark is "part of the design" is erroneous. >>
Sometimes proof dies are used as business strike coin dies.
In this case, the production proof dies were intended to have a S mintmark.
The business strikes were not, and no S minted business strikes were coined.
Therefore, the no s is a obv die trial.
It is an incomplete proof production die.
It is not a simple philidelphia business strike die.
It was partially prepared as a proof die to strike Cameo proof only coins...if but just a few.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it.
I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks.
Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly.
I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories.
Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications.
If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark.
As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within
it's design parameters, the S mintmark.
In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added.
Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error.
It is an intentional error. It is a die error.
It is has also become a pattern.
One that lacks full production die design implementation.
I classify these as a type of die trial.
So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up? >>
Try not to confuse "proof" dies as a design unto themselves since "proof" is a form of manufacture, not design.
Occasionally, designs intended for the proof manufacturing process get used in business strike presses and vice versa.
Implying that the "S" Mintmark is "part of the design" is erroneous. >>
Sometimes proof dies are used as business strike coin dies.
In this case, the production proof dies were intended to have a S mintmark.
The business strikes were not, and no S minted business strikes were coined.
Therefore, the no s is a obv die trial.
It is an incomplete proof production die.
It is not a simple philidelphia business strike die.
It was partially prepared as a proof die to strike Cameo proof only coins...if but just a few. >>
The 1976-s Silver Business Strike had an S Mint mark.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.................... and the one year only finished as struck design resulted from an incompleted hub that is different from that which was originally intended for use. >>
What are you trying to say since coins are not struck from "hubs". >>
I am assuming that the hub that pressed the no mintmark die had no mintmark affixed to it.
I am not up on moderns and my knowledge of their production lacks.
Perhaps the use of the word die instead of hub would be more appropriate.
This stuff is not real easy to write correctly.
I changed hub to die for ease of reading...thanx >>
Back in 1976, NO hubs had mintmarks AND no branch mints had "Die Shops" SO all the mintmarks were applied at the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipment to the Branch Mints.
Or so I've been told. >>
Thanx, that is also what I thought.
I do not try to tie oddball coins into error versus pattern categories.
Some coin errors and patterns are symbiotic in nature and they may share commonality and patronage which can bind them together under similar classifications.
If I just throw a pattern error coin into Judd as a simple pattern coin, it does not much help me to understand the rarity of the coin with respect to it's probability of occurance.
Look at the silver composition Ike without it's mintmark.
As far as I understand, it is a normal productuion obv die that does not have it's mintmark yet added.
With respect to proof coinage and that No S die... the production form of the IKE proof die included within
it's design parameters, the S mintmark.
In the case of this coin, the S mintmark was not added.
Therefore it is an incomplete die (or an imperfect die), and it is an error.
It is an intentional error. It is a die error.
It is has also become a pattern.
One that lacks full production die design implementation.
I classify these as a type of die trial.
So if we just throw it into the pattern book, without proper error classification, how are we to figure out how rare it is, and maybe more importantly, what the chances are of others showing up? >>
Try not to confuse "proof" dies as a design unto themselves since "proof" is a form of manufacture, not design.
Occasionally, designs intended for the proof manufacturing process get used in business strike presses and vice versa.
Implying that the "S" Mintmark is "part of the design" is erroneous. >>
Sometimes proof dies are used as business strike coin dies.
In this case, the production proof dies were intended to have a S mintmark.
The business strikes were not, and no S minted business strikes were coined.
Therefore, the no s is a obv die trial.
It is an incomplete proof production die.
It is not a simple philidelphia business strike die.
It was partially prepared as a proof die to strike Cameo proof only coins...if but just a few. >>
The 1976-s Silver Business Strike had an S Mint mark. >>
Ah, I wondered about that after I re-read it. Did not remember.
I just did not think that it read right and I stand corrected.
If this is the case, I would think that we have an improperly prepared proof die.
It is still not correct for normal production usage as a cameo proof die.
It is still a die trial, but of a slightly different flavor.
We have a different probability of die occurance.
Like I said, it is hard to write this stuff correctly.
I believe that I may have the only known proof wrong stock wrong denomination error coin.
So, anyone got the other leg...the proof wrong composition wrong stock error coin (ie: 1971 40% silver proof half)?
The Dollar in question is a Pattern coin. (either intentional or unintentional)
This IKE coin is a No S obv. die trial error.
That qualifies it as a pattern, either intentional or unintentional.
When the No S Die was used, it struck a metal that was correct for that years San Fransisco proof production.
With respect to that years normal proof coinage, it is a die trial error and not a wrong stock error.
The 40% silver planchet the coin was struck on was a correct metal for it's intended usage on normal S mint proof coins.
However, the coin is also a wrong stock error.
It is a 40% silver non mintmarked coin.
All Philidelphia production coins lacked mintmarks and were struck on cu/ni planchets.
With respect to the normal non mintmarked cu./ni. dollar coins, the 40% silver Ike is on the wrong stock.
It does not really matter if the coin is a proof coin or a business strike coin as neither one of them were
intended for production as 40% silver Philidelphia no mintmark coins.
Therefore any unintended production usage of the 40% metal on a philidelphia die coin would also
make the struck coin a wrong stock error.
In all likelyhood, the coin was made as a pattern coin ( 1 of 4?) intended as a presentation piece.
If a 40% proof blank was sent from SF to Philidelphia, we have an intentional pattern coin that mates an improperly prepared proof die with an intentional wrong composition planchet stock.
The 40% stock is a correct stock for the S mintmarked proof coins.
But, it is intentionally being transitioned from use as San Fransisco only proof coinage metal, to usage in the production of a silver Philidelphia coin. (in leau of the normal Philidelphia cu/ni production stock).
I refer to this as the use of transitional U.S. composition wrong stock.
We are producing a Philidelphia 40% silver wrong stock coin... in proof.
There is also the possibility that the coin was produced with an improperly prepared No S proof die that shipped to San Fransisco and struck on one of the silver planchets located there. Here we have an inproperly prepared die trial error that is mated to one of many normal silver planchets that were available. Limited to it's own S.F. Mint production events, it is not a wrong stock error coin.
But, when taken in context to the normal full years U.S. Mint production run, it becomes a wrong stock error.
Although there was normal cu/ni Philidelphia dollar coinage, no 40% production P mint silver coins were released.
The IKE is not on the wrong metal stock for a proof coin of that year.
The IKE is on the wrong metal stock for a Philidelphia coin of that mint, that year.
It's lineage as a wrong stock error is not linked to it's status as a proof coin, it's lineage
is linked to wrong stock classification by virture of it's relationship to the mint of it's production.
The dollar in question is an improperly prepared No S proof obv die trial. (intentional or otherwise)
It is also a very rare type of wrong composition wrong stock... the Proof transitional composition wrong stock. (intentional or otherwise).
This coin begs the question of pattern coin, or error coin, or both.
For many established numismatists, the issue of classification as a pattern, or as an error, is one of intent.
I do not limit classification as either pattern or error to the strict issue of intent.
For ease in my understanding, I cross list and classify such coins into BOTH, errors AND patterns, when possible.
I then further subgroup them, by intentional and unintentional, when it is appropriate to the understanding of the nature of their manufacture, their relationship to normal production, and to the establishment of their rarity.
In reality, we can unintentionally create a pattern coin, and we can intentionally create an error.
Tough coin.
1. I am presumably in the upper-ish end of Ike collectors. I know and interact frequently with many of the other individuals with top sets as well, and we have talked numerous times about this coin. To be blatantly honest and truthful, not one of us is very interested - or even interested at all in owning this coin. While it is clearly unique, it's far more of a simple curiosity to us rather than a desirable or "must own" coin that is drooled over. All of us would much rather own a coin that has a low known total population of 10 or 15 or so; this implies the coin is truly rare, but has the ability to be found and therefore pursued/collected. This sustains the collector's thrill of the hunt. Denver strikes on 40% silver planchets might be an example - very few known, but invariably one pops up every couple years. No other 76 No-S proof Ikes will almost assuredly ever be found; why bother looking, let alone desiring if it's going to be locked away indefinitely?
2. After seeing the pictures in the post, this coin is most certainly not undergraded in my opinion, and quite honestly I would personally not put it above PR65CAM. What aspects do others feel make it worthy of a grade higher than PR66CAM?
3. I read this statement from the owner:
<< <i>That is 1,848 coins in that grade of PR69DCAM. So, I have a fairly good idea at what the grade of PR69DCAM looks like at PCGS these days. >>
Well, no, not really. To me that simply means the owner has a good idea of what PCGS will put in a PR69DCAM holder, not that he knows what constitutes a true PR69DCAM Ike. I can line up 20 PR69DCAM Ikes next to another large proof coin like 20 PR69DCAM silver eagles, and it doesn't take a seasoned collector to quickly see that the Ikes are over-graded 19 times out of 20. A true PR69DCAM Ike is far more scarce than what the TPGs have done to the series. Setting aside 1978 when the mint started employing chrome plated dies, I challenge anyone to find and Ike that is fully frosted across 100% of all relief and has spotless, deep mirror fields - not an easy task if you've ever tried. A Silver eagle is not and Ike and vice-versa, however, the technicality of what constitutes that grade/designation should be the same for those two coins as well as any other coin series. To argue differently is hypocritical.
4. Exactly how does this coin get valued at 150K in the PCGS price guide, when it has never sold at auction for near this price, besides once prior to the owner for many times less money? All of us in the Ike community are wondering and questioning this - especially when we all view it as more like a 25K - 50K coin.
5. Perhaps the draw of this coin makes an impact on error or pattern collectors more than any other group. What value does this group of people place on this coin?
<< <i>I'm catching up and have to voice some questions, comments and opinions on this coin. I've known the story of discovery behind it for many years.
1. I am presumably in the upper-ish end of Ike collectors. I know and interact frequently with many of the other individuals with top sets as well, and we have talked numerous times about this coin. To be blatantly honest and truthful, not one of us is very interested - or even interested at all in owning this coin. While it is clearly unique, it's far more of a simple curiosity to us rather than a desirable or "must own" coin that is drooled over. All of us would much rather own a coin that has a low known total population of 10 or 15 or so; this implies the coin is truly rare, but has the ability to be found and therefore pursued/collected. This sustains the collector's thrill of the hunt. Denver strikes on 40% silver planchets might be an example - very few known, but invariably one pops up every couple years. No other 76 No-S proof Ikes will almost assuredly ever be found; why bother looking, let alone desiring if it's going to be locked away indefinitely?
2. After seeing the pictures in the post, this coin is most certainly not undergraded in my opinion, and quite honestly I would personally not put it above PR65CAM. What aspects do others feel make it worthy of a grade higher than PR66CAM?
3. I read this statement from the owner:
<< <i>That is 1,848 coins in that grade of PR69DCAM. So, I have a fairly good idea at what the grade of PR69DCAM looks like at PCGS these days. >>
Well, no, not really. To me that simply means the owner has a good idea of what PCGS will put in a PR69DCAM holder, not that he knows what constitutes a true PR69DCAM Ike. I can line up 20 PR69DCAM Ikes next to another large proof coin like 20 PR69DCAM silver eagles, and it doesn't take a seasoned collector to quickly see that the Ikes are over-graded 19 times out of 20. A true PR69DCAM Ike is far more scarce than what the TPGs have done to the series. Setting aside 1978 when the mint started employing chrome plated dies, I challenge anyone to find and Ike that is fully frosted across 100% of all relief and has spotless, deep mirror fields - not an easy task if you've ever tried. A Silver eagle is not and Ike and vice-versa, however, the technicality of what constitutes that grade/designation should be the same for those two coins as well as any other coin series. To argue differently is hypocritical.
4. Exactly how does this coin get valued at 150K in the PCGS price guide, when it has never sold at auction for near this price, besides once prior to the owner for many times less money? All of us in the Ike community are wondering and questioning this - especially when we all view it as more like a 25K - 50K coin.
5. Perhaps the draw of this coin makes an impact on error or pattern collectors more than any other group. What value does this group of people place on this coin? >>
I like pop 1 coins. I like them more when they are virtually normal production coins.
I also prefer intentional error proof coins that look identical to the other normal production coins.
In this case, I see an intentional (inproperly prepared) incomplete obv die trial pattern, although technically speaking it is actually not proven as such, so I also see an error. I would argue strongly with the Mint that it is an error if ever the day came that they sought to take it as one of their illegaly released pattern coins. Hey, the mint may have made 3 proofs but can they prove that during the year another no s die did not make it's way to San Fransisco around the same time? Not really.
There are some rare and valuable pop1 or pop2 coins such as the 1866 Dupont No Motto coins that seem to be legal to own.
Who cares if nobody else has one? Tough luck, it is the rarest of a rare type coin.
The coin is also a Philidelphia proof coin...in silver.
This coin is also an incredibly rare wrong stock error, either unintentional (for now anyways), or intentional. (transitional stock pattern coin).
Normal scarce date coins can be worth millions of dollars. This coin should not be an exception to that just because it is even more rare.
It should blow away almost all other coins, period.
There are some really rare and valuable error coins.. The extremely rare proof error coins should be at the top of the value range.
They are a rare production type, and they are the some of the coolest.
The rarest of type can teach the owner things that other numismatists may never have the opportunity to learn if the coin itself is unique.
You do not just own a coin, you become the worlds expert in the coin.
Pop 1 is one thing but pop 1 as a type is another.
To this numismatist, I enjoy the educational opportunity of owning an extremely rare coin more than I could ever enjoy the ego trip of ownership.
Why else would dedicated collector specialists spend 50 years learning and still bother to learn if it was just a money guy ego game?
When we stop respecting the rarest coins the most, and we just value the competitor look at me coins, something grows dim in the world of coin collecting.
A coin like this does not come around very often, in fact they really do not come around at all.
It really matters not that this coin is an IKE. Years ago my blue 53s fbl gem ben was just a ben, and nobody cared.
Times and popularity change.
But an error pattern coin like this is timeless and once gone, it becomes a forever lost opportunity.
So, to a very well healed and very experienced collector, what is it worth?
Whatever they have to pay to get it.
I would value the coin as being worth between 2 and 5 million dollars, but I would never sell it.
It would remain a prized family heirloom.
It would remain unobtainable.
It would remain priceless.
I think I understand your points and am in general agreement with most of them.
But I believe you are looking at the coin from too narrow a perspective. Perhaps Ike
collectors don't have a lot of interest (which I find slightly surprising) but there are a
lot of type collectors and others who would almost have to compete for the coin if they
wanted it.
I have to believe the coin would fetch a very high price even today but it seems prices
of moderns are held back simply by the fact people hesitate to pay up for coins that
have never sold at very high prices before and few moderns have. This is changing
though as evidenced by the high price for the '75-no S dome that sold ecently. It will
become more commonplace as more rarities or very highly desirable coins hit the mar-
ket.
<< <i>Bronze6827;
I think I understand your points and am in general agreement with most of them.
But I believe you are looking at the coin from too narrow a perspective. Perhaps Ike
collectors don't have a lot of interest (which I find slightly surprising) but there are a
lot of type collectors and others who would almost have to compete for the coin if they
wanted it.
I have to believe the coin would fetch a very high price even today but it seems prices
of moderns are held back simply by the fact people hesitate to pay up for coins that
have never sold at very high prices before and few moderns have. This is changing
though as evidenced by the high price for the '75-no S dome that sold ecently. It will
become more commonplace as more rarities or very highly desirable coins hit the mar-
ket. >>
I probably fried myself out looking at funny bits of metal a long time ago.
Years back I remember getting sales literature that used within it, as a part of their sales pitch, a line that said something to the effect that the best appreciating investment coins "had to have a fundamental reason to rise in value".
That was the way that I always saw it too.
It turned out pretty much that way.
The No S dollar has that covered in a whole bunch of ways.
And, I really did not bother to reference the fact that it is also a one year only type, and a historical bicentenial one year type at that.
The transitional use wrong composition wrong stock reality really blows me away.
How often do we get to see that one? Maybe in another 62 years.
This coin will look better than I will.
The No S Dollar is definetly a type coin collectors, or an extreme sports coin collectors, Nirvana.
As the internet grows, and more and more info flows onto it, the future will seek out and prize the rarest, and the coolest obscure, rarities..
I would bet my coin collecting on it...oops, I already did. lol
<< <i>Bronze6827;
I think I understand your points and am in general agreement with most of them.
But I believe you are looking at the coin from too narrow a perspective. Perhaps Ike
collectors don't have a lot of interest (which I find slightly surprising) but there are a
lot of type collectors and others who would almost have to compete for the coin if they
wanted it.
I have to believe the coin would fetch a very high price even today but it seems prices
of moderns are held back simply by the fact people hesitate to pay up for coins that
have never sold at very high prices before and few moderns have. This is changing
though as evidenced by the high price for the '75-no S dome that sold ecently. It will
become more commonplace as more rarities or very highly desirable coins hit the mar-
ket. >>
The ....... uhhhh......75 No S Dime had some fairly hefty endorsements which, IMO, is why it sold for so much. Way out of line with the other No S Proof coins which exist. Again, IMO.
Date.........Coin............Price Guide.....Pop
1990(S).... Lincoln....... $10,000.00..... 164
1971(S).... Jefferson.... $ 2,070.00..... 207
1968(S).... Roosevelt... $38,500.00..... 29
1970(S).... Roosevelt... $ 5,500.00..... 256
1975(S).... Roosevelt... $385,000.00... 2
1983(S).... Roosevelt... $ 20,000.00.... 257
1976(S).... Eisenhower... ??................1
I do understand the intrigue with No S Proof Coins as they are exactly as desirable as say the 55/55 or the 09-SVDB but none have even approached $100K much less multiples of $100K.
With the proper "endorsement", I have no doubt that the IKE would generate some heavy interest. But only to No S Collectors. I seriously doubt that pattern collectors would be interested and I seriously doubt that an error collector would have much interest. I do know that the IKE Folks would have no interest in chasing this coin.
While it is unique and interesting, it is still an Eisenhower Dollar.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Bronze6827;
I think I understand your points and am in general agreement with most of them.
But I believe you are looking at the coin from too narrow a perspective. Perhaps Ike
collectors don't have a lot of interest (which I find slightly surprising) but there are a
lot of type collectors and others who would almost have to compete for the coin if they
wanted it.
I have to believe the coin would fetch a very high price even today but it seems prices
of moderns are held back simply by the fact people hesitate to pay up for coins that
have never sold at very high prices before and few moderns have. This is changing
though as evidenced by the high price for the '75-no S dome that sold ecently. It will
become more commonplace as more rarities or very highly desirable coins hit the mar-
ket. >>
The ....... uhhhh......75 No S Dime had some fairly hefty endorsements which, IMO, is why it sold for so much. Way out of line with the other No S Proof coins which exist. Again, IMO.
Date.........Coin............Price Guide.....Pop
1990(S).... Lincoln....... $10,000.00..... 164
1971(S).... Jefferson.... $ 2,070.00..... 207
1968(S).... Roosevelt... $38,500.00..... 29
1970(S).... Roosevelt... $ 5,500.00..... 256
1975(S).... Roosevelt... $385,000.00... 2
1983(S).... Roosevelt... $ 20,000.00.... 257
1976(S).... Eisenhower... ??................1
I do understand the intrigue with No S Proof Coins as they are exactly as desirable as say the 55/55 or the 09-SVDB but none have even approached $100K much less multiples of $100K.
With the proper "endorsement", I have no doubt that the IKE would generate some heavy interest. But only to No S Collectors. I seriously doubt that pattern collectors would be interested and I seriously doubt that an error collector would have much interest. I do know that the IKE Folks would have no interest in chasing this coin.
While it is unique and interesting, it is still an Eisenhower Dollar. >>
In reality, with a knowledgeable buyer and a knowledgeable seller, the coin is only as valuable as the sellers hands are strong, and the buyer hands are full.
As I have said before, my only challenge now is making sure my daughter gets a "fair shake" with her brother becoming the future curator of this great coin.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Whether deserving or not, the Ike will likely always find its way on a list of No S coins just as we see here. And, it was true that none of them ever changed hands at $100,000 or more prior to the actual auction of that 1975 mintage two dime. But, that all changed back in 2011, with a $349,600 sale on that dime. The Ike is Unique and linked to the 200th year of our country, which the dime is not. I would not be surprised if the coin became the first $1,000,000 "modern" coin at some point during Justin's ownership of it. The only thing holding it back will be the likelihood that it will not trade hands for more than a generation. Great coins can tend to rise faster in value when appearing at auction multiple times over a few decades (e.g. 1913 nickels).
As I have said before, my only challenge now is making sure my daughter gets a "fair shake" with her brother becoming the future curator of this great coin.
Wondercoin >>
Lets have a bit of fun with this.
50 years or so ago, I can remember having a discussion with other coin heads about proper classifications of errors and patterns.
It is late nite here now but I will give it a shot anyways.
The dimes are unintentional die trial proof pattern coins. But, they are also perfect proofs.
They look the same as if they were made as proofs in Philidelphia in 1975 on normal metal stock.
Your coin may be one of the 3 original intentional die trial wrong stock pattern coins, and therefore it may also be a perfect proof.
The metal was there at the Philly Mint, not too much of it, but it was there.
However, if it was made in error in SF as an unintentional pattern, it would be an imperfect proof.
This is because it is struck as a proof on a metal stock that was not used to produce proof coins in Philidelphia that year.
We can break down proof errors and patterns into intentional and unintentional.
We can sub divide proofs into perfect and imperfect.
Some collectors value perfect proofs over imperfect proofs. They probably build date sets, and dealers love selling common date coins that are available.
I value rarity. I gave up date sets years ago. I spend my funds on rare coins, and not on costly common date hole fillers.
I had my fun putting together sets years ago and am actually working on full steps now.
The common date holes will be cherrypick monsters or MS64 and up gems. It's fun to cherrypick.
Everyone gets to choose what they like to collect.
The coin market probably should not decide values or import based on lack of understanding, or, lack of information.
<< <i>I'm catching up and have to voice some questions, comments and opinions on this coin. I've known the story of discovery behind it for many years.
1. I am presumably in the upper-ish end of Ike collectors. I know and interact frequently with many of the other individuals with top sets as well, and we have talked numerous times about this coin. To be blatantly honest and truthful, not one of us is very interested - or even interested at all in owning this coin. While it is clearly unique, it's far more of a simple curiosity to us rather than a desirable or "must own" coin that is drooled over. All of us would much rather own a coin that has a low known total population of 10 or 15 or so; this implies the coin is truly rare, but has the ability to be found and therefore pursued/collected. This sustains the collector's thrill of the hunt. Denver strikes on 40% silver planchets might be an example - very few known, but invariably one pops up every couple years. No other 76 No-S proof Ikes will almost assuredly ever be found; why bother looking, let alone desiring if it's going to be locked away indefinitely?
2. After seeing the pictures in the post, this coin is most certainly not undergraded in my opinion, and quite honestly I would personally not put it above PR65CAM. What aspects do others feel make it worthy of a grade higher than PR66CAM?
3. I read this statement from the owner:
<< <i>That is 1,848 coins in that grade of PR69DCAM. So, I have a fairly good idea at what the grade of PR69DCAM looks like at PCGS these days. >>
Well, no, not really. To me that simply means the owner has a good idea of what PCGS will put in a PR69DCAM holder, not that he knows what constitutes a true PR69DCAM Ike. I can line up 20 PR69DCAM Ikes next to another large proof coin like 20 PR69DCAM silver eagles, and it doesn't take a seasoned collector to quickly see that the Ikes are over-graded 19 times out of 20. A true PR69DCAM Ike is far more scarce than what the TPGs have done to the series. Setting aside 1978 when the mint started employing chrome plated dies, I challenge anyone to find and Ike that is fully frosted across 100% of all relief and has spotless, deep mirror fields - not an easy task if you've ever tried. A Silver eagle is not and Ike and vice-versa, however, the technicality of what constitutes that grade/designation should be the same for those two coins as well as any other coin series. To argue differently is hypocritical.
4. Exactly how does this coin get valued at 150K in the PCGS price guide, when it has never sold at auction for near this price, besides once prior to the owner for many times less money? All of us in the Ike community are wondering and questioning this - especially when we all view it as more like a 25K - 50K coin.
5. Perhaps the draw of this coin makes an impact on error or pattern collectors more than any other group. What value does this group of people place on this coin? >>
I am curious.
How would you value a 1976 No S proof if it was on a copper nickel planchet as compared to a silver planchet?
Which coin would the IKE collectors pursue if they were both available, and why?
Lets assume they are both produced in SF as errors. The No S dies were shipped to SF and struck on SF proof planchets.
I would refer to the cu/ni coin as a unintentional pattern perfect proof, and the silver coin as an unintentional pattern imperfect proof (transitional composition).
Which would the date and mint collectors be more likely to chase after, if either... and why?
How about if they were both made in Philidelphia, and they made only one or the other?
The cu/ni would be an intentional pattern perfect proof and the silver one an intentional pattern transitional composition perfect proof.
What about if the types were mixed between production facilities and intents?
Anyone? lol
Regarding valuing the coin in any price guide, many years ago (before the 1975 no s sale) the first guide to value the Ike was the Pattern Book with a starting price of $100,000. With the passage of a great deal of time and a $350,000 auction sale of a dime that had a sheet value of about $40,000 or $50,000 close to the time my Ike was valued at $100,000 if memory serves me right, I, too, have to respectfully question a bit why the PCGS guide is at $150,000. Except my question is why the coin is not valued close to, or higher than, the dime at this point. But, again, you do not see me posting new threads here hyping the coin or questioning the Price Guide, etc. But, if someone states the coin is worth $25,000 or $50,000, or no one wants to own it, etc, I believe it is fair game for me to voice my retort to those claims.
On a side note, Justin is a "big boy" and quite capable of handling himself in public, but I have kept him away from these boards as he cherishes this coin and might not be as diplomatic as I try to be when some folks have little good to say about the coin (for really not good reason) And, while all of the exchanges are certainly reasonable, I would not want Justin's fate to be that of so many other young board members who get over enthusiastic in their replies.
Wondercoin.
Expressing thoughts and opinions is OK.
It should be done in good form and spirit.
If a noted price guide publishes a book price on a very rare coin, it is probably not in good form to deride the values shown without real strong arguement.
Even if the arguement is reasonably sound, any diminuation in value quoted by statement should be supported by more than mere attestation.
Nobody needs to trash a nice coin.
But looking over the populations on a few of those coins, PCGS doesn't give any credit for having pop 1 coins do they?
For example, the 1992-D 1C Close AM, MS MS62BN Pop 1/0, the MS62 among all those 70 coin grades really pulls down the GPA.
Why not a rarity point average, RGA? The Pop 1 MS62 grade should equal MS70 since it is the best coin to own in it's category. And it's so unlikely a 70 coin would ever surface for this coin. Perhaps they could tablet up an average point system with the Pop numbers alone. If you have 70 Pop 1's and 20 Pop 2's and 10 Pop 3's, 70 + 40 + 30 = 140/100 = a 1.4 RGA The closer to the number 1 would show the combined rarity of the coins in the Registry set.
Just a thought, Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>As I have said before, my only challenge now is making sure my daughter gets a "fair shake" with her brother becoming the future curator of this great coin.
Wondercoin >>
I'll sell ya my Prototype for $60 grand.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Bronze... Actually, a few years back, one if the "Biggest" Ike enthusiasts out there was extremely interested in this coin until he/she discovered from me the coin was not for sale at any price. Addionally, not too long ago, I was asked by a very well respected (non Ike) dealer in the community if I would consider selling the coin for $400,000 (no check in hand, just an inquiry) and I politely told them the coin was set aside for Justin and not for sale. So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would).
Regarding valuing the coin in any price guide, many years ago (before the 1975 no s sale) the first guide to value the Ike was the Pattern Book with a starting price of $100,000. With the passage of a great deal of time and a $350,000 auction sale of a dime that had a sheet value of about $40,000 or $50,000 close to the time my Ike was valued at $100,000 if memory serves me right, I, too, have to respectfully question a bit why the PCGS guide is at $150,000. Except my question is why the coin is not valued close to, or higher than, the dime at this point. But, again, you do not see me posting new threads here hyping the coin or questioning the Price Guide, etc. But, if someone states the coin is worth $25,000 or $50,000, or no one wants to own it, etc, I believe it is fair game for me to voice my retort to those claims.
On a side note, Justin is a "big boy" and quite capable of handling himself in public, but I have kept him away from these boards as he cherishes this coin and might not be as diplomatic as I try to be when some folks have little good to say about the coin (for really not good reason) And, while all of the exchanges are certainly reasonable, I would not want Justin's fate to be that of so many other young board members who get over enthusiastic in their replies.
Wondercoin. >>
Why do you continue to tie the dime and IKE together on the one hand then talk about IKE Collectors on the other? The two are totally unrelated.
It'll either be sold as a No S Coin or it'll be sold as an IKE. The No S crowd would probably have more interest which is what bronze is stating.
The reality is that the only claim to currently accepted fame that the coin has is that its a No S coin. Otherwise, it's just an IKE and as sad as it may seem, the collecting world in general just doesn't get that excited about IKE's despite the efforts of the IKE Group or even with PCGS showing James and JC's collections at Long Beach back a few years ago. I was hoping it would, but it just didn't.
It may be more than a single generation because it's been MULTIPLE generations since the IKE Dollar fell out of production. Perhaps the only possible hope would be in the elimination of the paper dollar so that folks get more tuned into dollar coins that aren't 90% silver?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Bronze... Actually, a few years back, one if the "Biggest" Ike enthusiasts out there was extremely interested in this coin until he/she discovered from me the coin was not for sale at any price. Addionally, not too long ago, I was asked by a very well respected (non Ike) dealer in the community if I would consider selling the coin for $400,000 (no check in hand, just an inquiry) and I politely told them the coin was set aside for Justin and not for sale. So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would).
Regarding valuing the coin in any price guide, many years ago (before the 1975 no s sale) the first guide to value the Ike was the Pattern Book with a starting price of $100,000. With the passage of a great deal of time and a $350,000 auction sale of a dime that had a sheet value of about $40,000 or $50,000 close to the time my Ike was valued at $100,000 if memory serves me right, I, too, have to respectfully question a bit why the PCGS guide is at $150,000. Except my question is why the coin is not valued close to, or higher than, the dime at this point. But, again, you do not see me posting new threads here hyping the coin or questioning the Price Guide, etc. But, if someone states the coin is worth $25,000 or $50,000, or no one wants to own it, etc, I believe it is fair game for me to voice my retort to those claims.
On a side note, Justin is a "big boy" and quite capable of handling himself in public, but I have kept him away from these boards as he cherishes this coin and might not be as diplomatic as I try to be when some folks have little good to say about the coin (for really not good reason) And, while all of the exchanges are certainly reasonable, I would not want Justin's fate to be that of so many other young board members who get over enthusiastic in their replies.
Wondercoin. >>
Why do you continue to tie the dime and IKE together on the one hand then talk about IKE Collectors on the other? The two are totally unrelated.
It'll either be sold as a No S Coin or it'll be sold as an IKE. The No S crowd would probably have more interest which is what bronze is stating.
The reality is that the only claim to currently accepted fame that the coin has is that its a No S coin. Otherwise, it's just an IKE and as sad as it may seem, the collecting world in general just doesn't get that excited about IKE's despite the efforts of the IKE Group or even with PCGS showing James and JC's collections at Long Beach back a few years ago. I was hoping it would, but it just didn't.
It may be more than a single generation because it's been MULTIPLE generations since the IKE Dollar fell out of production. Perhaps the only possible hope would be in the elimination of the paper dollar so that folks get more tuned into dollar coins that aren't 90% silver? >>
"Why do you continue to tie the dime and IKE together on the one hand then talk about IKE Collectors on the other? The two are totally unrelated."
Really? The two are totally unrelated?
Maybe Wondercoin understands that the dimes and the dollars are both related to each other because they are both No S proof coins.
Maybe Wiondercoin understands that the coin really is the rarest proof IKE on the face of the planet, and a simple little fact like that one might actually have serious collector appeal to a very well heeled and experienced Ike series collector who just may fancy the idea of having a Unique masterpiece in their collection.
Or maybe, could it be possible that some of the people that collect Ike dollars by series may also just happen to understand, respect, and collect rare coins of all type?
And then of course, it could have something to do with Wondercoin just knowing the simple facts that there are people who actually understand and covet priceless rarities, and then there are people who enjoy ripping into other peoples coins becauise they will never own them.
Ah, but that is just idle speculation, and not a proof.
<< <i>
<< <i>As I have said before, my only challenge now is making sure my daughter gets a "fair shake" with her brother becoming the future curator of this great coin.
Wondercoin >>
I'll sell ya my Prototype for $60 grand. >>
That is a lot of money for a die pair even if people assume that it is preproduction. I suspect at open auction, it would realize a different amount.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As I have said before, my only challenge now is making sure my daughter gets a "fair shake" with her brother becoming the future curator of this great coin.
Wondercoin >>
I'll sell ya my Prototype for $60 grand. >>
That is a lot of money for a die pair even if people assume that it is preproduction. I suspect at open auction, it would realize a different amount. >>
Which is why it has not been sold.
BUT, it's still RARE.
The name is LEE!
The 2 dimes are believed to have been struck in San Fransisco with a proof Obv die that lacked the S mintmark.
That would make them Unintentional, perfect proof, improperly prepared production design obv die trial, pattern coins
...or maybe just call them unintentional perfect proofs for short.
The Ike is much more interesting.
Capt suggested that it would be easier to send a few silver proof blanks from San Fransisco Mint to Philidelphia than it would be to ship coils across the country.
I agree. But consider this...
If those blanks had been shipped from SF to Philly, the mint in Philly would have had to set the machinery up to strike proof coins. Possible, sure. But smart?
Maybe not. They're going to stop business strike production lines and set up their machines to strike 3 proof coins?
Maybe not. Maybe instead of going through all of that trouble, Philly may have decided on an easier course of action.
Lets just assume that the mint could strike 2,000 coins per proof die and they struck 4 million S proof dollars in SF.
That means that Philidelphia probably sent around 2,000 S mintmarked obv proof dies to SF that year.
If I needed a few proof coins struck without a S mintmark to use as presentation trial strikes, would it not be more expediant for me to just
send 1,999 S mintmarked Obv dies to SF and include in that shipment an additional proof die that I just did not bother to add a mintmark to?
If SF did not have any current proof style S mintmark punches on location, I could have also included one within that shipment. I would tell SF
mint to strike 3 pattern No S proof Obv coins to send back to me. I would also probably have instructed them to then add the S mintmark to the
No S die after the striking of the 3 No S proof coins was completed. This would then have allowed the SF mint to make full S mintmarked proof production usage out of the die.
Why waste an expensive and very usable proof die?
If this happened, we have a intentional, transitional composition, improperly prepared production obv die trial, imperfect proof, pattern coin.
Kinda makes us wonder what else that die would have been capable of producing does it not? So, did this happen? Who is to say?
Now, if the coin was made in SF but it was made by a No S obv die being sent to SF by mistake and then being used to strike a silver No S proof coin, we have the same designations, but the coin is now unintentional. Basically, we have an unintentional transitional composition imperfect proof pattern coin.
And lastly, let us assume that the 3 silver planchets were sent to Philly to make a few No S proof coins inside that Mint. We are creating an intentional transitional compostiion improperly prepared production obv die trial perfect proof. It is a silver Philidelphia proof coin.
So, the dimes ( if made by mistake in SF) are presumed to be unintentional perfect proof pattern coins, and the dollar (if produced on purpose in Philly) is presumed to be an intentional (transitional composition) perfect proof pattern coin.
If we go back to 1968 dime proofs and run the total proof only dime production numbers from 1968 up into 1976, we can compare the mathematical probability of occurance between the 2 seperate but similiar occurances.
Compare the 4 million or so silver proof planchets used in 1976 to all of those previous cu/ni dime proof coins and we can get an idea of the relative probability of occurance between the two coin events. The difference in probability of event occurance is substantial.
Regardless perfection or otherwise, and regardles intention or not, the silver composition dollar is the more rare coin. It is a one year only type.
Nobody should be dissing that dollar coin, and, it should not be priced as a lessor value coin due to marketing gimmics and coin business pressure.
Numismatics rules, and the coin buisness has no right to ruin.
<< <i>So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would). >>
Sorry, but not gossip. Simply the honest truth from 5 of the top ten or so Ike collectors I speak with on a regular basis. I have no problem or the slightest regret speaking what I know to be fact.
I didn't post to attack or bash, but instead attempted to spin some mental gears from other viewpoints that others are negating/overlooking. I've stated my and other's personal thoughts, and clearly these differing opinions have upset some people. Quite frankly, I see an enormous amount of effort thus far from some posters on this thread desperately trying to rationalize and "defend" this coin. If some collectors feel differently than what I've mentioned, and its worth "2 - 5 million" to them, well, admittedly and truthfully I'll be laughing to myself, but by all means: have at it. It's not my place to tell another how to spend their money, nor even my remote concern - let alone worry about what they consider and regard as valuable and "priceless". I am merely suggesting that perhaps they recognize there are indeed many others that do not share the same viewpoints about this particular coin.
I would propose the notion that a public auction of this coin would help determine desirability of this coin. Like it or not, the amount of money people are willing to pay for a coin is generally a direct or at the very least a least proportional reflection on demand/desirability of a coin. However, we know that will not happen to this coin for at least a great number of years or even at all during many of our lifetimes as stated previously - and that is certainly fine. That being said, and regardless of how much people comment good or bad towards this coin, it will continue to be supported by various speculation and opinion only.
<< <i>So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would). >>
Sorry, but not gossip. Simply the honest truth from 5 of the top ten or so Ike collectors I speak with on a regular basis. I have no problem or the slightest regret speaking what I know to be fact.
I didn't post to attack or bash, but instead attempted to spin some mental gears from other viewpoints that others are negating/overlooking. I've stated my and other's personal thoughts, and clearly these differing opinions have upset some people. Quite frankly, I see an enormous amount of effort thus far from some posters on this thread desperately trying to rationalize and "defend" this coin. If some collectors feel differently than what I've mentioned, and its worth "2 - 5 million" to them, well, admittedly and truthfully I'll be laughing to myself, but by all means: have at it. It's not my place to tell another how to spend their money, nor even my remote concern - let alone worry about what they consider and regard as valuable and "priceless". I am merely suggesting that perhaps they recognize there are indeed many others that do not share the same viewpoints about this particular coin.
I would propose the notion that a public auction of this coin would help determine desirability of this coin. Like it or not, the amount of money people are willing to pay for a coin is generally a direct or at the very least a least proportional reflection on demand/desirability of a coin. However, we know that will not happen to this coin for at least a great number of years or even at all during many of our lifetimes as stated previously - and that is certainly fine. That being said, and regardless of how much people comment good or bad towards this coin, it will continue to be supported by various speculation and opinion only.
<< <i>
<< <i>So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would). >>
Sorry, but not gossip. Simply the honest truth from 5 of the top ten or so Ike collectors I speak with on a regular basis. I have no problem or the slightest regret speaking what I know to be fact.
I didn't post to attack or bash, but instead attempted to spin some mental gears from other viewpoints that others are negating/overlooking. I've stated my and other's personal thoughts, and clearly these differing opinions have upset some people. Quite frankly, I see an enormous amount of effort thus far from some posters on this thread desperately trying to rationalize and "defend" this coin. If some collectors feel differently than what I've mentioned, and its worth "2 - 5 million" to them, well, admittedly and truthfully I'll be laughing to myself, but by all means: have at it. It's not my place to tell another how to spend their money, nor even my remote concern - let alone worry about what they consider and regard as valuable and "priceless". I am merely suggesting that perhaps they recognize there are indeed many others that do not share the same viewpoints about this particular coin.
I would propose the notion that a public auction of this coin would help determine desirability of this coin. Like it or not, the amount of money people are willing to pay for a coin is generally a direct or at the very least a least proportional reflection on demand/desirability of a coin. However, we know that will not happen to this coin for at least a great number of years or even at all during many of our lifetimes as stated previously - and that is certainly fine. That being said, and regardless of how much people comment good or bad towards this coin, it will continue to be supported by various speculation and opinion only. >>
I do not buy this at any price, if the top 10 Ike sets today had a chance to pick up this coin years ago I find it hard to believe they would not love to have it. I am not a modern collector but I think it is COOL. Since it is NOT AVAILIBLE nor will be anytime in the near FUTURE I can see where some would say it is not "worthy"
I got to give wondercoin props as I would sell anything I have if enough 100 dollar bills were stacked high enough. After taking the money I would tell my son he really would not have wanted the coin as he wants to be independent and make it on his own.
Looks like quite a bit of bitterness by some.
19lyds get the major "you suck" for his Ike. Can not think of a better way to have a wicked cool coin that finding it in the wild. ( raw unslabbed unknown cheap)
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
bronze6827,
I'm insulted that you haven't discussed this coin with me before.
So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son
Let's go through the issues one by one.
Poor taste...yeah, kinda. On the other hand Mitch has no plans to ever sell the coin, right? And he is a big boy, so what's the harm?
I have my own opinion on the coin and am very interested in what others think. I wish there another place I gather to talk with my fellow
Ike collector's where Mitch wouldn't be subjected to our analysis...but this is where I hang out and this is where the discussion is happening.
Plus, like I said, he is a big boy.
On the idea of "don't talk about the coin because it is my son's heirloom"...eh. I could say the same thing about all my coins. Does that mean
no one gets to say anything bad about them now? No one knows your son. No one knows my son. I'm not sure why his name keeps getting
sprinkled throughout this thread.
Anyway, interesting discussion.
-KHayse
<< <i>
<< <i>So, with all due respect, to chime in here with "gossip" that the Ike collectors don't want the coin at even a fraction of the guide price is not in the best of taste when the coin is a gift to my son and I have not initiated any threads on the coin here in year(s), but simply respond when the topic is mentioned (as any other proud owner of a coin such as this would). >>
Sorry, but not gossip. Simply the honest truth from 5 of the top ten or so Ike collectors I speak with on a regular basis. I have no problem or the slightest regret speaking what I know to be fact.
I didn't post to attack or bash, but instead attempted to spin some mental gears from other viewpoints that others are negating/overlooking. I've stated my and other's personal thoughts, and clearly these differing opinions have upset some people. Quite frankly, I see an enormous amount of effort thus far from some posters on this thread desperately trying to rationalize and "defend" this coin. If some collectors feel differently than what I've mentioned, and its worth "2 - 5 million" to them, well, admittedly and truthfully I'll be laughing to myself, but by all means: have at it. It's not my place to tell another how to spend their money, nor even my remote concern - let alone worry about what they consider and regard as valuable and "priceless". I am merely suggesting that perhaps they recognize there are indeed many others that do not share the same viewpoints about this particular coin.
I would propose the notion that a public auction of this coin would help determine desirability of this coin. Like it or not, the amount of money people are willing to pay for a coin is generally a direct or at the very least a least proportional reflection on demand/desirability of a coin. However, we know that will not happen to this coin for at least a great number of years or even at all during many of our lifetimes as stated previously - and that is certainly fine. That being said, and regardless of how much people comment good or bad towards this coin, it will continue to be supported by various speculation and opinion only. >>
Anyone can have an opinion of value. An opinion of value is only that and no more. It is an opinion.
You wanted to know what some other collectors thought of the coins potential valuation. The only IKEs that I own are two cheap proofs sitting in their original proof sets, and I think that one is way cooler than the other because it still has the chewing marks where my dog was eating at the mint plastic. My dog is long gone and I still cherish the memories of him having a blast just going to town and chewing away to his hearts content.
What do the top 5 or so IKE collectors have to do with the value of this coin other than maybe lament the fact that they do not own it?
I posted about what this coin is and how it ties in to other rare pattern proof coin type, and it seems to have gone sailing right over some readers heads.
This coin is a RARE type of mint production proof coin. One that seldom occurs. It is a transitional composition die trial pattern proof.
Any attempt to link this IKE coins valuation to a few collectors that may want to poopoo the coin is like saying that the 1955 DDO lincoln cent valuation has something to do with, or should have some type of limitations set upon it by, the Lincoln date and mint set collectors. Look at the value of that 1955 DDO coin and understand that a huge number of them were put away and still exist. Despite their available numbers, they carry a substantional value. That valuation is not the Lincoln cent date set collectors at work, that is coin collectors at play.
Maybe tying this transitional pattern proof to the Ike collector is more akin to saying that the 1913 Liberty nickel value is somehow tied to a few of the top Liberty nickel set collectors. Really? How many dedicated Liberty nickel date and mint set collectors are really out there? Can you imagine the limitations of the value of the 1913 if it were limited to the top 5 Liberty nickel date set collectors?
Or maybe, how about the lonely 3 legged Buffalo nickel. Imagine linking it's value to just buff collectors who,..uh, lets forget them Buff guys, they are willing to pay through the nose for their coins just because they can make out a part of a design on the coin.
The point is made. A coin like this one has an appeal that transends any limited grouping of series collectors.
I have no way to know the value of this coin. It is not likely to come up for sale anytime soon.
Wondercoin has already stated that he has plans to withhold the coin from the market. Therefore, any valuation suggested herin is mere speculation and suggestion and no more.
In reality, the coin is priceless as it's owner is in strong enough hands to keep it from those who would seek to Rip it from him at stupid cheap money.
Reality dictates that anyone who desires to own the coin can only but just imagine the lost opportunity afforded to them. Perhaps part of the reason for that is that Mitch believes that he cannot get a rational amount of money out of this coin which is rightfully suggested by a full understanding of its historical significance, and it's relative value as a true American Rarity, modern or otherwise.
That coin is a Philidelphia No S Silver Bicentenial proof Dollar coin, and it is the only known surviving specimen.
It is a production ready design effort that highlights the pinnacle of the Mint coiners abilities to create a cleaner suggestion of those many national representatives that were soon to follow.
Maybe it will never go up for sale in our lifetimes because it's current owner knows that a relative few disinterested have done their best to diminish the true valuation and import of this national treasure.
But, all of that aside, I decided to not sell this coin for one reason and one reason only (and having nothing to do with current demand for the coin as I personally believe the coin could set the world record price for a modern coin right this moment). Justin asked me for it many years ago as the only possession I own that he wanted me to try to pass down to him if possible. He had/has no interest in my pattern Liberty nickel collection, my Hall of Fame Washington quarters set or any other coin I currently own. And, I own a number of coins worth as much as the five Ike guys value this Ike at. For some reason as a young man (but he did meet Pres. Ford as a young boy) Justin chose this Ike dollar (and back at the time of the request, worth even far less than it is today) as the coin he made that request for and I am going to try to make that happen for him (while at the same time trying to make sure his sister never has a bad feeling about him receiving this one coin from me).
Wondercoin
Mr. Smart: "Most Ike Dollar collectors think your coin is worth as little as $25,000 -$50,000 and really wouldn't want it even at that price".
The other guy: "Mr. Smart, I find that very hard to believe".
Mr. Smart: "Would you believe five out of the top ten Ike guys feel that way"?
The other guy: "I find that very hard to believe Mr. Smart".
Mr. Smart: "Would you believe that two of the top three underbidders for the coin back at the last auction have no interest in it today"?
The other guy: "I still find that very hard to believe"
Mr. Smart: "Would you believe the girl downstairs selling Girl Scout cookies would not accept the Ike as full payment for a box of Thin Mints"?
The other guy: "That I would believe".
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
I am making a point that whomever the "top 5 guys are" that may not be 'interested' in your coin are not in any way to be considered the final authorities on the matter of the valuation of priceless Rare transitional pattern proof coins.
No personal slight toward anyone was intended.
I was just trying to share some rather obscured information that I find interesting with other like minded collectors.
I certainly am in no position to claim priviledge to being the final authority on the value of anyone elses collectibles, and, I feel that no one else is either.
We have auctions and marketplaces for that sort of thing.
Be that as it may, I tend to infer that anyone who may attempt to deride the value of rare and valuable collectibles of historical import may have ulterior motive that may not be in line with reality.
Common politness suggests that a bit of good will (and common sense) offered while in the evaluation of anothers prized possessions is warranteed.
Additionally, if discussing proof Ike collectors, I believe my son Justin has the nicest collection of full monster deep cameo truly near perfect proof Ikes in the world. In fact, a few years back, I offered to Rick Tomaska to set up a "show down" of sorts at a Long Beach show where Justin would present his set of 11 monster DCAM near flawless proof Ikes against the finest collection Rick could assemble from his outstanding customer base. I thought it would be a great way to showcase just how rare these proof Ikes truly are with near 100% monster DCAM near flawless surfaces. Rick agreed with me and told me he would keep such an event in mind. My/Justin offer still stands ... on the proof side of Ike collecting if a showdown of the best sets in the world is ever organized, we will try to be there with what I believe to be the nicest proof set in existence- grades on holders notwithstanding. So, on the proof side of Ike collecting, make no mistake about it that Justin is yet another collector in the top 5. Which also shows why reference to the top 5 or top 10 is very difficult to identify as in many cases the top MS collectors are not the Top proof collectors and vice versa (not to mention the top Ike variety guys may be yet a third group of Ike collectors).
Bottom line... we like Ike as much as the next guy!
Wondercoin
<< <i>Neca. I totally agree with you. On top of that, reference to top Ike guys is generally to the Mint State collectors, while this particular coin is a proof and a whole different group of Ike collectors seriously collect the proofs from what I know. For example, the "regular issue" 1976 PR70DCAM Ike that sold at Heritage for more than $25,000 at auction back in 2011 did not sell to an Ike collector at all, but to a type collector. If memory serves me right, Ike collectors valued that coin at a small fraction of what it ultimately fetched at auction. I was the original submittor of that coin at PCGS, but did not keep it for Justin's personal set (see below) as we both liked the coin in his collection as much, if not slightly more than the PR70DCAM coin.
Additionally, if discussing proof Ike collectors, I believe my son Justin has the nicest collection of full monster deep cameo truly near perfect proof Ikes in the world. In fact, a few years back, I offered to Rick Tomaska to set up a "show down" of sorts at a Long Beach show where Justin would present his set of 11 monster DCAM near flawless proof Ikes against the finest collection Rick could assemble from his outstanding customer base. I thought it would be a great way to showcase just how rare these proof Ikes truly are with near 100% monster DCAM near flawless surfaces. Rick agreed with me and told me he would keep such an event in mind. My/Justin offer still stands ... on the proof side of Ike collecting if a showdown of the best sets in the world is ever organized, we will try to be there with what I believe to be the nicest proof set in existence- grades on holders notwithstanding. So, on the proof side of Ike collecting, make no mistake about it that Justin is yet another collector in the top 5. Which also shows why reference to the top 5 or top 10 is very difficult to identify as in many cases the top MS collectors are not the Top proof collectors and vice versa (not to mention the top Ike variety guys may be yet a third group of Ike collectors).
Bottom line... we like Ike as much as the next guy!
Wondercoin >>