Years ago people could be coin collectors and unless you were after some major rarities, you did not have to mortgage your home to buy them. These days of 11 grades of unc almost require collectors to become investors first before they shell out serious money for coins. You would think that because coin collecting has become more like coin investing, folks would understand the value of knowledge. They should want to know what they are buying, and why, even if it is just a " for the joy of it" purchase. Money matters aside, knowledge can bring added enjoyment. When anyone cares to profess an opinion on coin valuations, they should make certain that they FULLY understand what the coin is. They should also consider who it may appeal to before they proffer comment...especially when the coin does not belong to them. Curteousy aside, there are also legal implications with respect to devaluations caused by unwarranted derogatory commentary. Nobody needs that.
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.
Chill, people. You are taking this way too seriously.
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> How would you value a 1976 No S proof if it was on a copper nickel planchet as compared to a silver planchet? >>
This is a question whose answer will be difficult to distill from the data. Some collectors won't buy any coin if it lacks precious metal and some prefer bronze, another metal, or don't care at all. I would think that with unique coin in series that contain multiple metal- ic compositions that there will be little difference in market values since the supply is so far under the demand; if one collector doesn't want it or does want it because of the metal, it matter little.
<< <i> How would you value a 1976 No S proof if it was on a copper nickel planchet as compared to a silver planchet? >>
This is a question whose answer will be difficult to distill from the data. Some collectors won't buy any coin if it lacks precious metal and some prefer bronze, another metal, or don't care at all. I would think that with unique coin in series that contain multiple metal- ic compositions that there will be little difference in market values since the supply is so far under the demand; if one collector doesn't want it or does want it because of the metal, it matter little. >>
Intuitively that makes sense. These coins are virtually nonexistant. Back in early mid 60's NECA formulation days, we used to discuss these types of patterns and errors and we were asked to advise as to proper classifications. CONE was busy ripping itself apart. It was a lot of fun, and very interesting for a young coin head. I would favor the transitional composition silver due to the outrageous rarity. If the silver Ike was intentionally made in SF as I suspect, and then sent to Philidelphia, it would be an intentional imperfect proof. If an Ike was intentionally made in Philidelphia on a specially prepared cu/ni proof planchet, we would have an intentional perfect proof. As counterintuitive as it may seem in respect and relationship to rarity, I suspect that the general collecting public would probably gravitate toward the PERFECT proof, the cu/ni coin. Something about the word imperfect seems to throw normal people off. Us variety coin guys are not your average collector lot. I have even heard the word excentric used when I was coin shopping. lol People are funny. The imperfect proof would be the generally more rare event but do to contemporary marketing and current conventional pattern classifications, I think the public would value the clad coin higher. Funny that even after 58 years of collecting coins I can still get a kick out of it, and still dig the oddball. Probably helped feed a lot of families...
<< <i> As counterintuitive as it may seem in respect and relationship to rarity, I suspect that the general collecting public would probably gravitate toward the PERFECT proof, the cu/ni coin. Something about the word imperfect seems to throw normal people off. >>
We seem to have similar thoughts on the matter. I think a clad version might be sought more avidly or more broadly as well. What effect this different demand would have on valuation is very difficult to estimate.
I tend to be of the opinion that the coin in question was minted in Philadelphia and the lack of a mint mark is a sort of oversight. The coin wasn't expected to survive so they never thought of putting the "proper" mint mark on it.
<< <i> As counterintuitive as it may seem in respect and relationship to rarity, I suspect that the general collecting public would probably gravitate toward the PERFECT proof, the cu/ni coin. Something about the word imperfect seems to throw normal people off. >>
We seem to have similar thoughts on the matter. I think a clad version might be sought more avidly or more broadly as well. What effect this different demand would have on valuation is very difficult to estimate.
I tend to be of the opinion that the coin in question was minted in Philadelphia and the lack of a mint mark is a sort of oversight. The coin wasn't expected to survive so they never thought of putting the "proper" mint mark on it.
Curteousy aside, there are also legal implications with respect to devaluations caused by unwarranted derogatory commentary. And how is that going to be proven when the coin won't be sold in Mitch's lifetime?
Coinkat. If you read the U.S. Pattern Book (6th edition if I recall correctly) it addresses these coins and speaks to the melting of the others which greatly disappoints the authors (see there language on the subject).
As to defaming or slandering my coin, no need to be concerned with that. First, I believe the coin is the most valuable modern coin in existence today, as I previously stated. If you disagree, all I ask is that you disagree respectfully and thoughtfully. Likewise, I will assert my points thoughtfully and respectfully (and only in response to comments on the coin as I will continue to not promote or market the coin on these boards). Second, the coin will (hopefully) not be for sale for years and years to come. One day, hopefully, it will be Justin's "problem" to figure out the coin's true value.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
As far as some of my comments here's some simple ones that appear to not have been mentally absorbed or even read thoroughly:
1. I did not once say THE VERY TOP 5 Ike collectors, in the PCGS registry, in the world, till land's end. (Keith, as you are in the top 5 on the PCGS Registry, my apologies if this is one you wish to discuss. I am more than certain you have your own worthy opinions...)
2. I did not once say I personally/myself would never, ever, never be 100% totally uninterested in owning the coin, never, ever. If you thought otherwise, then again, you didn't read very well. I implied that some number less than the 5 number I mentioned is totally uninterested. Maybe that totally uninterested number is 2, or even 1 - no one really knows because I purposely didn't divulge that - regardless, it's TOTALLY unimportant for the point I was making. What I was driving to, and what I thought to be obvious, is that I and numerous others would not pay anywhere near current PCGS valuation of the coin because they do not have that level of need towards this coin for the reasons I stated earlier.
3. At no time did I intentionally or knowingly "drag this coin through the mud". Apparently some take my comments to be so 180° from their opinion, and therefore they can't be anything but bad. The comments are simply from another facet of the field, not from a higher or lower vantage. To modernize the concept, they are what they are. Done.
4. I definitely did not - nor do I even remotely want to - try to sway, convince, overturn, or outright wreck anyone else's opinions towards this coin. I'm reasonably certain by the ground floor basics of the U.S. Constitution that anyone can have as many as they want, any flavor they want....and voice it if so chosen.
I merely posted comments hoping that others would take notice that regardless of some thoughts here, many others have opinions that are far different. I sincerely fail to understand why this is so hard to grasp.
Oh, and 5. Lee's right (in my "opinion" only, of course...). The uninformed legal threats speak volumes.
..."I tend to be of the opinion that the coin in question was minted in Philadelphia and the lack of a mint mark is a sort of oversight. The coin wasn't expected to survive so they never thought of putting the "proper" mint mark on it".
I really do not know how the Mint made the coin, or where the blanks came from. What I was touching on was more or less an attempt to break down how we used to describe and classify these coins and why. It was trying to explain the interplay between numismatic verbiage and production circumstance.
I assume that the Philidelphia Mint was well enough set up to produce die trial proofs. I could be way off on my theory that SF produced the coin and sent it to Philly, but, that does open us up to other production combinations, and that gave me an opportunity to talk about how the classifications would be slightly altered.
If the No S proof coin was made in advance of normal die production, then there is a very strong likelyhood that the NO S die struck a proof blank that could certainly have come from SF mint. They had the silver blanks, or would have had them soon enough. Of course, if the Philly mint was set up to run patterns, they were also probably set up make their own proof planchets as well. It is even possible that they blanked their own metal, if the metal was available to them 'in house'.
Capt said that he thought the blanks were sent from SF to Philly and then used. That seems as probable as anything else, and it could be spot on. I raised the issue of other possibility to make the point that mints are factories. They probably run the same way as most others. They normally choose the cheapest, easiest, or fastest way to get things done. However, we are talking the tax spending U.S. Govt. here so, anything goes... and there is always the good ol FUBAR I really do not know much of the circumstances of this coin and I do not know what historical documentation is available with respect to it. I also do not know what pre-production procedures the Mint followed back in 1976, and I am not well versed in Clad modern production.
That being said, If the silver proof blanks were sent from SF to Philidelphia and then struck there, the No S coins would become intentional transitional compostion perfect proofs. The metal is not from the Philidelphia Mints' normal yearly production supply. It is from SF metal production stock and is therefore transitional. The No S Die used was a Philidelphia die, and the No S proof coins were struck in Philly. They are normal obv designs for the Mint of strike. Therefore, they are perfect proofs. Made this way, the struck coin would become an intentional transitional compostition perfect proof pattern coin. They are no longer die trials because the No S obv die is correct for the mint of strike. They are still "Pattern" proofs because the metal used was not a Philidelphia production run stock used that year. Their link to pattern classification would be through their use of a transitional metal stock, or wrong stock.
If that silver metal had come from in house storage in Philidelphia, and the coins were also made there, they would have produced a normal intentional Proof coin. The die is correct for the Mint of strike, and the metal is correct for the year of production. Their usage would create 3 very rare proof coins. They are no longer die trials, and they are no longer patterns. They are perfect proofs.
If the mint had used some type of metal that was not utilized in that years scheduled production, then we have wrong stock implications. I personally refer to those as experimental composition wrong stock metals. A coin produced in Philly from the No S proof die and struck on these metals, would be classified as an intentional experimental composition perfect proof pattern coin.
If anyone cares to correct any classification inaccuracies that I may have made, please feel free to do so.
In respect to the legal ramifications of posters statements, I was reflecting back upon the controversy created from the wheat stalk cent that Sam once owned. Common sense before comment is cheaper than litigation after stupid. Coins before ego.
<< <i>As far as some of my comments here's some simple ones that appear to not have been mentally absorbed or even read thoroughly:
1. I did not once say THE VERY TOP 5 Ike collectors, in the PCGS registry, in the world, till land's end. (Keith, as you are in the top 5 on the PCGS Registry, my apologies if this is one you wish to discuss. I am more than certain you have your own worthy opinions...)
2. I did not once say I personally/myself would never, ever, never be 100% totally uninterested in owning the coin, never, ever. If you thought otherwise, then again, you didn't read very well. I implied that some number less than the 5 number I mentioned is totally uninterested. Maybe that totally uninterested number is 2, or even 1 - no one really knows because I purposely didn't divulge that - regardless, it's TOTALLY unimportant for the point I was making. What I was driving to, and what I thought to be obvious, is that I and numerous others would not pay anywhere near current PCGS valuation of the coin because they do not have that level of need towards this coin for the reasons I stated earlier.
3. At no time did I intentionally or knowingly "drag this coin through the mud". Apparently some take my comments to be so 180° from their opinion, and therefore they can't be anything but bad. The comments are simply from another facet of the field, not from a higher or lower vantage. To modernize the concept, they are what they are. Done.
4. I definitely did not - nor do I even remotely want to - try to sway, convince, overturn, or outright wreck anyone else's opinions towards this coin. I'm reasonably certain by the ground floor basics of the U.S. Constitution that anyone can have as many as they want, any flavor they want....and voice it if so chosen.
I merely posted comments hoping that others would take notice that regardless of some thoughts here, many others have opinions that are far different. I sincerely fail to understand why this is so hard to grasp.
Oh, and 5. Lee's right (in my "opinion" only, of course...). The uninformed legal threats speak volumes.
Enjoy the 1976 No-S Ike proof. >>
Whoa there. There were no uninformed legal threats. There were no legal threats. There is a suggestion that common sense and courteousy prevail. Like it or not, there can be legal implications for commentary. I was just pointing that out. If you felt threatened, it is probably not do to my bringing up the subject. People can voice their opinions about valuations and they can state their objections. However, there is a fine legal line that can be crossed when those opinions of value amount to more than simple commentary and enter into the realm of thinly veiled attacks upon the valuation of the subject matter at hand. Free speech is one thing. The freedom to speak out in any attempt to disparage, damage, or to destroy another mans property is another... irregardless intent. It is something that all of us should know, and it was worth noting. It was not offered to cause angst. It was offered in the spirit of understanding, and no more.
Ok... Let's end it with Bronze will not be buying this coin from Justin at any point in the future and, in the meantime can pretty much say anything he would like to about the coin as can anyone else (as I pretty much stated in my last post above). But, I agree with Neca (whomever he is, for which I have no idea) that we should essentially keep it civil. 😇
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Neca63, Well your unsolicited legal advice is coming off as threatening. Seeing as how Mitch is not selling the coin, why don't you let it go.
I've seen conversations where people have said they have no interest in purchasing an 1804 dollar because they are basically fantasy coins produced decades after the date on them. No one gets upset. No one takes it personally. And no one warns they could be sued.
Another way we could make this less personal is to stop referring to this as Mitch's son's inheritance. I appreciate him sharing his personal estate planning but it's not helping. Having his son's name in every other post is not helping. We are talking about any and all no mintmark 1976 Ike proofs. As of today, Mitch has the only one. Projecting 10, 20, 30 years down the road as to the future owner is just silly and sidetracking the conversation.
I have to agree. I'm just not nearly that interested in this coin to keep explaining the same simple concepts and comments over and over again in different words. I initially stated some simple facts and raised some straight forward questions, of which many were not and have yet to be addressed/answered. From my point of view at least, all I got was barrage of mostly unrelated, windy, side-stepping, and defensive posture.
So far in answer to any of my questions about the 76 No-S proof, I've received what's good/bad taste in other's opinion, told that I can't speak my opinions when they clash harshly with others, succession of an estate, a comedy routine, some world class legal advice, and oh yeah - apparently that I feel "threatened".
I'm simply waiting to see when Neca63 can make a post and not have to edit it. He's editing so often, one never knows what he did and didn't say, what he meant and didn't mean. Though, judging by the amount of edits, he's just a fence straddler.
I can not read some of the more recent comments for some reason that might have to do with our host's software? But, in any event, I just wanted to thank Neca63 for some of his very thoughtful and detailed posts on the subject of the possible origin of my coin. His expertise on the subject is appreciated. Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>I'm simply waiting to see when Neca63 can make a post and not have to edit it. He's editing so often, one never knows what he did and didn't say, what he meant and didn't mean. Though, judging by the amount of edits, he's just a fence straddler. >>
I cannot offer criticism because someone edits their posts.
I edit mine and would appreciate if some folks edited their's to correct pronunciation and spelling.
I would like a picture or scan of this coin in it's current slab.
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.
Snapping a wonderful picture of the Ike in the PCGS holder might well be among the very first shots Justin takes with the special Macro lens for his Camera he intends to pick up once he gets out of school. But, for the next six months starting this week, it is all hard work and study to accomplish that goal. There will be plenty of time for fun and coin related stuff in two short college quarters!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
The edits were for numismatic correction. No sense to leave up incorrect information. Numismatic descriptions can be diffult to write correctly. We know what we are trying to say, and we try to write it that way, but then when we re-read it we do not initially see our wording mistakes because we are reading back into our own thoughts.. Be that as it may, I see no reason to leave numismatic inaccuracies to the future to confuse potential readers.
My intent was to show the interplay between numismatic classifications and coin production occurance. I stand by my assertions that Mitch has a great coin, one of the best rarieties created within the last 100 years. It is that type of piece that most collectors could only imagine owning, and I say rock out and well done to him. I do not know him, but I would like to meet him and I am sure that the pleasure would be mine. I certainly do not speak for him, nor his interests.
If people want to voice their opinions it is OK by me. But, if that IKE were my coin, I would not be as kind and forgiving as Mitch if anyone chose to cross the line from simply offering their own personal thoughts, and then claimed right to speak the thoughts of other collectors, or any group of collectors, about the valuation of my coin. The freedom to voice may be free, but it is not free from personal responsibility. Perhaps some may consider that to be legal advice. It is not. It is just a fact.
I hope Mitch gets to fully enjoy his trophy, and I hope that some young numismatists may learn from what I was sharing with respect to classifications and their import. Use what I attempted to write to send you in a more corrected direction to further advance your knowledge.. Let it serve as no more than a springboard in the furtherance of your appreciation of the wonderful world of numismatics. The basic classification archetecture should be correct. If you think that some of the wording in incorrect, rest assured that I will attempt to get back to it when I can to make needed corrections. If you care to, come back to it later after I have had a chance to review and correct it as best I can.
"If people want to voice their opinions it is OK by me. But, if that IKE were my coin, I would not be as kind and forgiving as Mitch if anyone chose to cross the line from simply offering their own personal thoughts, and then claimed right to speak the thoughts of other collectors, or any group of collectors, about the valuation of my coin. The freedom to voice may be free, but it is not free from personal responsibility."
Well said Neca. I, too, failed to see why anyone needed to speak for a group of collectors; not to mention the fact that the #1 set collector was currently a good customer of mine and a friend of Justin's. And, hence, the interjected comedy as it is certainly better to laugh than any alternative. I certainly did not lose any sleep over any of the comments here (whether they were indeed "facts" or fiction) nor did any comments alter the valuation of the coin (whatever it might be) in my view. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments here and the pleasure will be mine when we get to meet at some point down the road.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Wonderful story, Capt! It's the sort of thing that makes these boards so special.
And Mitch, I'm constantly amazed with what you have managed to studiously and persistently accumulate among the moderns over time. You'll have quite an historical reputation in future years.
Thank you David. And your sets will be very memorable as well for years to come. I happily have you 1949-P and 1959-P quarters in my silver set now and they are wonderful examples of the set you built. Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
"And Mitch, I'm constantly amazed with what you have managed to studiously and persistently accumulate among the moderns over time. You'll have quite an historical reputation in future years. "
I suspect that is already well assured...some years ago
<< <i>"And Mitch, I'm constantly amazed with what you have managed to studiously and persistently accumulate among the moderns over time. You'll have quite an historical reputation in future years. "
I suspect that is already well assured...some years ago
CaptHenway posted way back on September 14, 2014 quoting Wondercoin:
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe one of a few different PCGS images taken of the Pcgs-PR66CAM $1 is currently showing in my "Top 100 Modern" registry set (and in the picture gallery of my website). The coin was graded one time by PCGS right after I purchased it from the Bowers sale, where it was placed (and auctioned) in the error section of the auction catalog. It was assigned a Judd pattern number at/around the time Rick Montgomery (former President of PCGS) had it graded for me.
Wondercoin >>
What was it graded in the Bowers sale? >>
Here is a picture of the 9-22-2002 Bowers and Merena prices realized featuring the coin. It was sold in a PCGS Proof-66 holder though there is no pic of the holder. Interesting that they called it a pattern, even noting the Pollock-2088 number, but included it in the error section. Might have been because there were a number of impressive error coins including several Ikes and only 4 other patterns.
This comment at the end of the description gives an interesting comparison: "This little-known variety ranks with the 1870-S $3 as one of the rarest numismatic collectibles we have ever had the privilege to offer."
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I just love that coin. I put together a complete set of FBL gem Franklins in the 1960's. Back then, coins were pretty cheap and the Bens were considered somewhat of an ugly duckling. Nobody seemed to want them, yet.
Capt said that he believed that the Mint in Philadelphia was sent some proof planchets from San Fransisco, and that they were used in this No S coin. Upon introspection, and the fact that I actually went and looked up some more facts pertaining to the coin itself, I also agree. My original commentary was more or less focused upon using the No S Ike to examine numismatic classifications. Now I would like to take a closer look at the No S coin itself, and how it may have come about.
Given that the history of the coin itself indicates that the U.S. Mint allowed the designers of the coin to strike 3 No S obv. prototype coins with a type 1 rev (which was created prior to the introduction of the type 2 rev. dies in 1975), it is likely that the SF mint may have sent those prototype No S type 1 rev. proof blanks to Philidelphia. If this was the case, then there is a high probability that the proof blank that was used in the production of Mitches coin could have been one that was left over from a group of several sent to Philidelphia for the use in the production of the 3 that were used as the prototype 1974 No S Type 1 rev. coins strikes. We may never know for sure.
In addition, I mentioned that if there were 3 No S proof coins struck in Philidelphia from blanks that were in house in Philidelphia, they would become perfect proofs and not really pattern coins. With respect to that classification, it can also be argued that with only 3 proof coins produced, they could also be classified as pattern coins. If the perfect proofs that were produced in limited numbers were produced for mint analysis only, and/or, if they were not intended for general public release, they can also easily be classified as patterns by contemporary classification.
Looks like a good buy in 2002, money was flowing freely like water, just had to have a bucket with a good bottom in it.
I would be happy to make sure none of the top 5 or 10 ike registers sets get this coin but I would need a discount as when Justin gets around to selling I may not know where or who I am.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i>Looks like a good buy in 2002, money was flowing freely like water, just had to have a bucket with a good bottom in it.
I would be happy to make sure none of the top 5 or 10 ike registers sets get this coin but I would need a discount as when Justin gets around to selling I may not know where or who I am. >>
<< <i>Looks like a good buy in 2002, money was flowing freely like water, just had to have a bucket with a good bottom in it.
I would be happy to make sure none of the top 5 or 10 ike registers sets get this coin but I would need a discount as when Justin gets around to selling I may not know where or who I am. >>
Now here is the fun part with respect to the valuation of the Ike. Years ago, a coin like the Ike would have been suspect as to legal ownership. You could own a multimillon dollar coin, but if the U.S. Mint decided that the coin belonged to them, then the potential value of the coin would become seriously diminished. We used to call them black cabinet coins. Underground prices were generally considered to be between 25K and 50K. I am actually stoked that Mitch had the balls in his court to shell out the money that he did. Meanwhile back in dealer know it all land, the main marketplace amatuers played themselves the brillant self annointed loosers. They punked out and passed on the opportunity of a lifetime to challenge his winning bid. Mitch gambled and won.
Now pay attention kids... Mitch probably did his homework and happened to notice that the dollar that he bought on the seriously cheap was different from the other 3 known coins that the very astute Capt had noted that he had seen back in Coin World days.
I have no interest in calling anyone out on their lack of the proper understanding of the valuation of rare numismatics, but, in this situation, I will. Mitch stuck his rear out and he will profit from his gamble. The U.S. Mints position on the legal ownership of his coin, and of other similiar coins, has changed since his purchase. Can any of you lessor bidders understand what that really means?
His coin is a type 2 coin rev. coin, and as such, the mint knows that the coin is probably beyond their legal reach, as such, it was worth more than a million dollars when he bought it.
Thanks you Winlosewin for posting those prices realized. My memory is refreshed now that Rick Montgomery had already graded the coin PR66 prior to the auction. It was very lucky for me that the coin was not featured either in the pattern section or even in the dollar section, but, instead, in the error section. I was prepared to bid nearly double what the coin fetched in the sale, but was not tested. In fact, I bid around $25,000 or so on the die cap Ike dollar error lot that was either right before or after the pattern Ike, but I was the underbidder. That was a super cool error Ike and one I would have kept along side the pattern Ike forever, but I did not feel it was a $30,000+ error back then so I stopped bidding for it. Stacks' comment comparing the pattern Ike to the 1870-S $3 was right on.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Stacks called it a pattern, PCGS called it a pattern. I'm not convinced either.
Wondercoin. >>
There had to be some impetus to designate it a pattern since both the Obverse and Reverse designs are/were regular production designs meaning, intended for circulation.
Designating this coin as a pattern is setting far reaching precedents.
Unless there is something else which simply has not been mentioned.
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>Stacks called it a pattern, PCGS called it a pattern. I'm not convinced either.
Wondercoin. >>
There had to be some impetus to designate it a pattern since both the Obverse and Reverse designs are/were regular production designs meaning, intended for circulation.
Designating this coin as a pattern is setting far reaching precedents.
Unless there is something else which simply has not been mentioned. >>
Pattern coins are mint created experimental coins not generally intended for public disemination.
<< <i>Stacks called it a pattern, PCGS called it a pattern. I'm not convinced either.
Wondercoin. >>
There had to be some impetus to designate it a pattern since both the Obverse and Reverse designs are/were regular production designs meaning, intended for circulation.
Designating this coin as a pattern is setting far reaching precedents.
Unless there is something else which simply has not been mentioned. >>
Pattern coins are mint created experimental coins not generally intended for public disemination. >>
Duh!
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.
Hence, the question of whether the Ike is indeed a pattern appears a subject to debate.
Having just enjoyed the wonderful Opera "Otello" in London a week or two ago (and I am not an Opera guy - yet), my thoughts then wander to another Shakespearean production in which this is said...
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;"
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Stacks called it a pattern, PCGS called it a pattern. I'm not convinced either.
Wondercoin. >>
There had to be some impetus to designate it a pattern since both the Obverse and Reverse designs are/were regular production designs meaning, intended for circulation.
Designating this coin as a pattern is setting far reaching precedents.
Unless there is something else which simply has not been mentioned. >>
Pattern coins are mint created experimental coins not generally intended for public disemination. >>
Duh! >>
OK...Maybe because they count pop1 known low mintage proof coins made from normal dies as a pattern coin? Would you like it better if they called it a half cam? Or, How about because it is a rare proof coin that has a non production usage No S obv. proof die that is married to a production ready rev. die?
A rose by any other name is... Someone once told me that you cannot lie down in a pile of horse manure and come out smelling like a Rose. I smiled and then replied..."Why not, roses do."
Comments
These days of 11 grades of unc almost require collectors to become investors first before they shell out serious money for coins.
You would think that because coin collecting has become more like coin investing, folks would understand the value of knowledge.
They should want to know what they are buying, and why, even if it is just a " for the joy of it" purchase.
Money matters aside, knowledge can bring added enjoyment.
When anyone cares to profess an opinion on coin valuations, they should make certain that they FULLY understand what the coin is.
They should also consider who it may appeal to before they proffer comment...especially when the coin does not belong to them.
Curteousy aside, there are also legal implications with respect to devaluations caused by unwarranted derogatory commentary.
Nobody needs that.
I am keeping my Ikes.
<< <i>Chill, people. You are taking this way too seriously. >>
Never.
<< <i>
How would you value a 1976 No S proof if it was on a copper nickel planchet as compared to a silver planchet?
>>
This is a question whose answer will be difficult to distill from the data. Some collectors
won't buy any coin if it lacks precious metal and some prefer bronze, another metal, or
don't care at all. I would think that with unique coin in series that contain multiple metal-
ic compositions that there will be little difference in market values since the supply is so
far under the demand; if one collector doesn't want it or does want it because of the metal,
it matter little.
<< <i>
<< <i>
How would you value a 1976 No S proof if it was on a copper nickel planchet as compared to a silver planchet?
>>
This is a question whose answer will be difficult to distill from the data. Some collectors
won't buy any coin if it lacks precious metal and some prefer bronze, another metal, or
don't care at all. I would think that with unique coin in series that contain multiple metal-
ic compositions that there will be little difference in market values since the supply is so
far under the demand; if one collector doesn't want it or does want it because of the metal,
it matter little. >>
Intuitively that makes sense. These coins are virtually nonexistant.
Back in early mid 60's NECA formulation days, we used to discuss these types of patterns and errors and we were asked to advise as to proper classifications.
CONE was busy ripping itself apart.
It was a lot of fun, and very interesting for a young coin head.
I would favor the transitional composition silver due to the outrageous rarity.
If the silver Ike was intentionally made in SF as I suspect, and then sent to Philidelphia, it would be an intentional imperfect proof.
If an Ike was intentionally made in Philidelphia on a specially prepared cu/ni proof planchet, we would have an intentional perfect proof.
As counterintuitive as it may seem in respect and relationship to rarity, I suspect that the general collecting public would probably gravitate toward the PERFECT proof, the cu/ni coin. Something about the word imperfect seems to throw normal people off.
Us variety coin guys are not your average collector lot.
I have even heard the word excentric used when I was coin shopping. lol
People are funny.
The imperfect proof would be the generally more rare event but do to contemporary marketing and current conventional pattern classifications, I think the public would value the clad coin higher.
Funny that even after 58 years of collecting coins I can still get a kick out of it, and still dig the oddball.
Probably helped feed a lot of families...
Teach a man to fish and he can catch, and feed to others.
<< <i>Curteousy aside, there are also legal implications with respect to devaluations caused by unwarranted derogatory commentary. >>
Ya almost had me until you said this because, the last time I checked, opinions were simply that. Opinions.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
As counterintuitive as it may seem in respect and relationship to rarity, I suspect that the general collecting public would probably gravitate toward the PERFECT proof, the cu/ni coin. Something about the word imperfect seems to throw normal people off.
>>
We seem to have similar thoughts on the matter. I think a clad version might be sought
more avidly or more broadly as well. What effect this different demand would have on
valuation is very difficult to estimate.
I tend to be of the opinion that the coin in question was minted in Philadelphia and the
lack of a mint mark is a sort of oversight. The coin wasn't expected to survive so they
never thought of putting the "proper" mint mark on it.
I gather you're associated with NECA?
<< <i>
<< <i>
As counterintuitive as it may seem in respect and relationship to rarity, I suspect that the general collecting public would probably gravitate toward the PERFECT proof, the cu/ni coin. Something about the word imperfect seems to throw normal people off.
>>
We seem to have similar thoughts on the matter. I think a clad version might be sought
more avidly or more broadly as well. What effect this different demand would have on
valuation is very difficult to estimate.
I tend to be of the opinion that the coin in question was minted in Philadelphia and the
lack of a mint mark is a sort of oversight. The coin wasn't expected to survive so they
never thought of putting the "proper" mint mark on it.
I gather you're associated with NECA? >>
yes
And how is that going to be proven when the coin won't be sold in Mitch's lifetime?
/stan_marsh I thought this was America!
Bring on your lawyers baby.
-KHayse
Let's investigate the facts and determine if we can confirm what happened to the others that were struck.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
As to defaming or slandering my coin, no need to be concerned with that. First, I believe the coin is the most valuable modern coin in existence today, as I previously stated. If you disagree, all I ask is that you disagree respectfully and thoughtfully. Likewise, I will assert my points thoughtfully and respectfully (and only in response to comments on the coin as I will continue to not promote or market the coin on these boards). Second, the coin will (hopefully) not be for sale for years and years to come. One day, hopefully, it will be Justin's "problem" to figure out the coin's true value.
Wondercoin.
1. I did not once say THE VERY TOP 5 Ike collectors, in the PCGS registry, in the world, till land's end. (Keith, as you are in the top 5 on the PCGS Registry, my apologies if this is one you wish to discuss. I am more than certain you have your own worthy opinions...)
2. I did not once say I personally/myself would never, ever, never be 100% totally uninterested in owning the coin, never, ever. If you thought otherwise, then again, you didn't read very well. I implied that some number less than the 5 number I mentioned is totally uninterested. Maybe that totally uninterested number is 2, or even 1 - no one really knows because I purposely didn't divulge that - regardless, it's TOTALLY unimportant for the point I was making. What I was driving to, and what I thought to be obvious, is that I and numerous others would not pay anywhere near current PCGS valuation of the coin because they do not have that level of need towards this coin for the reasons I stated earlier.
3. At no time did I intentionally or knowingly "drag this coin through the mud". Apparently some take my comments to be so 180° from their opinion, and therefore they can't be anything but bad. The comments are simply from another facet of the field, not from a higher or lower vantage. To modernize the concept, they are what they are. Done.
4. I definitely did not - nor do I even remotely want to - try to sway, convince, overturn, or outright wreck anyone else's opinions towards this coin. I'm reasonably certain by the ground floor basics of the U.S. Constitution that anyone can have as many as they want, any flavor they want....and voice it if so chosen.
I merely posted comments hoping that others would take notice that regardless of some thoughts here, many others have opinions that are far different. I sincerely fail to understand why this is so hard to grasp.
Oh, and
5. Lee's right (in my "opinion" only, of course...). The uninformed legal threats speak volumes.
Enjoy the 1976 No-S Ike proof.
lack of a mint mark is a sort of oversight. The coin wasn't expected to survive so they
never thought of putting the "proper" mint mark on it".
I really do not know how the Mint made the coin, or where the blanks came from.
What I was touching on was more or less an attempt to break down how we used to describe and classify these coins and why.
It was trying to explain the interplay between numismatic verbiage and production circumstance.
I assume that the Philidelphia Mint was well enough set up to produce die trial proofs.
I could be way off on my theory that SF produced the coin and sent it to Philly, but, that does open us up to other production combinations, and that gave me an opportunity to talk about how the classifications would be slightly altered.
If the No S proof coin was made in advance of normal die production, then there is a very strong likelyhood that the NO S die struck a proof blank that could certainly have come from SF mint. They had the silver blanks, or would have had them soon enough.
Of course, if the Philly mint was set up to run patterns, they were also probably set up make their own proof planchets as well.
It is even possible that they blanked their own metal, if the metal was available to them 'in house'.
Capt said that he thought the blanks were sent from SF to Philly and then used. That seems as probable as anything else, and it could be spot on. I raised the issue of other possibility to make the point that mints are factories. They probably run the same way as most others.
They normally choose the cheapest, easiest, or fastest way to get things done. However, we are talking the tax spending U.S. Govt. here so, anything goes... and there is always the good ol FUBAR
I really do not know much of the circumstances of this coin and I do not know what historical documentation is available with respect to it.
I also do not know what pre-production procedures the Mint followed back in 1976, and I am not well versed in Clad modern production.
That being said, If the silver proof blanks were sent from SF to Philidelphia and then struck there, the No S coins would become intentional transitional compostion perfect proofs. The metal is not from the Philidelphia Mints' normal yearly production supply. It is from SF metal production stock and is therefore transitional. The No S Die used was a Philidelphia die, and the No S proof coins were struck in Philly.
They are normal obv designs for the Mint of strike. Therefore, they are perfect proofs.
Made this way, the struck coin would become an intentional transitional compostition perfect proof pattern coin.
They are no longer die trials because the No S obv die is correct for the mint of strike.
They are still "Pattern" proofs because the metal used was not a Philidelphia production run stock used that year.
Their link to pattern classification would be through their use of a transitional metal stock, or wrong stock.
If that silver metal had come from in house storage in Philidelphia, and the coins were also made there, they would have produced a normal intentional Proof coin.
The die is correct for the Mint of strike, and the metal is correct for the year of production. Their usage would create 3 very rare proof coins. They are no longer die trials, and they are no longer patterns. They are perfect proofs.
If the mint had used some type of metal that was not utilized in that years scheduled production, then we have wrong stock implications.
I personally refer to those as experimental composition wrong stock metals. A coin produced in Philly from the No S proof die and struck on these metals, would be classified as an intentional experimental composition perfect proof pattern coin.
If anyone cares to correct any classification inaccuracies that I may have made, please feel free to do so.
In respect to the legal ramifications of posters statements, I was reflecting back upon the controversy created from the wheat stalk cent that Sam once owned.
Common sense before comment is cheaper than litigation after stupid.
Coins before ego.
<< <i>As far as some of my comments here's some simple ones that appear to not have been mentally absorbed or even read thoroughly:
1. I did not once say THE VERY TOP 5 Ike collectors, in the PCGS registry, in the world, till land's end. (Keith, as you are in the top 5 on the PCGS Registry, my apologies if this is one you wish to discuss. I am more than certain you have your own worthy opinions...)
2. I did not once say I personally/myself would never, ever, never be 100% totally uninterested in owning the coin, never, ever. If you thought otherwise, then again, you didn't read very well. I implied that some number less than the 5 number I mentioned is totally uninterested. Maybe that totally uninterested number is 2, or even 1 - no one really knows because I purposely didn't divulge that - regardless, it's TOTALLY unimportant for the point I was making. What I was driving to, and what I thought to be obvious, is that I and numerous others would not pay anywhere near current PCGS valuation of the coin because they do not have that level of need towards this coin for the reasons I stated earlier.
3. At no time did I intentionally or knowingly "drag this coin through the mud". Apparently some take my comments to be so 180° from their opinion, and therefore they can't be anything but bad. The comments are simply from another facet of the field, not from a higher or lower vantage. To modernize the concept, they are what they are. Done.
4. I definitely did not - nor do I even remotely want to - try to sway, convince, overturn, or outright wreck anyone else's opinions towards this coin. I'm reasonably certain by the ground floor basics of the U.S. Constitution that anyone can have as many as they want, any flavor they want....and voice it if so chosen.
I merely posted comments hoping that others would take notice that regardless of some thoughts here, many others have opinions that are far different. I sincerely fail to understand why this is so hard to grasp.
Oh, and
5. Lee's right (in my "opinion" only, of course...). The uninformed legal threats speak volumes.
Enjoy the 1976 No-S Ike proof. >>
Whoa there.
There were no uninformed legal threats.
There were no legal threats.
There is a suggestion that common sense and courteousy prevail.
Like it or not, there can be legal implications for commentary.
I was just pointing that out.
If you felt threatened, it is probably not do to my bringing up the subject.
People can voice their opinions about valuations and they can state their objections.
However, there is a fine legal line that can be crossed when those opinions of value amount to more than simple commentary and enter into the realm of thinly veiled attacks upon the valuation of the subject matter at hand.
Free speech is one thing.
The freedom to speak out in any attempt to disparage, damage, or to destroy another mans property is another... irregardless intent.
It is something that all of us should know, and it was worth noting.
It was not offered to cause angst.
It was offered in the spirit of understanding, and no more.
Wondercoin
Well your unsolicited legal advice is coming off as threatening. Seeing as how Mitch is not selling the coin, why don't you let it go.
I've seen conversations where people have said they have no interest in purchasing an 1804 dollar because they are basically fantasy coins produced decades after the
date on them. No one gets upset. No one takes it personally. And no one warns they could be sued.
Another way we could make this less personal is to stop referring to this as Mitch's son's inheritance. I appreciate him sharing his personal estate planning but it's not helping.
Having his son's name in every other post is not helping. We are talking about any and all no mintmark 1976 Ike proofs. As of today, Mitch has the only one. Projecting
10, 20, 30 years down the road as to the future owner is just silly and sidetracking the conversation.
I'm unsubscribing from this thread.
Thanks,
-KHayse
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
So far in answer to any of my questions about the 76 No-S proof, I've received what's good/bad taste in other's opinion, told that I can't speak my opinions when they clash harshly with others, succession of an estate, a comedy routine, some world class legal advice, and oh yeah - apparently that I feel "threatened".
Please carry on without me as well.
The name is LEE!
I do not believe PCGS took pics after they slabbed the coin, but only beforehand.
Wondercoin.
<< <i>I'm simply waiting to see when Neca63 can make a post and not have to edit it. He's editing so often, one never knows what he did and didn't say, what he meant and didn't mean. Though, judging by the amount of edits, he's just a fence straddler. >>
I cannot offer criticism because someone edits their posts.
I edit mine and would appreciate if some folks edited their's to correct pronunciation and spelling.
I would like a picture or scan of this coin in it's current slab.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>And, after I posted my last post, the other posts came up. I also noticed the edits, but overall he has advanced some interesting propositions.
I do not believe PCGS took pics after they slabbed the coin, but only beforehand.
Wondercoin. >>
Well, then I guess it's up to you to grab a snap of the coin. Surely a cell phone snap of the obverse and reverse would not be that difficult.
The name is LEE!
Wondercoin
Numismatic descriptions can be diffult to write correctly.
We know what we are trying to say, and we try to write it that way, but then when we re-read it we do not initially see our wording mistakes because we are reading back into our own thoughts..
Be that as it may, I see no reason to leave numismatic inaccuracies to the future to confuse potential readers.
My intent was to show the interplay between numismatic classifications and coin production occurance.
I stand by my assertions that Mitch has a great coin, one of the best rarieties created within the last 100 years.
It is that type of piece that most collectors could only imagine owning, and I say rock out and well done to him.
I do not know him, but I would like to meet him and I am sure that the pleasure would be mine.
I certainly do not speak for him, nor his interests.
If people want to voice their opinions it is OK by me.
But, if that IKE were my coin, I would not be as kind and forgiving as Mitch if anyone chose to cross the line from simply offering their own personal thoughts, and then claimed right to speak the thoughts of other collectors, or any group of collectors, about the valuation of my coin. The freedom to voice may be free, but it is not free from personal responsibility.
Perhaps some may consider that to be legal advice. It is not. It is just a fact.
I hope Mitch gets to fully enjoy his trophy, and I hope that some young numismatists may learn from what I was sharing with respect to classifications and their import. Use what I attempted to write to send you in a more corrected direction to further advance your knowledge..
Let it serve as no more than a springboard in the furtherance of your appreciation of the wonderful world of numismatics.
The basic classification archetecture should be correct.
If you think that some of the wording in incorrect, rest assured that I will attempt to get back to it when I can to make needed corrections.
If you care to, come back to it later after I have had a chance to review and correct it as best I can.
"If people want to voice their opinions it is OK by me.
But, if that IKE were my coin, I would not be as kind and forgiving as Mitch if anyone chose to cross the line from simply offering their own personal thoughts, and then claimed right to speak the thoughts of other collectors, or any group of collectors, about the valuation of my coin. The freedom to voice may be free, but it is not free from personal responsibility."
Well said Neca. I, too, failed to see why anyone needed to speak for a group of collectors; not to mention the fact that the #1 set collector was currently a good customer of mine and a friend of Justin's. And, hence, the interjected comedy as it is certainly better to laugh than any alternative. I certainly did not lose any sleep over any of the comments here (whether they were indeed "facts" or fiction) nor did any comments alter the valuation of the coin (whatever it might be) in my view. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments here and the pleasure will be mine when we get to meet at some point down the road.
Wondercoin.
And Mitch, I'm constantly amazed with what you have managed to studiously and persistently accumulate among the moderns over time. You'll have quite an historical reputation in future years.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
I suspect that is already well assured...some years ago
<< <i>"And Mitch, I'm constantly amazed with what you have managed to studiously and persistently accumulate among the moderns over time. You'll have quite an historical reputation in future years. "
I suspect that is already well assured...some years ago
CaptHenway posted way back on September 14, 2014 quoting Wondercoin:
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe one of a few different PCGS images taken of the Pcgs-PR66CAM $1 is currently showing in my "Top 100 Modern" registry set (and in the picture gallery of my website). The coin was graded one time by PCGS right after I purchased it from the Bowers sale, where it was placed (and auctioned) in the error section of the auction catalog. It was assigned a Judd pattern number at/around the time Rick Montgomery (former President of PCGS) had it graded for me.
Wondercoin >>
What was it graded in the Bowers sale? >>
Here is a picture of the 9-22-2002 Bowers and Merena prices realized featuring the coin. It was sold in a PCGS Proof-66 holder though there is no pic of the holder. Interesting that they called it a pattern, even noting the Pollock-2088 number, but included it in the error section. Might have been because there were a number of impressive error coins including several Ikes and only 4 other patterns.
This comment at the end of the description gives an interesting comparison: "This little-known variety ranks with the 1870-S $3 as one of the rarest numismatic collectibles we have ever had the privilege to offer."
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I put together a complete set of FBL gem Franklins in the 1960's.
Back then, coins were pretty cheap and the Bens were considered somewhat of an ugly duckling.
Nobody seemed to want them, yet.
Capt said that he believed that the Mint in Philadelphia was sent some proof planchets from San Fransisco, and that they were used in this No S coin.
Upon introspection, and the fact that I actually went and looked up some more facts pertaining to the coin itself, I also agree.
My original commentary was more or less focused upon using the No S Ike to examine numismatic classifications.
Now I would like to take a closer look at the No S coin itself, and how it may have come about.
Given that the history of the coin itself indicates that the U.S. Mint allowed the designers of the coin to strike 3 No S obv. prototype coins with a type 1 rev (which was created prior to the introduction of the type 2 rev. dies in 1975), it is likely that the SF mint may have sent those prototype No S type 1 rev. proof blanks to Philidelphia.
If this was the case, then there is a high probability that the proof blank that was used in the production of Mitches coin could have been one that was left over from a group of several sent to Philidelphia for the use in the production of the 3 that were used as the prototype 1974 No S Type 1 rev. coins strikes.
We may never know for sure.
In addition, I mentioned that if there were 3 No S proof coins struck in Philidelphia from blanks that were in house in Philidelphia, they would become perfect proofs and not really pattern coins.
With respect to that classification, it can also be argued that with only 3 proof coins produced, they could also be classified as pattern coins.
If the perfect proofs that were produced in limited numbers were produced for mint analysis only, and/or, if they were not intended for general public release, they can also easily be classified as patterns by contemporary classification.
What a fun coin to think about.
I would be happy to make sure none of the top 5 or 10 ike registers sets get this coin but I would need a discount as when Justin gets around to selling I may not know where or who I am.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Looks like a good buy in 2002, money was flowing freely like water, just had to have a bucket with a good bottom in it.
I would be happy to make sure none of the top 5 or 10 ike registers sets get this coin but I would need a discount as when Justin gets around to selling I may not know where or who I am.
LOL
Proof Shields good.
Restrike Shields more better good.
<< <i>Looks like a good buy in 2002, money was flowing freely like water, just had to have a bucket with a good bottom in it.
I would be happy to make sure none of the top 5 or 10 ike registers sets get this coin but I would need a discount as when Justin gets around to selling I may not know where or who I am.
Now here is the fun part with respect to the valuation of the Ike.
Years ago, a coin like the Ike would have been suspect as to legal ownership.
You could own a multimillon dollar coin, but if the U.S. Mint decided that the coin belonged to them, then the potential value of the coin would become seriously diminished. We used to call them black cabinet coins.
Underground prices were generally considered to be between 25K and 50K.
I am actually stoked that Mitch had the balls in his court to shell out the money that he did.
Meanwhile back in dealer know it all land, the main marketplace amatuers played themselves the brillant self annointed loosers.
They punked out and passed on the opportunity of a lifetime to challenge his winning bid.
Mitch gambled and won.
Now pay attention kids...
Mitch probably did his homework and happened to notice that the dollar that he bought on the seriously cheap was different from the other 3 known coins that the very astute Capt had noted that he had seen back in Coin World days.
I have no interest in calling anyone out on their lack of the proper understanding of the valuation of rare numismatics, but, in this situation, I will.
Mitch stuck his rear out and he will profit from his gamble.
The U.S. Mints position on the legal ownership of his coin, and of other similiar coins, has changed since his purchase.
Can any of you lessor bidders understand what that really means?
His coin is a type 2 coin rev. coin, and as such, the mint knows that the coin is probably beyond their legal reach, as such, it was worth more than a million dollars when he bought it.
So, Uh?
Wondercoin.
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
The name is LEE!
Wondercoin.
<< <i>Stacks called it a pattern, PCGS called it a pattern. I'm not convinced either.
Wondercoin. >>
There had to be some impetus to designate it a pattern since both the Obverse and Reverse designs are/were regular production designs meaning, intended for circulation.
Designating this coin as a pattern is setting far reaching precedents.
Unless there is something else which simply has not been mentioned.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Stacks called it a pattern, PCGS called it a pattern. I'm not convinced either.
Wondercoin. >>
There had to be some impetus to designate it a pattern since both the Obverse and Reverse designs are/were regular production designs meaning, intended for circulation.
Designating this coin as a pattern is setting far reaching precedents.
Unless there is something else which simply has not been mentioned. >>
Pattern coins are mint created experimental coins not generally intended for public disemination.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Stacks called it a pattern, PCGS called it a pattern. I'm not convinced either.
Wondercoin. >>
There had to be some impetus to designate it a pattern since both the Obverse and Reverse designs are/were regular production designs meaning, intended for circulation.
Designating this coin as a pattern is setting far reaching precedents.
Unless there is something else which simply has not been mentioned. >>
Pattern coins are mint created experimental coins not generally intended for public disemination. >>
Duh!
The name is LEE!
Having just enjoyed the wonderful Opera "Otello" in London a week or two ago (and I am not an Opera guy - yet), my thoughts then wander to another Shakespearean production in which this is said...
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"
Wondercoin
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Stacks called it a pattern, PCGS called it a pattern. I'm not convinced either.
Wondercoin. >>
There had to be some impetus to designate it a pattern since both the Obverse and Reverse designs are/were regular production designs meaning, intended for circulation.
Designating this coin as a pattern is setting far reaching precedents.
Unless there is something else which simply has not been mentioned. >>
Pattern coins are mint created experimental coins not generally intended for public disemination. >>
Duh! >>
OK...Maybe because they count pop1 known low mintage proof coins made from normal dies as a pattern coin?
Would you like it better if they called it a half cam?
Or, How about because it is a rare proof coin that has a non production usage No S obv. proof die that is married to a production ready rev. die?
A rose by any other name is...
Someone once told me that you cannot lie down in a pile of horse manure and come out smelling like a Rose.
I smiled and then replied..."Why not, roses do."
Later, Paul.