@StrikeOutXXX said:
Is anyone here the user on coincommunity going by "Paralyse"? Interesting post about production methods and details some here have asked about:
The whole post is interesting, but the 1st part has some details that would be great to know sources of:
**_The INITIAL startup of minting at San Fran was done with 10 dies shipped from Philadelphia in April of 1878. At "least" the first 10 coins were engraved.
It is known that those first 10 coins, as well as some others, were given very special treatment -- the planchets were polished and smoothed, the dies were polished and compounded to mirror finishes, and each coin was struck at least twice, or possibly as many as four or five times.
These first runs of coins were intended as gifts for the mint master, engraver/die sinker, a few for the Mint cabinet, and also handed out to dignitaries and VIPs that were in attendance. Leroy Van Allen owned two of the Philly presentation strikes, both later slabbed by ANACS, a 62DMPL and 64DMPL. _**
I know who Paralyse is, but I don't know what his source is for that information. What I'd be particularly interested in, and throught of bringing up earlier, was whether or not we can tell if the planchets were polished before striking by looking at the coin. It would be interesting to see the difference between a coin struck using these dies on a normal planchet and one that had been specially prepared.
I know of no accounting of more than the Eliasberg coin being engraved. The correct statement would be, "of the 10 first coins struck for the ceremony on April 17, 1878, the engraved coin is likely one of them."
You are correct @messydesk and good pick up @StrikeOutXXX. I read through the entire coincommunity.com thread and noticed that you asked Paralyse for a citation for the information that he posted. I came across that same information somewhere while researching the question of which of the Eaisenberg (VAM60) or the OP (VAM58) Specimen coins were actually one of the the first 10 Morgans minted at the ceremony. I couldn't find the source, but I know that in the the first part of the quote where Paralyse puts the -- (... the planchets were polished...) , he is skipping the transition where the author is actually describing the process that the Philadelphia mint uses to produce proofs. As both of the previously mentioned coins show evidence of planchet striations on the cheeks and were not minted as proofs (struck more than once), I'm sure that he caused some confusion. He exercised great latitude in paraphrasing the article and must have misread or misunderstood the facts, so the information as posted is incorrect. I'll post the citation if I find where I read it.
@CaptHenway said:
I remember bidding on an 1876-CC dime in copper that I would call a Proof. This was at a Bowers sale at a Michigan State fall convention somewhere in the early 80's.
PCGS graded SP66 of that issue a couple years ago - I did a die study at the time. As it turned out, the dies were used to strike business strikes, then were heavily lapped and used to strike the striated coins that NGC has certified as SP, then the off-metal coins were struck, then the pair of coins called SP at PCGS.
The progression of 76-CC dimes (especially the off-metal coins) certainly disproves the claim some people like to make that the Branch Mints were not making special coins.
This is the silver PCGS SP66:
Incredibly @Regulated you were probably one of the very first people to handle the recently authenticated SP65 coin the first time that it was submitted for grading. Hopefully you can help provide information to answer some of the questions that I have been researching for the past few days.
As a Morgan lover I was extremely excited by the announcement that the first known 1878-S Specimen Morgan Dollar had been certified, and that it had a pedigree that allowed it to be determined to be the second Morgan minted at a special ceremony at the San Francisco Mint. I wanted to learn everything that I could about it, but ran into some questions that I wanted to try and find answers to. As I've already written a long (too long) post explaining this, I'll get to the point. I came to find out that the certified Specimen coin had been previously submitted for grading and was holdered with a grade of MS65PL between the time it was purchased at auction in 2006 and the present. This raised a lot of questions for me that I thought that I would never find answers for. Luckily in doing some research, I found that the coin came across your desk at some point during the initial submission in January 2007.
I'm hoping that you will be able to provide any information that you can that will help explain its journey and how the initial submission would result in a straight MS grade and what would be involved in making a Specimen certification on its second submission 11 years later.
@Regulated said:
Not every specimen coin is made that way, but when you see rims like that coin has, coupled with its overall fabric, you'd have to be delusional to think that it isn't specially made.
So per you we have a new definition of SP, while the other Morgan is made exactly the same way. I would call the seated dime a pattern and be done with it. Along with you don't know how every specimen coin was made simply because you weren't there and you cannot know everything.
That's actually the way "specimen" is used - for when a piece was clearly specially struck or struck as a proof, but there is little to no record of it being struck this way or it was done so for presentation purposes. It might very well be a pattern, but as there is no record of it being struck as a pattern, it is called a specimen. There is no uniformity to the way specimens are struck, it's simply a blanket term.
@Wabbit2313 said:
If you have owned any proof Morgans, this is what they look like. It is a special strike to my eye. Had to be struck twice.
Rounded rims - not double struck - not proof.
It didn't get that look from a Normal strike, thus the term Special. Please share how it has the detail of a proof then? Look at the breast feathers, exactly as detailed as a proof strike.
@CaptHenway said:
I remember bidding on an 1876-CC dime in copper that I would call a Proof. This was at a Bowers sale at a Michigan State fall convention somewhere in the early 80's.
We handled one of the silver coins that PCGS graded SP66 of that issue a couple years ago - I did a die study at the time. As it turned out, the dies were used to strike business strikes, then were heavily lapped and used to strike the striated coins that NGC has certified as SP, then the off-metal coins were struck, then the pair of coins called SP at PCGS.
The progression of 76-CC dimes (especially the off-metal coins) certainly disproves the claim some people like to make that the Branch Mints were not making special coins.
This is the silver PCGS SP66:
Off-topic to the thread's coin - but if I read this correct, your die study showed the same dies (previously used as business strikes) were then processed, made the SP/striated coins, then the off-metal coins, and then the PCGS SP coins right.
What do you make of this statement from the above link (referencing the 2 copper and 1 nickel pieces)
"It appears likely that all three of these pieces were made at the Philadelphia mint as fantasy pieces for a collector's cabinet. It is interesting to note that the nickel and Stacks 9/94 copper specimens were described as business strikes whereas the upcoming Wolfe coin was graded as a proof in the Merkin sale."
If you believe that statement, combined with your timeline of the die use - do you think the 4 silver examples were made in Philadelphia as well?
Wonder if Roger ever dug up documents about shipping old CC dies back to Philadelphia in 1876.
Incredibly @Regulated you were probably one of the very first people to handle the recently authenticated SP65 coin the first time that it was submitted for grading. Hopefully you can help provide information to answer some of the questions that I have been researching for the past few days.
As a Morgan lover I was extremely excited by the announcement that the first known 1878-S Specimen Morgan Dollar had been certified, and that it had a pedigree that allowed it to be determined to be the second Morgan minted at a special ceremony at the San Francisco Mint. I wanted to learn everything that I could about it, but ran into some questions that I wanted to try and find answers to. As I've already written a long (too long) post explaining this, I'll get to the point. I came to find out that the certified Specimen coin had been previously submitted for grading and was holdered with a grade of MS65PL between the time it was purchased at auction in 2006 and the present. This raised a lot of questions for me that I thought that I would never find answers for. Luckily in doing some research, I found that the coin came across your desk at some point during the initial submission in January 2007.
I'm hoping that you will be able to provide any information that you can that will help explain its journey and how the initial submission would result in a straight MS grade and what would be involved in making a Specimen certification on its second submission 11 years later.
Much appreciated,
Paul
I was the submitter of the coin in 2007/8 - I promised the collector that I wouldn't share everything that I know about the piece in a public forum right now, but have reached out to see whether he'd be willing to let me post more here. I feel like I've been sitting on my hands through most of this thread. I'll add more if and when I can.
Yes a great load of info in that auction, thanks for presenting it.
I personally don't give a hoot what both authors stated, the dime isn't a regular issue business strike nor proof imho. The coin is different from anyone out there and I would classify it as an experimental piece or a pattern. Have you ever spoken to the authors, they are just regular guys that put their pants on like anyone of us. So-called experts have been proven wrong over and over again and opinions are a dime (no pun intended) a dozen. Just because someone writes something doesn't make it true. Not trying to be argumentative but I for one am tired of individuals who are dealers trying to gain stature and possibly make things up when commonsense should always prevail.
I'm the author of the section of the description that deals with the die study that I undertook with John Dannreuther, and Gerry Fortin.
The evidence in this particular case is as cut and dry as these things get - a pair of dies were shipped to the Carson City Mint, they were used to strike coins for circulation, later, the same dies were used to strike a handful of off-metal coins. These dies were then lapped, struck a few coins which have survived in high grade, then were acid treated, polished, and struck additional coins under unusually high pressure, two of which have survived in unusually high grade.
The off-metal coins (which ought to be classified as patterns), and the die progression, indicate a far-from-ordinary state of affairs at Carson City, and the resulting coins struck after the off-metal pieces are certainly not regular issue, but I wouldn't call them patterns either. If the term "proof" should only be applied to Philadelphia Mint issues (an opinion that I agree with), I think SP is probably the most appropriate designation.
@StrikeOutXXX said:
What do you make of this statement from the above link (referencing the 2 copper and 1 nickel pieces)
"It appears likely that all three of these pieces were made at the Philadelphia mint as fantasy pieces for a collector's cabinet. It is interesting to note that the nickel and Stacks 9/94 copper specimens were described as business strikes whereas the upcoming Wolfe coin was graded as a proof in the Merkin sale."
If you believe that statement, combined with your timeline of the die use - do you think the 4 silver examples were made in Philadelphia as well?
Wonder if Roger ever dug up documents about shipping old CC dies back to Philadelphia in 1876.
Based upon the existence of the later die-state silver pieces, my bet would be that the off-metal strikes and subsequent examples were made by the Carson City Mint, although evidence that the dies were returned to Philadelphia wouldn't be completely unimaginable. If they were, I guess you could make an argument for a PR designation, as opposed to an SP designation.
That being said, I'd bet that the Philadelphia Mint/Fantasy Pieces hypothesis is someone's guess, and suggests a pretty complicated explanation where a simple one would suffice.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
This kind of silliness happens in every hobby. Maybe more so in coin collecting since it has been subject to many decades of misrepresentation, falsehood and blatant profiteering.
About 15 years ago there were grand pronouncements about a "new pattern" for the 1938 five-cent coin being discovered. It was positively asserted by numismatic experts (several of whom are still about) that this was a long-lost design by James Fraser. That the piece had all the characteristics of Fraser's work and was obviously a very, very valuable, and unique piece.
I suspected the story was complete hokum and that the "experts" had done no meaningful research except to open their mouths and close their minds. A visit to the Smithsonian and check of coin-like materials they had, turned up a model of the identical design -- by Anthony de Francisci. It was his 1938 nickel reverse design that the mighty "numismatic experts" claimed was by Fraser. In addition, the "new pattern" was an electrotype made to show the design a coin-size - not a die struck pattern at all. Little more was heard - except tree frogs and the scuttle of embarrassed numismatic "artistic style experts."
All that can be done is to suggest - again and again - that the TPGs and their minions do full and complete, factual research before these amazing pronouncements are made public.....and to remind collectors that the US Mints were not in the habit of making special coins - that's why they mad proofs at Philadelphia. (Early coins off new dies will look very nice - but that applies to EVERY change of dies and is completely within a normal range of appearance.)
I was looking forward to your comments when I read about this "extraordinary" find. My first question was whether the coin had die polish lines (like the 1875-S "branch mint proof" double dimes). Thanks,
Thanks @Regulated. I'm surprised to hear that you remembered the coin as I'm sure that you have seen "billions", but actually not, as you submitted it as a "Wonder coin" as soon as you saw it. I was reticent to ask you about it as you stated that it is not within your pervue to share information about it, especially in a public forum, without the consent of the owner. (I had to ask) It has just been very difficult to find any information about the coin's history after it was purchased at the Doyle auction, and there is something about this coin that gets my juices flowing.
If you are able to get permission to release any information on it's story, even if I have to sign a NDA, (non disclosure agreement), I would really love to know more!
The information about the die study does help though in understanding the process of investigating the history of an extraordinary coin, and helps to satisfy some of my curiosity.
@StrikeOutXXX said: @MrEureka Andy, I think that’s your site... any insight on the 1876-CC dime statement I linked up above that regulated commented on?
I'm not sure exactly what you want me to address.
FWIW, I'll recap my take on what the coins look like. We can debate what they should be called, but the coins are what they are.
The off metal strikes have the appearance of business strike coins. No mirror surfaces, no squared rims.
All but one of the special silver pieces are striated, and have pronounced wire edges and somewhat mirrored surfaces.
The silver piece now in the Simpson collection is the only one I've seen that actually looks like a Philadelphia proof dime of the era.
I have no idea where they were made, but I've often wondered if they made for display at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia. I've also wondered if the same display might have included some or all of the 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces in existence. However, this is pure speculation.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Thanks @MrEureka I was just trying to connect the dots between @Regulated die research, and order of production to the statement on your site that the 3 off-metal ones were struck in Philly, which if both are correct, puts the silver proofs production in Philly as well. @RogerB you ever run across records of 1876-cc dime dies being shipped back to Philly after use, which could have been used to do the off-metal strikes then reworked and used to strike the proofs?
I don't know who to address this question to but please feel welcomed to chime in. Do the very first (business strikes) coins struck with the very first newest dies, will they automatically have proof-like fields/surfaces? IMO, I believe they do not. Reason; the dies having not been in use long enough will not have developed the flow lines that manifest luster on a coin. I do believe artificial flow lines can be created through polishing the fields of the dies. Please straighten me out with the ins and outs of the process. I just don't think the very first coins struck come automatically with PL surfaces unless the dies have received some help. IMO, the very first strikes (without the help) the luster will be dull or subtle or very low as most of my EDS (early die state) 6 step coins are consistently of this nature.
And thanks Regulated on your answer to the spiked eye. The speculation I was trying to raise......I was thinking there would have to be some earlier strikes before the spike in eye would have been created. How it started from get-go should be a mystery.
Thanks Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Thanks @MrEureka I was just trying to connect the dots between @Regulated die research, and order of production to the statement on your site that the 3 off-metal ones were struck in Philly, which if both are correct, puts the silver proofs production in Philly as well. @RogerB you ever run across records of 1876-cc dime dies being shipped back to Philly after use, which could have been used to do the off-metal strikes then reworked and used to strike the proofs?
The site says that the coins were "probably" struck in Philly. Saul wrote that. I don't know what his rationale was but I tend to agree, mostly because only Philly would have had copper and nickel planchets on hand. Then again, it would have been easy enough for CC to use a three cent nickel and a cut down small cent as planchets for the coins.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@leothelyon: "Do the very first (business strikes) coins struck with the very first newest dies, will they automatically have proof-like fields/surfaces? IMO, I believe they do not. Reason; the dies having not been in use long enough will not have developed the flow lines that manifest luster on a coin...
First of all, PL coins have luster (reflection from a surface). Obviously, it does not have the same appearance as the luster on a coin that is not PL. AFAIK, fresh dies are polished. The coins that are struck at first don't look like the coins that are struck as the die becomes used. Hope this helped.
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Thanks @MrEureka I was just trying to connect the dots between @Regulated die research, and order of production to the statement on your site that the 3 off-metal ones were struck in Philly, which if both are correct, puts the silver proofs production in Philly as well. @RogerB you ever run across records of 1876-cc dime dies being shipped back to Philly after use, which could have been used to do the off-metal strikes then reworked and used to strike the proofs?
Haven't seen anything. There are clearly a few proof coins made from mintmarked dies; however, only the Philadelphia Mint had equipment to make a mirror proof coin. Hence, that's were they came from -- not a "branch mint proof," but a "proof of branch mint dies."
RE: "First of all, PL coins have luster (reflection from a surface)."
This is a somewhat misleading statement. Luster is the scattering of light off an irregular surface produced by metal flow and stress. A "mirror" is a direct reflection. A "PL" coin has a low-quality polish with a mixture of visible metal flow and mirrored characteristics.
@RogerB said: "RE: "First of all, PL coins have luster (reflection from a surface)." This is a somewhat misleading statement. Luster is the scattering of light off an irregular surface produced by metal flow and stress. A "mirror" is a direct reflection. A "PL" coin has a low-quality polish with a mixture of visible metal flow and mirrored characteristics.
Talk about misleading...This is the kind of nonsense that confuses beginners. As you have posted, ** there is a huge difference between MINT LUSTER on a coin and any other form of reflected light from an object as a Proof Morgan dollar and including a bathroom mirror!**
I believe we both know the ropes.
I always break things down into simple concepts before getting specific. That's why students need to learn what the surface luster from any object is FIRST. I have found it becomes much easier to teach them the difference between the luster of a cleaned coin and one that has original mint luster.
@Wabbit2313 said:
If you have owned any proof Morgans, this is what they look like. It is a special strike to my eye. Had to be struck twice.
Rounded rims - not double struck - not proof.
It didn't get that look from a Normal strike, thus the term Special. Please share how it has the detail of a proof then? Look at the breast feathers, exactly as detailed as a proof strike.
A proof is struck at least twice on polished dies and planchets. A specimen is struck once under higher pressure, which brings out the detail more. Usually the dies are not prepared for proof striking, though they will be mirrored because they are fresh. Also, the planchets will be those used for business strikes. See the difference between a 1964 proof set and a 1965 SMS set.
@Insider2 said: @RogerB said: "RE: "First of all, PL coins have luster (reflection from a surface)." This is a somewhat misleading statement. Luster is the scattering of light off an irregular surface produced by metal flow and stress. A "mirror" is a direct reflection. A "PL" coin has a low-quality polish with a mixture of visible metal flow and mirrored characteristics.
Talk about misleading...This is the kind of nonsense that confuses beginners. As you have posted, ** there is a huge difference between MINT LUSTER on a coin and any other form of reflected light from an object as a Proof Morgan dollar and including a bathroom mirror!**
I believe we both know the ropes.
I always break things down into simple concepts before getting specific. That's why students need to learn what the surface luster from any object is FIRST. I have found it becomes much easier to teach them the difference between the luster of a cleaned coin and one that has original mint luster.
My turn to try to explain it!
The smoother the surface of a coin, or anything else, the more mirrored it will appear and the more narrowly it will reflect light directly into the eye if held a the right angle. A proof coin is more mirrored because the planchet and the dies were polished, i.e., smoothed, and smooth dies create smooth coin surfaces. It is also more mirrored because more die pressure transfers more of the die characteristics - including "smoothness" - to the coin.
As coins are struck from a pair of dies, the moving metal in the planchet erodes the dies, usually in a radial manner. (Metal generally moves towards the periphery of the coin as it is struck.) The pattern of die erosion is transferred to the coin, thereby reducing the mirrors and creating a pattern of reflected light which appears to us as luster.
Circulation further reduces the apparent luster of a coin by damaging any smooth surfaces and any (more or less radial) flow lines on the coin. In other words, as the coin circulates, the surfaces are roughened, causing light to be reflected from the coin in a more random, diffused manner.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy's comments are correct.
Maybe Insider2 can read them and understand how his earlier remark was misleading and confusing to beginners and experienced collectors.
Well said. That's a textbook explanation of Mint Luster that deserves to be posted in "Best of."
The point I'm trying to make, something that frosts me to no end, is that numismatists tend to be closed minded. Just as they think of coins when the word "grading" is used, they think the word "luster" only applies to the mint made luster on a metal coin. IT DOES NOT!
For example, the plastic keyboard I'm using right now has almost blinding "luster" on the side closest to the light bulb.
Metal coins have luster, the polished ones, the PL ones, the acid-etched ones, the original MS ones, etc. You, Roger, and 95% of the posters here know what each of us are saying. I'm complicating this by moving the discussion of "luster" to all things BEFORE bringing it back to numismatics.
New collectors must first recognize what luster is. My greasy forehead (while I'm lecturing) has luster for the whole class to see. Once they learn the concept of luster, it becomes easier to teach them what original mint luster (in all its forms like satin, frosty, matte, etc) looks like compared to any other type of reflected light from a coin's surface.
Edit: I stand by everything I've posted. All PL coins have LUSTER!
Great explanations read above. I've read somewhere "diamond dust" is used to polish the dies and planchets when they make proofs. A coarser element or sandpaper is used to make the circulating (business strikes). It's very likely the level of polishing methods have been used interchangeably with the two types of strikes, proofs and circulating coins or a few proof planchets have found their way in the business strike process. I say this because I have a small number of business strikes with both type of surfaces, proofs and proof-like fields.
And, of course, there's somewhat of a difference in shine/mirrors between 90% silver and 75/25 copper and nickel. And interestingly enough, while I have some very high lustrous silver nickels, I have yet to find one that is proof-like.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
It is intriguing that some of the discussed Specimen/Proof/Prooflike coins may have been struck at the Carson City mint. FWIW here are some specifics on the pressure attainable by Coin Press #1 which may well have been the one used.
Note, the reporting states that although not designed to handle such pressures, the coin press in its early years was used to exert up to 200 Tons of Pressure.
The mint of that era did not have access to "diamond dust." To quote from the book "From Mint to Mint" --
"Besides common emery, the mint also used iron oxide for final polishing of master, special and proof dies. Various forms and purities were known as “crocus,” “rouge,” “red stuff,” colcothat of vitriol to metal workers; as pigments they were called “red-brown,” “purple-brown” and by other names. The mint used crocus, which was the bluish-purple iron oxide, for polishing hardened steel dies, and rouge for polishing soft dies. Crocus was harder than rouge and cut better when used on tempered steel."
@northcoin said:
It is intriguing that some of the discussed Specimen/Proof/Prooflike coins may have been struck at the Carson City mint. FWIW here are some specifics on the pressure attainable by Coin Press #1 which may well have been the one used.
Note, the reporting states that although not designed to handle such pressures, the coin press in its early years was used to exert up to 200 Tons of Pressure.
(Pictured as the first and last photo above was the last "Specimen" to be minted on Coin Press #1 before it broke down earlier this year. As seen in the initial photo there were problems with the collar which resulted in the evident error. The last photo which I took of my "Specimen" evidences an unusually strong strike for the issue with details of the mint building especially evident.)
@northcoin said:
It is intriguing that some of the discussed Specimen/Proof/Prooflike coins may have been struck at the Carson City mint. FWIW here are some specifics on the pressure attainable by Coin Press #1 which may well have been the one used.
Note, the reporting states that although not designed to handle such pressures, the coin press in its early years was used to exert up to 200 Tons of Pressure.
(Pictured as the first and last photo above was the last "Specimen" to be minted on Coin Press #1 before it broke down earlier this year. As seen in the initial photo there were problems with the collar which resulted in the evident error. The last photo which I took of my "Specimen" evidences an unusually strong strike for the issue with details of the mint building especially evident.)
OK, for completeness here is the other side of the "Specimen" and a photo of the Coin Press #1 as it can be seen today.
I was the submitter of the coin in 2007/8 - I promised the collector that I wouldn't share everything that I know about the piece in a public forum right now, but have reached out to see whether he'd be willing to let me post more here. I feel like I've been sitting on my hands through most of this thread. I'll add more if and when I can.
Yes a great load of info in that auction, thanks for presenting it.
I personally don't give a hoot what both authors stated, the dime isn't a regular issue business strike nor proof imho. The coin is different from anyone out there and I would classify it as an experimental piece or a pattern.
.....
I'm the author of the section of the description that deals with the die study that I undertook with John Dannreuther, and Gerry Fortin.
The evidence in this particular case is as cut and dry as these things get - a pair of dies were shipped to the Carson City Mint, they were used to strike coins for circulation, later, the same dies were used to strike a handful of off-metal coins. These dies were then lapped, struck a few coins which have survived in high grade, then were acid treated, polished, and struck additional coins under unusually high pressure, two of which have survived in unusually high grade.
The off-metal coins (which ought to be classified as patterns), and the die progression, indicate a far-from-ordinary state of affairs at Carson City, and the resulting coins struck after the off-metal pieces are certainly not regular issue, but I wouldn't call them patterns either. If the term "proof" should only be applied to Philadelphia Mint issues (an opinion that I agree with), I think SP is probably the most appropriate designation.
Based upon the existence of the later die-state silver pieces, my bet would be that the off-metal strikes and subsequent examples were made by the Carson City Mint, although evidence that the dies were returned to Philadelphia wouldn't be completely unimaginable. If they were, I guess you could make an argument for a PR designation, as opposed to an SP designation.
That being said, I'd bet that the Philadelphia Mint/Fantasy Pieces hypothesis is someone's guess, and suggests a pretty complicated explanation where a simple one would suffice.
I found a different newspaper account
Mineral Point Tribune., May 08, 1878 - Mineral Point, Wisconsin
It's interesting to read the events through a different journalist's eyes.
A few interesting things I read.
Polishing of the dies?
The box of 1000 blanks - this article makes it sound like they only planned on coining 1000, whereas the older article made it sound like the die cracked and they only managed to get 1000 coined.
The description of the machine working and the coins per minute was neat too.
There are 2 other articles I found but on the "Paid" sites:
Sturgeon Bay Expositor Independent Newspaper Archives
Friday, May 10, 1878 - Page 6
and
Indianapolis Journal Newspaper Archives
Saturday, April 27, 1878 - Page 2
You can kind of "Cheat" and look at the page source and see some of the text, which is horrible, but the Indianapolis article contains a sentence in its version of the article of:
"It is worthy of remark that the polishing and tempering of the dies, which usually occupies two days, was, in this instance, accomplished in the workshops of the mint within eight hours."
Might explain the "Specimen" feel to it and its unique fabric?
Other articles refer to SF running 3 of their 4 presses afterwards with Morgans (many papers of the time referred to these as “Daddy Dollars”) Not sure how 3 presses running at same time determines VAM production order, if simultaneous.
From the Daily Los Angeles Herald Friday April 19, 1878
Same article as above, just a bit easier to read from the Watertown republican., May 08, 1878, Watertown, Wisconsin
A newspaper report showing SF Mintage for April 1878. Despite running 3 presses, I think SF had so many die problems, they only got 190,000 made in the few weeks of April production.
Daily Alta California, Volume 30, Number 10247, 1 May 1878
Looks like they got it rolling a bit better for May 1878
Present the objective evidence as presently known. Then investigate based on the facts not conjecture, assumption, wishes, the easter Bunny, or rotting bologna.
Otherwise, it is just hokum cooked up to invent a rarity.
The very "positive" tone of the article might also relate to praise given Dodge when he was appointed Superintendent.
(During the previous 2 years, Mint Director Linderman had become displeased with SF Mint management and hinted at management changes in several letters to James Pollock at the Philadelphia Mint.)
The first coins off a new die pair will differ from those of later production, as will the final piece from the dame dies. What you see is not "special" but is part of normal die use and wear. That someone might have put it aside is very nice, and early strike coins are usually better looking than later ones (even with limited luster) -- but they are not made from any kind of specially prepared die or struck with different equipment.
Notice in the newspaper article where it is mentioned that the Superintendent placed a planchet on the lower die, then hand turned the toggle press. Since a toggle press delivers nearly identical force with each cycle, this and all the next 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 coins got identical treatments. Except --- hand placement and removal of the first coin. No feeding tube, automatic set and sweep, and dropping into a hopper.
So Roger, I take it your final answer of this coin being a "specimen" (If it was the 1st or one of the first struck referenced in the newspaper articles) is it's simply a very nice coin, off a fresh pair of dies, that had minimal post-strike mechanical manipulation?
Still the question of the 2 coins (VAM 58 vs 60) reportedly from the first production run, one of which is not can maybe be solved by Messydesk and the other VAMpires - not my cup of tea.
So let's consider a few more things.
1 - Given the strike description mentioned in the last article, it wasn't struck any differently than standard production - perhaps handled a bit more gingerly with less movement afterwards to keep it a bit more pristine.
Very likely - in this situation though, there would be thousands of "Specimens" out there that were the 1st off of fresh dies over this and other years, although many likely went through the full mechanical hopper/sorting/bagging process banging them up a bit, or distributed and circulated, you would think there would be a few others out there, but... maybe not.
I can see where anyone at this event who were one of the ones to receive one: "Most of the guests carried away as souvenirs some of the new coins" would have cared for them better over the years vs someone getting a nice looking coin from a bank teller.
2 - The Dies - given that last article's description where they reportedly crammed a normal 2-day process of tempering and polishing the dies into only 8 hours - is there a high probability that these dies were simply prepared "Differently" which could lead to slightly different looking coins struck?
Also - considering the "Full" production reportedly began the next day - and likely on 3 presses - even those dies may not have had the full 2 days to be prepared properly. Could be why they had some initial problems with dies breaking - who knows.
3 - The Planchets. OK- the Superintendent invites a ton of people for this ceremony, which after reading the newspaper accounts of Philadelphia's production likens these coins to Buzzards, Square-Chinned Liberty effigy, being only worth 90 cents, and many other not so pleasant descriptions and many high ranking US Officials not fully behind these dollars - perhaps he wanted to put on the best presentation possible? What do you think the chances were of this "Box of 1000" planchets brought out for the ceremony having gone through some special, or even simply extra cleaning/annealing/whitening or "Something" which may have set this group of planchets apart from the masses?
Just thinking out loud.
I don't think anyone doubts this coin is "Special" in some way - figuring out if it's special simply through the course of natural production, or any sort of outside influence directly or indirectly seems to be the mystery.
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is the best I can do bringing the new pictures down to size with the old pictures. I don't think the Doyle auction photos are clear enough and it's washed out as all can be and out of focus. Just look at the lack of details on the eagle's chest. The obverse Doyle pictures are so washed out you can't even make out the fold in her neck.
If PCGS says the lineage traces back to the Doyle Auction - they must have had some proof besides an older subpar auction catalog picture.
On the obverse, I can see:
The dot in the fields directly in line with Star #7 and the nose tip
Rim ding adjacent star #5
The dot inside the "U" of "PLURIBUS"
The toning pattern around star #8 after the "M" as well as most of the highs/lows of toning (old pics don't show colors at all, new ones at least match the shading) look between the cap and the "UM"
On reverse - Dots inside the "O" of "ONE"
Rim nick @ 10:00 (Thanks Ron)
I mean - I see what the others are seeing too, for everything I can find that matches, I can find stuff that doesn't, but... I'm betting the Doyle auction pictures suck much more than PCGS didn't do their homework before certifying this and stating it is pedigreed as such that would make this the Doyle auction coin.
LOOK AT THE RIM NICKS ON THE REVERSE. Easiest to see is over the "ED." Case closed!
I am inclined to agree with Roger that this is just a well-preserved example of an early die state coin. I have not seen the piece, but Just from the pictures I doubt if I would have certified it as a "Specimen" back in 1978-1984 when I was at ANACS.
MOO
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.
@StrikeOutXXX said:
So Roger, I take it your final answer of this coin being a "specimen" (If it was the 1st or one of the first struck referenced in the newspaper articles) is it's simply a very nice coin, off a fresh pair of dies, that had minimal post-strike mechanical manipulation?
Still the question of the 2 coins (VAM 58 vs 60) reportedly from the first production run, one of which is not can maybe be solved by Messydesk and the other VAMpires - not my cup of tea.
@Regulated and another VAM guy (Pete Burchfield) prepared a presentation for VAM Think XVI at the FUN show this year explaining how VAM 60 was the first die pair and the VAM 58 specimens were struck to satisfy Linderman's request for some ceremonial souvenirs two weeks after the first striking.
RE: "a presentation for VAM Think XVI at the FUN show this year explaining how VAM 60 was the first die pair and the VAM 58 specimens were struck to satisfy Linderman's request for some ceremonial souvenirs two weeks after the first striking."
Interesting - Linderman got 300 from the first pair of dies for distribution to Treasury and Congressional officers. Then ordered another 200 later - there was nothing special about any of the coins and they were not "ceremonial souvenirs" since there was no "ceremony" in Washington.
I’m working on an article now that will show Linderman’s request for the additional coins and the payment made to the si treasury for the special pieces.> @StrikeOutXXX said:
@Regulated is this the letter you found for the 5 1878-S Dollars sent to Linderman for "Ceremonial Souvenirs"?
It is not.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
RE: "So Roger, I take it your final answer of this coin being a "specimen" (If it was the 1st or one of the first struck referenced in the newspaper articles) is it's simply a very nice coin, off a fresh pair of dies, that had minimal post-strike mechanical manipulation?"
Almost. There was no post-striking manipulation.
The only special pieces were those placed in numbered envelopes. These were only "different" because the press flywheel was turned manually. Everything else was prepared normally. (To understand this a little - a toggle press produced the same force whether the flywheel was turned by steam, by hand or by a heard of chickens. That was one of its great advantages over a screw press where force was imparted by people. A coin would not look different unless some other variable was altered - such as die travel or placement. Documented Philadelphia dollars show no such adjustment.)
Yes Roger, that 2nd newspaper article certainly paints a picture of "Normal" production with a hand removed coin versus mechanical.
Still have to wonder if Dodge had the 1000 planchets for the ceremony specially prepared in any way, or the haste in preparing the dies could have produced anomalies.
I think the VAM guys still believe VAM 60 was the true ceremony production dies (like the engraved Eliasberg coin) stating it was from the initial production of 10 on that date. If that is the case, then anyone getting a coin that day (including Governor Low) would have had a VAM 60 - hence, Low couldn't have taken that coin to Hawaii as a pedigree of this coin, being a VAM 58.
I think Regulated is tracing another possible provenance of this coin to Hawaii via the 5 Linderman requested and not via Low. There are a few more clues out there of this theory, but trying not to spoil his article.
Linderman's letter states the 5 pieces were sent to him April 30th. That newspaper clipping many posts back stating SF Morgan Dollar production through April 30th was 190,000. If VAM 60 struck the 1st 1000, VAM 58 would have to be in the next 189,000 if this coin can be traced to Linderman's group of 5.
I read a post by @messydesk somewhere about the suspected order of SF VAM Productions. Curious if the order and estimates of production of each puts VAM 58 in the first 190,000.
I don't know where "190,000" came from but the coinage record for San Francisco, April 1878 shows this, by date and quantity of delivery. ("Delivery" may or may not be the date struck, but is rarely later than the next work day.)
Comments
You are correct @messydesk and good pick up @StrikeOutXXX. I read through the entire coincommunity.com thread and noticed that you asked Paralyse for a citation for the information that he posted. I came across that same information somewhere while researching the question of which of the Eaisenberg (VAM60) or the OP (VAM58) Specimen coins were actually one of the the first 10 Morgans minted at the ceremony. I couldn't find the source, but I know that in the the first part of the quote where Paralyse puts the -- (... the planchets were polished...) , he is skipping the transition where the author is actually describing the process that the Philadelphia mint uses to produce proofs. As both of the previously mentioned coins show evidence of planchet striations on the cheeks and were not minted as proofs (struck more than once), I'm sure that he caused some confusion. He exercised great latitude in paraphrasing the article and must have misread or misunderstood the facts, so the information as posted is incorrect. I'll post the citation if I find where I read it.
PCGS graded SP66 of that issue a couple years ago - I did a die study at the time. As it turned out, the dies were used to strike business strikes, then were heavily lapped and used to strike the striated coins that NGC has certified as SP, then the off-metal coins were struck, then the pair of coins called SP at PCGS.
Incredibly @Regulated you were probably one of the very first people to handle the recently authenticated SP65 coin the first time that it was submitted for grading. Hopefully you can help provide information to answer some of the questions that I have been researching for the past few days.
As a Morgan lover I was extremely excited by the announcement that the first known 1878-S Specimen Morgan Dollar had been certified, and that it had a pedigree that allowed it to be determined to be the second Morgan minted at a special ceremony at the San Francisco Mint. I wanted to learn everything that I could about it, but ran into some questions that I wanted to try and find answers to. As I've already written a long (too long) post explaining this, I'll get to the point. I came to find out that the certified Specimen coin had been previously submitted for grading and was holdered with a grade of MS65PL between the time it was purchased at auction in 2006 and the present. This raised a lot of questions for me that I thought that I would never find answers for. Luckily in doing some research, I found that the coin came across your desk at some point during the initial submission in January 2007.
I'm hoping that you will be able to provide any information that you can that will help explain its journey and how the initial submission would result in a straight MS grade and what would be involved in making a Specimen certification on its second submission 11 years later.
Much appreciated,
Paul
That's actually the way "specimen" is used - for when a piece was clearly specially struck or struck as a proof, but there is little to no record of it being struck this way or it was done so for presentation purposes. It might very well be a pattern, but as there is no record of it being struck as a pattern, it is called a specimen. There is no uniformity to the way specimens are struck, it's simply a blanket term.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
It didn't get that look from a Normal strike, thus the term Special. Please share how it has the detail of a proof then? Look at the breast feathers, exactly as detailed as a proof strike.
Off-topic to the thread's coin - but if I read this correct, your die study showed the same dies (previously used as business strikes) were then processed, made the SP/striated coins, then the off-metal coins, and then the PCGS SP coins right.
http://uspatterns.com/j1453ap1601.html
What do you make of this statement from the above link (referencing the 2 copper and 1 nickel pieces)
If you believe that statement, combined with your timeline of the die use - do you think the 4 silver examples were made in Philadelphia as well?
Wonder if Roger ever dug up documents about shipping old CC dies back to Philadelphia in 1876.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
I was the submitter of the coin in 2007/8 - I promised the collector that I wouldn't share everything that I know about the piece in a public forum right now, but have reached out to see whether he'd be willing to let me post more here. I feel like I've been sitting on my hands through most of this thread. I'll add more if and when I can.
I'm the author of the section of the description that deals with the die study that I undertook with John Dannreuther, and Gerry Fortin.
The evidence in this particular case is as cut and dry as these things get - a pair of dies were shipped to the Carson City Mint, they were used to strike coins for circulation, later, the same dies were used to strike a handful of off-metal coins. These dies were then lapped, struck a few coins which have survived in high grade, then were acid treated, polished, and struck additional coins under unusually high pressure, two of which have survived in unusually high grade.
The off-metal coins (which ought to be classified as patterns), and the die progression, indicate a far-from-ordinary state of affairs at Carson City, and the resulting coins struck after the off-metal pieces are certainly not regular issue, but I wouldn't call them patterns either. If the term "proof" should only be applied to Philadelphia Mint issues (an opinion that I agree with), I think SP is probably the most appropriate designation.
Based upon the existence of the later die-state silver pieces, my bet would be that the off-metal strikes and subsequent examples were made by the Carson City Mint, although evidence that the dies were returned to Philadelphia wouldn't be completely unimaginable. If they were, I guess you could make an argument for a PR designation, as opposed to an SP designation.
That being said, I'd bet that the Philadelphia Mint/Fantasy Pieces hypothesis is someone's guess, and suggests a pretty complicated explanation where a simple one would suffice.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
@MrEureka Andy, I think that’s your site... any insight on the 1876-CC dime statement I linked up above that regulated commented on?
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
I was looking forward to your comments when I read about this "extraordinary" find. My first question was whether the coin had die polish lines (like the 1875-S "branch mint proof" double dimes). Thanks,
Obscurum per obscurius
Thanks @Regulated. I'm surprised to hear that you remembered the coin as I'm sure that you have seen "billions", but actually not, as you submitted it as a "Wonder coin" as soon as you saw it. I was reticent to ask you about it as you stated that it is not within your pervue to share information about it, especially in a public forum, without the consent of the owner. (I had to ask) It has just been very difficult to find any information about the coin's history after it was purchased at the Doyle auction, and there is something about this coin that gets my juices flowing.
If you are able to get permission to release any information on it's story, even if I have to sign a NDA, (non disclosure agreement), I would really love to know more!
The information about the die study does help though in understanding the process of investigating the history of an extraordinary coin, and helps to satisfy some of my curiosity.
Much appreciated,
Paul
I'm not sure exactly what you want me to address.
FWIW, I'll recap my take on what the coins look like. We can debate what they should be called, but the coins are what they are.
The off metal strikes have the appearance of business strike coins. No mirror surfaces, no squared rims.
All but one of the special silver pieces are striated, and have pronounced wire edges and somewhat mirrored surfaces.
The silver piece now in the Simpson collection is the only one I've seen that actually looks like a Philadelphia proof dime of the era.
I have no idea where they were made, but I've often wondered if they made for display at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia. I've also wondered if the same display might have included some or all of the 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces in existence. However, this is pure speculation.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Thanks @MrEureka I was just trying to connect the dots between @Regulated die research, and order of production to the statement on your site that the 3 off-metal ones were struck in Philly, which if both are correct, puts the silver proofs production in Philly as well. @RogerB you ever run across records of 1876-cc dime dies being shipped back to Philly after use, which could have been used to do the off-metal strikes then reworked and used to strike the proofs?
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
I don't know who to address this question to but please feel welcomed to chime in. Do the very first (business strikes) coins struck with the very first newest dies, will they automatically have proof-like fields/surfaces? IMO, I believe they do not. Reason; the dies having not been in use long enough will not have developed the flow lines that manifest luster on a coin. I do believe artificial flow lines can be created through polishing the fields of the dies. Please straighten me out with the ins and outs of the process. I just don't think the very first coins struck come automatically with PL surfaces unless the dies have received some help. IMO, the very first strikes (without the help) the luster will be dull or subtle or very low as most of my EDS (early die state) 6 step coins are consistently of this nature.
And thanks Regulated on your answer to the spiked eye. The speculation I was trying to raise......I was thinking there would have to be some earlier strikes before the spike in eye would have been created. How it started from get-go should be a mystery.
Thanks Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The site says that the coins were "probably" struck in Philly. Saul wrote that. I don't know what his rationale was but I tend to agree, mostly because only Philly would have had copper and nickel planchets on hand. Then again, it would have been easy enough for CC to use a three cent nickel and a cut down small cent as planchets for the coins.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@leothelyon: "Do the very first (business strikes) coins struck with the very first newest dies, will they automatically have proof-like fields/surfaces? IMO, I believe they do not. Reason; the dies having not been in use long enough will not have developed the flow lines that manifest luster on a coin...
First of all, PL coins have luster (reflection from a surface). Obviously, it does not have the same appearance as the luster on a coin that is not PL. AFAIK, fresh dies are polished. The coins that are struck at first don't look like the coins that are struck as the die becomes used. Hope this helped.
Haven't seen anything. There are clearly a few proof coins made from mintmarked dies; however, only the Philadelphia Mint had equipment to make a mirror proof coin. Hence, that's were they came from -- not a "branch mint proof," but a "proof of branch mint dies."
RE: "First of all, PL coins have luster (reflection from a surface)."
This is a somewhat misleading statement. Luster is the scattering of light off an irregular surface produced by metal flow and stress. A "mirror" is a direct reflection. A "PL" coin has a low-quality polish with a mixture of visible metal flow and mirrored characteristics.
@RogerB said: "RE: "First of all, PL coins have luster (reflection from a surface)." This is a somewhat misleading statement. Luster is the scattering of light off an irregular surface produced by metal flow and stress. A "mirror" is a direct reflection. A "PL" coin has a low-quality polish with a mixture of visible metal flow and mirrored characteristics.
Talk about misleading...This is the kind of nonsense that confuses beginners. As you have posted, ** there is a huge difference between MINT LUSTER on a coin and any other form of reflected light from an object as a Proof Morgan dollar and including a bathroom mirror!**
I believe we both know the ropes.
I always break things down into simple concepts before getting specific. That's why students need to learn what the surface luster from any object is FIRST. I have found it becomes much easier to teach them the difference between the luster of a cleaned coin and one that has original mint luster.
A proof is struck at least twice on polished dies and planchets. A specimen is struck once under higher pressure, which brings out the detail more. Usually the dies are not prepared for proof striking, though they will be mirrored because they are fresh. Also, the planchets will be those used for business strikes. See the difference between a 1964 proof set and a 1965 SMS set.
1878-S dollar.
My turn to try to explain it!
The smoother the surface of a coin, or anything else, the more mirrored it will appear and the more narrowly it will reflect light directly into the eye if held a the right angle. A proof coin is more mirrored because the planchet and the dies were polished, i.e., smoothed, and smooth dies create smooth coin surfaces. It is also more mirrored because more die pressure transfers more of the die characteristics - including "smoothness" - to the coin.
As coins are struck from a pair of dies, the moving metal in the planchet erodes the dies, usually in a radial manner. (Metal generally moves towards the periphery of the coin as it is struck.) The pattern of die erosion is transferred to the coin, thereby reducing the mirrors and creating a pattern of reflected light which appears to us as luster.
Circulation further reduces the apparent luster of a coin by damaging any smooth surfaces and any (more or less radial) flow lines on the coin. In other words, as the coin circulates, the surfaces are roughened, causing light to be reflected from the coin in a more random, diffused manner.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy's comments are correct.
Maybe Insider2 can read them and understand how his earlier remark was misleading and confusing to beginners and experienced collectors.
@MrEureka
Well said. That's a textbook explanation of Mint Luster that deserves to be posted in "Best of."
The point I'm trying to make, something that frosts me to no end, is that numismatists tend to be closed minded. Just as they think of coins when the word "grading" is used, they think the word "luster" only applies to the mint made luster on a metal coin. IT DOES NOT!
For example, the plastic keyboard I'm using right now has almost blinding "luster" on the side closest to the light bulb.
Metal coins have luster, the polished ones, the PL ones, the acid-etched ones, the original MS ones, etc. You, Roger, and 95% of the posters here know what each of us are saying. I'm complicating this by moving the discussion of "luster" to all things BEFORE bringing it back to numismatics.
New collectors must first recognize what luster is. My greasy forehead (while I'm lecturing) has luster for the whole class to see. Once they learn the concept of luster, it becomes easier to teach them what original mint luster (in all its forms like satin, frosty, matte, etc) looks like compared to any other type of reflected light from a coin's surface.
Edit: I stand by everything I've posted. All PL coins have LUSTER!
Not sure if this was posted, but here is a link to the SP65 coin as it is now graded
35748411
Great explanations read above. I've read somewhere "diamond dust" is used to polish the dies and planchets when they make proofs. A coarser element or sandpaper is used to make the circulating (business strikes). It's very likely the level of polishing methods have been used interchangeably with the two types of strikes, proofs and circulating coins or a few proof planchets have found their way in the business strike process. I say this because I have a small number of business strikes with both type of surfaces, proofs and proof-like fields.
And, of course, there's somewhat of a difference in shine/mirrors between 90% silver and 75/25 copper and nickel. And interestingly enough, while I have some very high lustrous silver nickels, I have yet to find one that is proof-like.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
It is intriguing that some of the discussed Specimen/Proof/Prooflike coins may have been struck at the Carson City mint. FWIW here are some specifics on the pressure attainable by Coin Press #1 which may well have been the one used.
Note, the reporting states that although not designed to handle such pressures, the coin press in its early years was used to exert up to 200 Tons of Pressure.
https://nevadaappeal.com/news/local/historic-coin-press-returning-to-operation-at-nevada-state-museum/
The mint of that era did not have access to "diamond dust." To quote from the book "From Mint to Mint" --
"Besides common emery, the mint also used iron oxide for final polishing of master, special and proof dies. Various forms and purities were known as “crocus,” “rouge,” “red stuff,” colcothat of vitriol to metal workers; as pigments they were called “red-brown,” “purple-brown” and by other names. The mint used crocus, which was the bluish-purple iron oxide, for polishing hardened steel dies, and rouge for polishing soft dies. Crocus was harder than rouge and cut better when used on tempered steel."
(Pictured as the first and last photo above was the last "Specimen" to be minted on Coin Press #1 before it broke down earlier this year. As seen in the initial photo there were problems with the collar which resulted in the evident error. The last photo which I took of my "Specimen" evidences an unusually strong strike for the issue with details of the mint building especially evident.)
OK, for completeness here is the other side of the "Specimen" and a photo of the Coin Press #1 as it can be seen today.
For reference, here is a summary of the above alluded to Carson City mint references to Specimen/Proof/Proof Like coins being minted in Carson City:
.....
I found a different newspaper account
Mineral Point Tribune., May 08, 1878 - Mineral Point, Wisconsin
It's interesting to read the events through a different journalist's eyes.
A few interesting things I read.
Polishing of the dies?
The box of 1000 blanks - this article makes it sound like they only planned on coining 1000, whereas the older article made it sound like the die cracked and they only managed to get 1000 coined.
The description of the machine working and the coins per minute was neat too.
There are 2 other articles I found but on the "Paid" sites:
Sturgeon Bay Expositor Independent Newspaper Archives
Friday, May 10, 1878 - Page 6
and
Indianapolis Journal Newspaper Archives
Saturday, April 27, 1878 - Page 2
You can kind of "Cheat" and look at the page source and see some of the text, which is horrible, but the Indianapolis article contains a sentence in its version of the article of:
"It is worthy of remark that the polishing and tempering of the dies, which usually occupies two days, was, in this instance, accomplished in the workshops of the mint within eight hours."
Might explain the "Specimen" feel to it and its unique fabric?
Other articles refer to SF running 3 of their 4 presses afterwards with Morgans (many papers of the time referred to these as “Daddy Dollars”) Not sure how 3 presses running at same time determines VAM production order, if simultaneous.
From the Daily Los Angeles Herald Friday April 19, 1878
Same article as above, just a bit easier to read from the Watertown republican., May 08, 1878, Watertown, Wisconsin
A newspaper report showing SF Mintage for April 1878. Despite running 3 presses, I think SF had so many die problems, they only got 190,000 made in the few weeks of April production.
Daily Alta California, Volume 30, Number 10247, 1 May 1878
Looks like they got it rolling a bit better for May 1878
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
Present the objective evidence as presently known. Then investigate based on the facts not conjecture, assumption, wishes, the easter Bunny, or rotting bologna.
Otherwise, it is just hokum cooked up to invent a rarity.
Thanks to some help getting this version of the news story, there are a few more details in it perhaps interesting to some.
From The San Francisco Examiner - April 18, 1878, Page 3
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
The very "positive" tone of the article might also relate to praise given Dodge when he was appointed Superintendent.
(During the previous 2 years, Mint Director Linderman had become displeased with SF Mint management and hinted at management changes in several letters to James Pollock at the Philadelphia Mint.)
That is one nice strike on the reverse the feathers look so crisp
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/publishedset/209923
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/album/209923
I actually held this coin. It is different-much different then a normal strike
The old Wayne Miller coin is easily a specimen too (its hidden away in a secret monster dollar partial dollar collection).
The first coins off a new die pair will differ from those of later production, as will the final piece from the dame dies. What you see is not "special" but is part of normal die use and wear. That someone might have put it aside is very nice, and early strike coins are usually better looking than later ones (even with limited luster) -- but they are not made from any kind of specially prepared die or struck with different equipment.
Notice in the newspaper article where it is mentioned that the Superintendent placed a planchet on the lower die, then hand turned the toggle press. Since a toggle press delivers nearly identical force with each cycle, this and all the next 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 coins got identical treatments. Except --- hand placement and removal of the first coin. No feeding tube, automatic set and sweep, and dropping into a hopper.
So Roger, I take it your final answer of this coin being a "specimen" (If it was the 1st or one of the first struck referenced in the newspaper articles) is it's simply a very nice coin, off a fresh pair of dies, that had minimal post-strike mechanical manipulation?
Still the question of the 2 coins (VAM 58 vs 60) reportedly from the first production run, one of which is not can maybe be solved by Messydesk and the other VAMpires - not my cup of tea.
So let's consider a few more things.
1 - Given the strike description mentioned in the last article, it wasn't struck any differently than standard production - perhaps handled a bit more gingerly with less movement afterwards to keep it a bit more pristine.
Very likely - in this situation though, there would be thousands of "Specimens" out there that were the 1st off of fresh dies over this and other years, although many likely went through the full mechanical hopper/sorting/bagging process banging them up a bit, or distributed and circulated, you would think there would be a few others out there, but... maybe not.
I can see where anyone at this event who were one of the ones to receive one: "Most of the guests carried away as souvenirs some of the new coins" would have cared for them better over the years vs someone getting a nice looking coin from a bank teller.
2 - The Dies - given that last article's description where they reportedly crammed a normal 2-day process of tempering and polishing the dies into only 8 hours - is there a high probability that these dies were simply prepared "Differently" which could lead to slightly different looking coins struck?
Also - considering the "Full" production reportedly began the next day - and likely on 3 presses - even those dies may not have had the full 2 days to be prepared properly. Could be why they had some initial problems with dies breaking - who knows.
3 - The Planchets. OK- the Superintendent invites a ton of people for this ceremony, which after reading the newspaper accounts of Philadelphia's production likens these coins to Buzzards, Square-Chinned Liberty effigy, being only worth 90 cents, and many other not so pleasant descriptions and many high ranking US Officials not fully behind these dollars - perhaps he wanted to put on the best presentation possible? What do you think the chances were of this "Box of 1000" planchets brought out for the ceremony having gone through some special, or even simply extra cleaning/annealing/whitening or "Something" which may have set this group of planchets apart from the masses?
Just thinking out loud.
I don't think anyone doubts this coin is "Special" in some way - figuring out if it's special simply through the course of natural production, or any sort of outside influence directly or indirectly seems to be the mystery.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
I am inclined to agree with Roger that this is just a well-preserved example of an early die state coin. I have not seen the piece, but Just from the pictures I doubt if I would have certified it as a "Specimen" back in 1978-1984 when I was at ANACS.
MOO
@Regulated and another VAM guy (Pete Burchfield) prepared a presentation for VAM Think XVI at the FUN show this year explaining how VAM 60 was the first die pair and the VAM 58 specimens were struck to satisfy Linderman's request for some ceremonial souvenirs two weeks after the first striking.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
RE: "a presentation for VAM Think XVI at the FUN show this year explaining how VAM 60 was the first die pair and the VAM 58 specimens were struck to satisfy Linderman's request for some ceremonial souvenirs two weeks after the first striking."
Interesting - Linderman got 300 from the first pair of dies for distribution to Treasury and Congressional officers. Then ordered another 200 later - there was nothing special about any of the coins and they were not "ceremonial souvenirs" since there was no "ceremony" in Washington.
@Regulated is this the letter you found for the 5 1878-S Dollars sent to Linderman for "Ceremonial Souvenirs" on April 30th?
And here's where he paid for them
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
I’m working on an article now that will show Linderman’s request for the additional coins and the payment made to the si treasury for the special pieces.> @StrikeOutXXX said:
It is not.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Well write it already so I can quit digging LOL. I edited in where he reimbursed SF for the 5 dollars in the last post too.
Seems he also asked for 5 from Carson at the same time shipped the 29th of April
And paid for the Carson 5 via SF
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
I've got three things I'm writing now that have my full attention for the time being.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
RE: "So Roger, I take it your final answer of this coin being a "specimen" (If it was the 1st or one of the first struck referenced in the newspaper articles) is it's simply a very nice coin, off a fresh pair of dies, that had minimal post-strike mechanical manipulation?"
Almost. There was no post-striking manipulation.
The only special pieces were those placed in numbered envelopes. These were only "different" because the press flywheel was turned manually. Everything else was prepared normally. (To understand this a little - a toggle press produced the same force whether the flywheel was turned by steam, by hand or by a heard of chickens. That was one of its great advantages over a screw press where force was imparted by people. A coin would not look different unless some other variable was altered - such as die travel or placement. Documented Philadelphia dollars show no such adjustment.)
Yes Roger, that 2nd newspaper article certainly paints a picture of "Normal" production with a hand removed coin versus mechanical.
Still have to wonder if Dodge had the 1000 planchets for the ceremony specially prepared in any way, or the haste in preparing the dies could have produced anomalies.
I think the VAM guys still believe VAM 60 was the true ceremony production dies (like the engraved Eliasberg coin) stating it was from the initial production of 10 on that date. If that is the case, then anyone getting a coin that day (including Governor Low) would have had a VAM 60 - hence, Low couldn't have taken that coin to Hawaii as a pedigree of this coin, being a VAM 58.
I think Regulated is tracing another possible provenance of this coin to Hawaii via the 5 Linderman requested and not via Low. There are a few more clues out there of this theory, but trying not to spoil his article.
Linderman's letter states the 5 pieces were sent to him April 30th. That newspaper clipping many posts back stating SF Morgan Dollar production through April 30th was 190,000. If VAM 60 struck the 1st 1000, VAM 58 would have to be in the next 189,000 if this coin can be traced to Linderman's group of 5.
I read a post by @messydesk somewhere about the suspected order of SF VAM Productions. Curious if the order and estimates of production of each puts VAM 58 in the first 190,000.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
I don't know where "190,000" came from but the coinage record for San Francisco, April 1878 shows this, by date and quantity of delivery. ("Delivery" may or may not be the date struck, but is rarely later than the next work day.)