@Byers said:
Thanks Mark. Obviously this specific coin will have different opinions regarding the SP designation and value range.
Mike, what EXACTLY are you seeing in-hand that some of us maybe aren't seeing from even high-res pics that identifies it as NOT a regular business strike but also not a proof that just might be "off" a bit in appearance ?
@Byers said:
These 2 ST G 20’s that I handled, were struck with different finishes. A matte 1907 which is unique for large letters, and a Satin 1908.
HA sold the ST G $20 1910 PCGS SP 66+ CAC for $840k.
Many experiments were conducted by the U.S. Mint on the $20 ST G’s from 1907 thru 1910 as everyone knows.
I can’t rationalize why this continued in 1911, but it seems to me that the $20 ST G 1911 SP sold by GC is good value.
Mike, considering that the “SP” 1911 being discussed brought what looks to be the equivalent of a full“Proof” price, why do you consider it to be a good value?
Mark- having dealt with proof gold and SP/ EXP strikes throughout my career, in my opinion the value of the SP 1911 far exceeds that of a proof with a mintage of 100.
Also considering the fact that the 1910 SP brought $840k in auction ( yes a 66+ PCGS CAC) there is plenty of upside potential on the 1911 IMHO, $50-100k.
Thanks, Mike. I could agree with your thinking if the SP were a date for which no Proofs were produced. Or maybe even if it were the same date for which there were Proofs, but in some way(s) noticeably different looking from both the Proofs (as appears to be the case with the 1910 you mentioned) and the circulation strikes of that date. Based on the pictures, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case,
To be fair, perhaps I’d feel differently if I saw the coin in person.
Mark- fair enough. I have seen the 1911 before and in my opinion it is definitely not a regular mint state strike, and has a different surface.
Thanks again, Mike and I certainly respect your knowledge of rare, unusual and esoteric coins.
Thanks Mark. Obviously this specific coin will have different opinions regarding the SP designation and value range.
And this is why when a grading service assigns that designation, they should give the potential future customers full access to what compelled them to assign this somewhat nebulous designation. This should be available at the time you do a cert verification lookup. If the assignment of the designation can't stand up to such transparency, it shouldn't be assigned in the first place.
@Byers said:
These 2 ST G 20’s that I handled, were struck with different finishes. A matte 1907 which is unique for large letters, and a Satin 1908.
HA sold the ST G $20 1910 PCGS SP 66+ CAC for $840k.
Many experiments were conducted by the U.S. Mint on the $20 ST G’s from 1907 thru 1910 as everyone knows.
I can’t rationalize why this continued in 1911, but it seems to me that the $20 ST G 1911 SP sold by GC is good value.
Mike, considering that the “SP” 1911 being discussed brought what looks to be the equivalent of a full“Proof” price, why do you consider it to be a good value?
Mark- having dealt with proof gold and SP/ EXP strikes throughout my career, in my opinion the value of the SP 1911 far exceeds that of a proof with a mintage of 100.
Also considering the fact that the 1910 SP brought $840k in auction ( yes a 66+ PCGS CAC) there is plenty of upside potential on the 1911 IMHO, $50-100k.
Thanks, Mike. I could agree with your thinking if the SP were a date for which no Proofs were produced. Or maybe even if it were the same date for which there were Proofs, but in some way(s) noticeably different looking from both the Proofs (as appears to be the case with the 1910 you mentioned) and the circulation strikes of that date. Based on the pictures, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case,
To be fair, perhaps I’d feel differently if I saw the coin in person.
Mark- fair enough. I have seen the 1911 before and in my opinion it is definitely not a regular mint state strike, and has a different surface.
Thanks again, Mike and I certainly respect your knowledge of rare, unusual and esoteric coins.
Thanks Mark. Obviously this specific coin will have different opinions regarding the SP designation and value range.
And this is why when a grading service assigns that designation, they should give the potential future customers full access to what compelled them to assign this somewhat nebulous designation. This should be available at the time you do a cert verification lookup. If the assignment of the designation can't stand up to such transparency, it shouldn't be assigned in the first place.
I agree!
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@Byers said:
Thanks Mark. Obviously this specific coin will have different opinions regarding the SP designation and value range.
Mike, what EXACTLY are you seeing in-hand that some of us maybe aren't seeing from even high-res pics that identifies it as NOT a regular business strike but also not a proof that just might be "off" a bit in appearance ?
In-hand and without a glass, but under lighting, it has a different look, a different fabric (referring to the surface). It’s not Matte, it’s not Roman, It’s not the surface of a regular issued Saint struck from mint state dies. In my opinion it is some sort of Satin finish hybrid ( SP Satin Experimental).
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@TrickleCharge said:
Great detective work! I think it's also impressive that, thanks to top notch photographs by Phil and GC, this determination can be made without needing to examine the coin in hand.
People significantly overestimate what kind of images are needed to make determinations like this. It's usually not the images that are the limiting factor IMO - it's the knowledge of the person making the determination. The GC slab shots would have been sufficient, but the GreatPhotos are the nail in the coffin.
I won't weigh in on the merits of SP vs PR coins, as that seems to have been well debated here. But I'd like to give kudos to @FlyingAl for the work here. The quote here is modest, in my opinion. Aside from the knowledge to know where to look, he had to have the spidey sense/intuition/observational skills to know that it merited looking at in the first place. That was something special.
And I agree that @ianrussell and GC have done the right thing, as they always seem to do, at least in my experience. I have never spotted a six-figure error, but I've brought some items to their attention in the past and they handle it.
@TrickleCharge said:
Great detective work! I think it's also impressive that, thanks to top notch photographs by Phil and GC, this determination can be made without needing to examine the coin in hand.
People significantly overestimate what kind of images are needed to make determinations like this. It's usually not the images that are the limiting factor IMO - it's the knowledge of the person making the determination. The GC slab shots would have been sufficient, but the GreatPhotos are the nail in the coffin.
I won't weigh in on the merits of SP vs PR coins, as that seems to have been well debated here. But I'd like to give kudos to @FlyingAl for the work here. The quote here is modest, in my opinion. Aside from the knowledge to know where to look, he had to have the spidey sense/intuition/observational skills to know that it merited looking at in the first place. That was something special.
And I agree that @ianrussell and GC have done the right thing, as they always seem to do, at least in my experience. I have never spotted a six-figure error, but I've brought some items to their attention in the past and they handle it.
Amen! Big kudos to FlyingAl.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
This appears to be strike doubled and not a die marker. I don't see the same spread on the other two coins on Coinfacts. I think I read that RWB does not believe proofs were struck twice either.
@FlyingAl said:
The reason for this post is twofold - one, to thank @ianrussell and GC for doing the right thing, and 2) to show how sometimes the TPGS get major calls wrong. It seems NGC partially acquiesced on this one, which is a small win for the coin world.
A while back, I noticed this 1911 $20 in a NGC PR65 Satin holder. Wonky, because no Satin Proofs were struck in 1911.
.
.
At first glance, it does appear to be slightly better struck than average, but there's weakness in areas there shouldn't be weakness for a Proof. The rims show rounding, and the high areas of the design show slight stacking friction. That begs the question - is it really a Proof? Time to break out die markers.
The coin shows one major marker, a die gouge between the feathers of the reverse eagle:
.
.
This same marker was found on MS examples, and MS examples only:
PCGS MS67+
.
.
PCGS MS66+
.
.
PCGS MS66
.
.
The single Proof die pair shows strong obverse doubling, and a lack of any die gouge. Any use of a different die pair to strike even a single Proof would have been noted, which means EVERY Proof must have come from this die pair.
PCGS PR67+
Die markers:
Strong obverse doubling:
Lack of reverse die gouge (different PCGS PR66+ chosen for image clarity):
.
.
I wrote a brief summary of this earlier when I reported the coin to Ian: "Die records published in Roger Budette's book on Saint Gaudens Double Eagles show that one die pair struck 200 Proof coins (150 on Jan 16th, 50 on May 20). Good sandblasted coins were delivered on March 28th, May 20th, and December 9th, with 34, 28, and 38 coins being delivered on those dates respectively. No other usage of the dies is recorded, and no other Proofs were documented as made via any other die pair. Of these coins, all of them would have either been sandblasted to be accepted as good coins, or melted when they did not meet the standard for good coinage. John Dannreuther's book on gold Proofs reports the same figures. If a Satin Proof were to somehow exist, it would have had to escape the sandblasting process, but would still come from this single die pair, as it would have had to be struck on the Mint's hydraulic presses. Both sources report no noticeable die markers on either the obverse or reverse of the Proof die pair.
Therefore, according to Mint documents, it is impossible for a Satin Proof to exist unless some gold went unaccounted for. This leaves three possibilities - either the documents are incomplete, the coin is an altered Matte Proof, or it is a Mint State coin. If a search for die markers shows a die marker, it can possibly be matched to other coins. In this case, a die marker was found. A small die gouge appears running through feather number four on the third set of eagle feathers on the reverse. I have included images below. This marker does not appear on any known Proof, but does appear on several known MS coins. It does not appear on every MS coin, which confirms it is not from a single hub. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that this coin is a Mint State example."
Based on this evidence, GC pulled the coin from auction and sent to NGC on guarantee review. NGC agreed the coin could not be a Proof, and cracked it out. They reholdered it as a SP coin, which while I do not agree with I cannot effectively disprove. There are several issues with this designation, mostly due to the ambiguity of which coins from this die pair get the designation and the lack of any reason for the Mint to strike a SP coin. The coin sold yesterday in the SP holder for $115,000, significantly over the price of a MS65.
A genuine one off 1911 $20 in Satin Proof, a major mint oversight, could be a very high value coin. A 1911 $20 in MS65 is a $30k coin, with a SP coin being worth more. Thankfully, the owner of this coin was covered by the NGC guarantee, who made him whole as I understand it (I must still give credit and thanks to NGC for correcting this original oversight, and doing the right thing by honoring the guarantee). Blind trust can be dangerous - be careful out there!
Interesting sideways shift doubling on just the very tops of the stars. The die wiggled as it was withdrawing and the tops of the stars got touched by the corners in the die.
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 was refraining from being a turd in the punch bowl, but honestly, based on the provided photos....the coin looks like an exceptionally struck business strike with treated surfaces to me. It looks like it wasn't handled any differently post strike than the CF examples, with some slight stacking friction on the knee, and the rims don't look any sharper than the CF examples.
The only thing that stands out to me, without looking at it in hand, is the definition of the devices. The details of the capitol building, the definition of her arm and the olive branch, and the rays all look to have higher relief than the CF examples. Could something like this be the result of improperly set striking pressure or something? I could concede that it looks like it might have been made like a presentation piece or special strike, but it just doesn't look like it was handled like one thereafter.
@mattniss said:
Incredible work @FlyingAl! Bravo -- your numismatic logic and curiosity continues to drive some astounding changes at the highest levels of grading.
Yes, this is far from the first astounding change made based on research and knowledge of @FlyingAl.
As such:
On this date, the 29th of May, in the year 2025, I hereby proclaim and bestow the title “Chief Numismatic Sleuth” upon our own @FlyingAl.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@CaptHenway said:
While we are on the subject, I happen to be working on an article concerning the 1875-S and CC Dimes and the 1876-S and CC Dimes for The Numismatist, and naturally I intend to mention this very interesting 1876-CC Strike:
Now, I once bid on a Copper strike of one of these, having examined the piece in hand (this was in the days before slabs, when you could still see the all-important rims and edges when it mattered), and I was satisfied that it was a Proof struck on the medal press in Philadelphia. The reason why it was struck will be discussed in the article.
Is it a Proof or is it a Specimen? I accept that on this particular coin it should make no difference in the price, but I like to be accurate.
TD
It could be a Proof and a Specimen at the same time, depending on what definitions are being used. Regarding the quality of physical manufacture, it could be called a Proof. Regarding the lack of documentation and unknown intent, it could be called a Specimen.
Generally the off-metal “Pattern” (not really) strikes of US coins from the mid to late 1800s are classified as Proofs. But they could very easily have been called Specimens instead if the TPGs had decided to do so.
.
Agree and is what I noticed about Morgan branch mint proofs (SP or PR designation). As The Cars said It's All Mixed Up.
Also below is a slab lab video with JD and Feltner on the $3 1870 S and includes a short discussion on Specimen. JD mentions that Specimen could be a special strike. It starts at about the 23 minute mark so can jump forward if wanting to view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfzo-jBViR4
.
On the Morgans here are a couple of prior post and HA links. Sometimes the branch mint Morgans are SP and other times PR. The branch mint Morgans used regular production dies (and some with die cracks as noted) but were 'specially' polished for the branch mint strikings. The 1879 O is the only one previously reported to have its own set of dies. The 1879 O, 1883 O, 1893 CC and 1921 S were cat. 1 meaning they had documentation (Miller).
This thread has a new 1892 CC SP (specimen) and below in the thread a new 1881 O PR (proof) (according to Miller an 1881 O had been viewed years ago and questioned).
This thread has more on it and the link to comment about advancing die cracking on the 1893 CC proof/specimen. Below is a couple of HA links showing one 1893 CC as a PR and another as a SP (both as BM).
@lilolme said:
On the Morgans here are a couple of prior post and HA links. Sometimes the branch mint Morgans are SP and other times PR. The branch mint Morgans used regular production dies (and some with die cracks as noted) but were 'specially' polished for the branch mint strikings. The 1879 O is the only one previously reported to have its own set of dies. The 1879 O, 1883 O, 1893 CC and 1921 S were cat. 1 meaning they had documentation (Miller).
About a year or two ago, Roger Burdette said he had all of the mint correspondence and production records involving New Orleans for early 1879, when the 79-O proofs were supposedly made. I had him look for any record of the production of the 12 special coins. Nothing. I then tried to follow the trail of assertions that they were authorized and there was record of the authorization back through auction records, only to find nothing but earlier assertions. The quality of the coins suggest they were made in Philadelphia with a New Orleans reverse, not a newly opened and staffed New Orleans mint. About the same time they were supposed to have been made, there was a meeting of the assay commission in Philadelphia. Roger suggested that they may have been souvenirs. Neither I nor someone who has spent a lot of time and effort studying 1879 Morgan dollars was able to match up the obverse with a known 79-P proof or business strike.
Messydesk: "Interesting sideways shift doubling on just the very tops of the stars. The die wiggled as it was withdrawing and the tops of the stars got touched by the corners in the die."
I believe the "T shift"" resulted in the same way.
@lilolme said:
On the Morgans here are a couple of prior post and HA links. Sometimes the branch mint Morgans are SP and other times PR. The branch mint Morgans used regular production dies (and some with die cracks as noted) but were 'specially' polished for the branch mint strikings. The 1879 O is the only one previously reported to have its own set of dies. The 1879 O, 1883 O, 1893 CC and 1921 S were cat. 1 meaning they had documentation (Miller).
About a year or two ago, Roger Burdette said he had all of the mint correspondence and production records involving New Orleans for early 1879, when the 79-O proofs were supposedly made. I had him look for any record of the production of the 12 special coins. Nothing. I then tried to follow the trail of assertions that they were authorized and there was record of the authorization back through auction records, only to find nothing but earlier assertions. The quality of the coins suggest they were made in Philadelphia with a New Orleans reverse, not a newly opened and staffed New Orleans mint. About the same time they were supposed to have been made, there was a meeting of the assay commission in Philadelphia. Roger suggested that they may have been souvenirs. Neither I nor someone who has spent a lot of time and effort studying 1879 Morgan dollars was able to match up the obverse with a known 79-P proof or business strike.
Messydesk: "Interesting sideways shift doubling on just the very tops of the stars. The die wiggled as it was withdrawing and the tops of the stars got touched by the corners in the die."
I believe the "T shift"" resulted in the same way.
That comment was mine.
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 wrote a brief summary of this earlier when I reported the coin to Ian: "Die records published in Roger Budette's book on Saint Gaudens Double Eagles show that one die pair struck 200 Proof coins (150 on Jan 16th, 50 on May 20). Good sandblasted coins were delivered on March 28th, May 20th, and December 9th, with 34, 28, and 38 coins being delivered on those dates respectively. No other usage of the dies is recorded, and no other Proofs were documented as made via any other die pair. Of these coins, all of them would have either been sandblasted to be accepted as good coins, or melted when they did not meet the standard for good coinage. John Dannreuther's book on gold Proofs reports the same figures. If a Satin Proof were to somehow exist, it would have had to escape the sandblasting process, but would still come from this single die pair, as it would have had to be struck on the Mint's hydraulic presses. Both sources report no noticeable die markers on either the obverse or reverse of the Proof die pair.
**Therefore, according to Mint documents, it is impossible for a Satin Proof to exist unless some gold went unaccounted for. This leaves three possibilities - either the documents are incomplete, the coin is an altered Matte Proof, or it is a Mint State coin. If a search for die markers shows a die marker, it can possibly be matched to other coins. In this case, a die marker was found....
I have no opinion on this coin--but perhaps a 4th possibility is that the Mint's recording keeping for proof gold in 1911 was not comprehensive, and the book you reference may be inference, rather than fact, driven? (e.g. using an absence of a record--in an organization known to not produce records, or for which many were destroyed--- as a primary basis for an assertion)
Did not find a response, but did not go deep.
Write up was great btw--and appreciated.
There Were 10 DE dies made in fiscal year 7/1/1910 to 6/30/1911 (observe and reverse combined). If all proofs were struck on or before May, 20, 1911 as alleged, die markers should match a business strike variety from one of these 10 dies? Identifying the business strike variety would be an alternate way to validate your own hypothesis--and be much more persuasive.
@TrickleCharge said:
Great detective work! I think it's also impressive that, thanks to top notch photographs by Phil and GC, this determination can be made without needing to examine the coin in hand.
People significantly overestimate what kind of images are needed to make determinations like this. It's usually not the images that are the limiting factor IMO - it's the knowledge of the person making the determination. The GC slab shots would have been sufficient, but the GreatPhotos are the nail in the coffin.
I was not implying that knowledge is secondary to good pictures. Absent the coin in hand, it would not be possible to make determinations like this without photos clearly showing the die markers. Being able to come to the conclusions that you did without ever touching the coin is a great advancement in the hobby. Anyone in the world with access to quality photos has the ability to research and expand knowledge without having to risk mustard stains.
.... Based on this evidence, GC pulled the coin from auction and sent to NGC on guarantee review. NGC agreed the coin could not be a Proof, and cracked it out. They reholdered it as a SP coin, which while I do not agree with I cannot effectively disprove. There are several issues with this designation, mostly due to the ambiguity of which coins from this die pair get the designation and the lack of any reason for the Mint to strike a SP coin. The coin sold yesterday in the SP holder for $115,000, significantly over the price of a MS65. ..
Pleasing your new boss might be a good reason to make a few SPs:
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 believe since that thread was active that RWB has examined in-hand 1 of the 2 (maybe both) 1921 Double Eagle "SP" coins both for his book on SG DEs and for his own research. One has a provenance with the San Francisco Ghirardelli chocolate family.
I can go back to my book and some other publicly-available information if folks want more on the 1921's.
I believe since that thread was active that RWB has examined in-hand 1 of the 2 (maybe both) 1921 Double Eagle "SP" coins both for his book on SG DEs and for his own research. One has a provenance with the San Francisco Ghirardelli chocolate family.
I can go back to my book and some other publicly-available information if folks want more on the 1921's.
Ghirardelli, eh? I knew that the Mint Director in 1921 had connections in the San Francisco Bay area. FWIW his ashes are interred in Oakland, CA.
This story mentions his visit to San Francisco in December of 1921.
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.
@JCH22 said:
Seems "special requests" were not so unusual in 1911:
I wonder who they were for, and if they still exist with the documentation?
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 wonder who they were for, and if they still exist with the documentation?
Do know the Mint complied . No additional info available to share at the moment, Treasury is deep rabbit hole....
Fascinating. Must have been for someone who a lot of clout!
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.
@4Redisin said:
Anyone know what would get a numismatist like RBW banned from this place?
I remember Roger getting into some very heated political arguments with some of the other forum members. After several warnings, they finally had to ban him. It's sad that he couldn't follow the rules because he was an otherwise valued member here.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Excerpt from Denver Mint die record book showing that they had the 1912-dated dies in plenty of time to begin production on January 2, 1912. unfortunately this ledger only shows the date that a die was received and the date it was retired, but not the date it was installed in a press.
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.
@CaptHenway Thread took a bit of a fun detour--from questioning if a DE was a proof/sp to there being a true "First Strike" Lincoln made in 1912. Give and take here is great.
Anyone know what would get a numismatist like RBW banned from this place?
standard truth/power conflict.
Ask @dcarr about that. I have a lot of respect for RWB as a numismatist/researcher but he has gotten VERY nasty at times. His behavior warranted banning (although I greatly miss his knowledge and input on coin matters).
@CaptHenway Thread took a bit of a fun detour--from questioning if a DE was a proof/sp to there being a true "First Strike" Lincoln made in 1912. Give and take here is great.
Well, the 1912 cent story and my 1921 Double Eagle story prove that the Mint in this era was amenable to providing certain perfectly legal special coins to special people.
As to the OP’s coin, I really don’t see anything special about it from the pictures, but I have not seen the coin in hand and I may well be missing something.
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.
Anyone know what would get a numismatist like RBW banned from this place?
standard truth/power conflict.
Ask @dcarr about that. I have a lot of respect for RWB as a numismatist/researcher but he has gotten VERY nasty at times. His behavior warranted banning (although I greatly miss his knowledge and input on coin matters).
yah he got way more leeway than most and he still stepped over the line. He still posts on other forums last I checked
Anyone know what would get a numismatist like RBW banned from this place?
standard truth/power conflict.
Ask @dcarr about that. I have a lot of respect for RWB as a numismatist/researcher but he has gotten VERY nasty at times. His behavior warranted banning (although I greatly miss his knowledge and input on coin matters).
.
We still have our public "disagreements" on the other forum.
Anyone know what would get a numismatist like RBW banned from this place?
standard truth/power conflict.
Ask @dcarr about that. I have a lot of respect for RWB as a numismatist/researcher but he has gotten VERY nasty at times. His behavior warranted banning (although I greatly miss his knowledge and input on coin matters).
.
We still have our public "disagreements" on the other forum.
.
Yah thats his problem, I too question the legality of the high quality alterations you make to coins but can also acknowledge your bona fides as an engineer, numismatist and gentlemen. Some people conflate opinions with facts and make it personal with people who disagree.
Well, the 1912 cent story and my 1921 Double Eagle story prove that the Mint in this era was amenable to providing >certain perfectly legal special coins to special people.
Yup...but does that mean we can PROVE that something "different" was done to/with the coin and/or the striking process ?
It's OK to discuss possibilities and probabilities in a Forum like this....but should it be officially designated the coin's provenance ? Should it be on the label/holder ?
Some individuals are sticklers for having PROOF and not just SPECULATION regarding such matters....something I've picked up in recent years.
Well, the 1912 cent story and my 1921 Double Eagle story prove that the Mint in this era was amenable to providing >certain perfectly legal special coins to special people.
Yup...but does that mean we can PROVE that something "different" was done to/with the coin and/or the striking process ?
It's OK to discuss possibilities and probabilities in a Forum like this....but should it be officially designated the coin's provenance ? Should it be on the label/holder ?
Some individuals are sticklers for having PROOF and not just SPECULATION regarding such matters....something I've picked up in recent years.
Didn't say it was, didn't say it wasn't. All I said is that I am trying to remain open to possibilities.
As I said:
Well, the 1912 cent story and my 1921 Double Eagle story prove that the Mint in this era was amenable to providing certain perfectly legal special coins to special people.
As to the OP’s coin, I really don’t see anything special about it from the pictures, but I have not seen the coin in hand and I may well be missing something.
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.
Yup...but does that mean we can PROVE that something "different" was done to/with the coin and/or the striking process ?
It's OK to discuss possibilities and probabilities in a Forum like this....but should it be officially designated the coin's provenance ? Should it be on the label/holder ?
Some individuals are sticklers for having PROOF and not just SPECULATION regarding such matters....something I've picked up in recent years.
Fully agree with what you mention about discussions here about possibilities and probabilities. Exchange of ideas, opinions, documents etc., to me, is what this place is about,
From a separate perspective-----If you were owner who submitted the coin for auction, what level of evidence would you expect to see from a person challenging the designation --made directly to the auction house--which results in your coin being pulled?
Mint did not keep comprehensive records, and many records which were made were destroyed. I found no records with specific delivery dates of proofs. In fact, I found a bit of chaos in the accounting by denomination. There were 30’s proof dies made that year, but records I saw did not break them down by denomination.
OP also stated he found no record, or reason why SPs would be made in 1911. Seems there MIGHT have been—e.g. a special request from the Acting Director of Philly for a set of business strikes.
Has OP proven the coin was neither a proof or a SP? Should he have done more before writing to the auction house?
Yup...but does that mean we can PROVE that something "different" was done to/with the coin and/or the striking process ?
It's OK to discuss possibilities and probabilities in a Forum like this....but should it be officially designated the coin's provenance ? Should it be on the label/holder ?
Some individuals are sticklers for having PROOF and not just SPECULATION regarding such matters....something I've picked up in recent years.
Fully agree with what you mention about discussions here about possibilities and probabilities. Exchange of ideas, opinions, documents etc., to me, is what this place is about,
From a separate perspective-----If you were owner who submitted the coin for auction, what level of evidence would you expect to see from a person challenging the designation --made directly to the auction house--which results in your coin being pulled?
Mint did not keep comprehensive records, and many records which were made were destroyed. I found no records with specific delivery dates of proofs. In fact, I found a bit of chaos in the accounting by denomination. There were 30’s proof dies made that year, but records I saw did not break them down by denomination.
OP also stated he found no record, or reason why SPs would be made in 1911. Seems there MIGHT have been—e.g. a special request from the Acting Director of Philly for a set of business strikes.
Has OP proven the coin was neither a proof or a SP? Should he have done more before writing to the auction house?
Generally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not the other way around. I also see no reason why a document from the mint director expressly asking for business strike coinage (i.e. - not special, or he would have asked for Proofs) would support the evidence a special coin was struck in that year. Evidently, my evidence was enough to convince NGC the coin was not a Proof.
Die records are found in NARA-P, RG104, entry 107E "Proof Coin Journal," and RG104, entry 107G, "Proof Coin and Medal Book." according to Burdette's work.
OP also stated he found no record, or reason why SPs would be made in 1911. Seems there MIGHT have been—e.g. a special request from the Acting Director of Philly for a set of business strikes.
Has OP proven the coin was neither a proof or a SP? Should he have done more before writing to the auction house?
I think it’s a huge leap from “Seems there MIGHT have been—e.g. a special request from the Acting Director of Philly for a set of business strikes.”
to that being a reason that “SP” examples might have been produced.
In fact, the use of the words “business strikes” as opposed to “Specimens” works against that possibility,
Also, I don’t see any need for the OP to have proved that the coin was neither a Proof nor a business strike before contacting the auction house.
He did plenty to raise a legitimate question about the coin’s method of manufacture and I applaud his efforts. NGC apparently felt that his position had enough merit that they relabeled the coin as an “SP” instead of a “Proof”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
OP also stated he found no record, or reason why SPs would be made in 1911. Seems there MIGHT have been—e.g. a special request from the Acting Director of Philly for a set of business strikes.
Has OP proven the coin was neither a proof or a SP? Should he have done more before writing to the auction house?
I think it’s a huge leap from “Seems there MIGHT have been—e.g. a special request from the Acting Director of Philly for a set of business strikes.”
to that being a reason that “SP” examples might have been produced.
In fact, the use of the words “business strikes” as opposed to “Specimens” works against that possibility,
Certainly, But that was not my point. It was directed to OP's Statement:
"There are several issues with this [SP] designation, mostly due to the ambiguity of which coins from this die pair get the designation and the lack of any reason for the Mint to strike a SP coin.
There was a request from the Acting Director. Think that calls into question the "lack of ANY reason" [emphasis added] assertion. I have not taken a position regarding the coin. But I believe the above statement is factually, not accurate.
Also, I don’t see any need for the OP to have proved that the coin was neither a Proof nor a business strike before contacting the auction house.
He did plenty to raise a legitimate question about the coin’s method of manufacture and I applaud his efforts. NGC apparently felt that his position had enough merit that they relabeled the coin as an “SP” instead of a “Proof”.
Do not take issue with your ultimate opinion. Myself, I think the underlying secondary source he relied upon is questionable. More than willing to retract that, if the actual records for delivery of the proofs to the cashier can be shown. Records I found, and one I posted, calls that secondary source into question. Unknown if the secondary source reconciles that document.
Die records are found in NARA-P, RG104, entry 107E "Proof Coin Journal," and RG104, entry 107G, "Proof Coin and Medal Book." according to Burdette's work.
Die records are found in NARA-P, RG104, entry 107E "Proof Coin Journal," and RG104, entry 107G, "Proof Coin and Medal Book." according to Burdette's work.
Did you review the primary source?
I trust Burdette. The information was also corroborated in a separate published work by Dannreuther. I don't feel the need to check every primary source when there's two solid secondary ones. I know Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7th, 1941, despite the fact I've never talked to someone who was there on that day.
@JCH22 said:
There was a request from the Acting Director. Think that calls into question the "lack of ANY reason" [emphasis added] assertion. I have not taken a position regarding the coin. But I believe the above statement is factually, not accurate.
The director asked for business strike coinage, and I imagine would have been quite peeved if his direct order was disobeyed.
I trust Burdette. The information was also corroborated in a separate published work by Dannreuther. I don't feel the need to check every primary source when there's two solid secondary ones. I know Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7th, 1941, despite the fact I've never talked to someone who was there on that day.
Up to you to write as please. For what it is worth, if anything, standard practice when I served on Journals was to pull all secondary sources cited in proposed articles. Many times, the cite would not match, or the secondary source itself relied on secondary sources, and the onion would need to be peeled back until the primary source could be found and vetted.
I have read some of the writings you reference, and trial transcripts.... Hence my question.
Do you not find the posted letter of Dec. 11. 1911 from the Acting Director incongruous with your secondary source?
@CaptHenway Thread took a bit of a fun detour--from questioning if a DE was a proof/sp to there being a true "First Strike" Lincoln made in 1912. Give and take here is great.
Well, the 1912 cent story and my 1921 Double Eagle story prove that the Mint in this era was amenable to providing certain perfectly legal special coins to special people.
As to the OP’s coin, I really don’t see anything special about it from the pictures, but I have not seen the coin in hand and I may well be missing something.
It seems that era lasted the better part of a century?! Anybody have an idea when these large scale shenanigans ended?
@CaptHenway Thread took a bit of a fun detour--from questioning if a DE was a proof/sp to there being a true "First Strike" Lincoln made in 1912. Give and take here is great.
Well, the 1912 cent story and my 1921 Double Eagle story prove that the Mint in this era was amenable to providing certain perfectly legal special coins to special people.
As to the OP’s coin, I really don’t see anything special about it from the pictures, but I have not seen the coin in hand and I may well be missing something.
It seems that era lasted the better part of a century?! Anybody have an idea when these large scale shenanigans ended?
As long as the special coins were legally made, I think “shenanigans” is an unfair characterization .
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CaptHenway Thread took a bit of a fun detour--from questioning if a DE was a proof/sp to there being a true "First Strike" Lincoln made in 1912. Give and take here is great.
Well, the 1912 cent story and my 1921 Double Eagle story prove that the Mint in this era was amenable to providing certain perfectly legal special coins to special people.
As to the OP’s coin, I really don’t see anything special about it from the pictures, but I have not seen the coin in hand and I may well be missing something.
It seems that era lasted the better part of a century?! Anybody have an idea when these large scale shenanigans ended?
As long as the special coins were legally made, I think “shenanigans” is an unfair characterization .
Special striking of sample pieces occurred in the 19th century. Was that legal if the Secretary of the Treasury sent a letter to the mint director asking for those pieces?
@CaptHenway Thread took a bit of a fun detour--from questioning if a DE was a proof/sp to there being a true "First Strike" Lincoln made in 1912. Give and take here is great.
Well, the 1912 cent story and my 1921 Double Eagle story prove that the Mint in this era was amenable to providing certain perfectly legal special coins to special people.
As to the OP’s coin, I really don’t see anything special about it from the pictures, but I have not seen the coin in hand and I may well be missing something.
It seems that era lasted the better part of a century?! Anybody have an idea when these large scale shenanigans ended?
As long as the special coins were legally made, I think “shenanigans” is an unfair characterization .
'Tis a broad spectrum. The "Midnight Minter" making plain edge 1804 Dollars and selling them to Philadelphia collectors was outright Malfeasance and Theft. The Mint officials buying them back, waiting a few years, lettering the edges and selling them to collectors was Fraud. The 19th Century Mint selling off-metal strikes to collectors was probably Shenanigans. The question is, did the Mint get part of the proceeds. The Coiner selling (not giving) a 1921 Double Eagle (that may or may not have been a Proof) to the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint for his Niece was just "Rank Has Its Privileges." The striking of huge quantities of fake error Proof coins and smuggling them out of the Mint in a forklift truck was outright Malfeasance and Theft.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
Mike, what EXACTLY are you seeing in-hand that some of us maybe aren't seeing from even high-res pics that identifies it as NOT a regular business strike but also not a proof that just might be "off" a bit in appearance ?
And this is why when a grading service assigns that designation, they should give the potential future customers full access to what compelled them to assign this somewhat nebulous designation. This should be available at the time you do a cert verification lookup. If the assignment of the designation can't stand up to such transparency, it shouldn't be assigned in the first place.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I agree!
In-hand and without a glass, but under lighting, it has a different look, a different fabric (referring to the surface). It’s not Matte, it’s not Roman, It’s not the surface of a regular issued Saint struck from mint state dies. In my opinion it is some sort of Satin finish hybrid ( SP Satin Experimental).
I won't weigh in on the merits of SP vs PR coins, as that seems to have been well debated here. But I'd like to give kudos to @FlyingAl for the work here. The quote here is modest, in my opinion. Aside from the knowledge to know where to look, he had to have the spidey sense/intuition/observational skills to know that it merited looking at in the first place. That was something special.
And I agree that @ianrussell and GC have done the right thing, as they always seem to do, at least in my experience. I have never spotted a six-figure error, but I've brought some items to their attention in the past and they handle it.
My (infrequently updated) hobby website Groovycoins.com
Amen! Big kudos to FlyingAl.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
This appears to be strike doubled and not a die marker. I don't see the same spread on the other two coins on Coinfacts. I think I read that RWB does not believe proofs were struck twice either.
Interesting sideways shift doubling on just the very tops of the stars. The die wiggled as it was withdrawing and the tops of the stars got touched by the corners in the die.
I was refraining from being a turd in the punch bowl, but honestly, based on the provided photos....the coin looks like an exceptionally struck business strike with treated surfaces to me. It looks like it wasn't handled any differently post strike than the CF examples, with some slight stacking friction on the knee, and the rims don't look any sharper than the CF examples.
The only thing that stands out to me, without looking at it in hand, is the definition of the devices. The details of the capitol building, the definition of her arm and the olive branch, and the rays all look to have higher relief than the CF examples. Could something like this be the result of improperly set striking pressure or something? I could concede that it looks like it might have been made like a presentation piece or special strike, but it just doesn't look like it was handled like one thereafter.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Yes, this is far from the first astounding change made based on research and knowledge of @FlyingAl.
As such:
On this date, the 29th of May, in the year 2025, I hereby proclaim and bestow the title “Chief Numismatic Sleuth” upon our own @FlyingAl.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
.
Agree and is what I noticed about Morgan branch mint proofs (SP or PR designation). As The Cars said It's All Mixed Up.
Also below is a slab lab video with JD and Feltner on the $3 1870 S and includes a short discussion on Specimen. JD mentions that Specimen could be a special strike. It starts at about the 23 minute mark so can jump forward if wanting to view.
.
On the Morgans here are a couple of prior post and HA links. Sometimes the branch mint Morgans are SP and other times PR. The branch mint Morgans used regular production dies (and some with die cracks as noted) but were 'specially' polished for the branch mint strikings. The 1879 O is the only one previously reported to have its own set of dies. The 1879 O, 1883 O, 1893 CC and 1921 S were cat. 1 meaning they had documentation (Miller).
This thread has a new 1892 CC SP (specimen) and below in the thread a new 1881 O PR (proof) (according to Miller an 1881 O had been viewed years ago and questioned).
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1108230/a-new-birth-and-big-score-1-morgan-65-dmpl-to-sp-65-update-1881-o-pr64
This thread has more on it and the link to comment about advancing die cracking on the 1893 CC proof/specimen. Below is a couple of HA links showing one 1893 CC as a PR and another as a SP (both as BM).
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13584750/#Comment_13584750
Proof (BM)
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-morgan-dollars/1893-cc-1-branch-mint-pr65-pcgs-pcgs-7347-/a/1321-3070.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
Specimen (BM)
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-morgan-dollars/1893-cc-1-branch-mint-sp65-cameo-pcgs-vam-3-pcgs-388529-/a/1184-4409.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yq4KA0mUnC8 - Dream On (Aerosmith cover) via Morgan James & Postmodern Jukebox
https://youtube.com/watch?v=m3lF2qEA2cw - Creep (Radiohead cover) via Haley Reinhart & Postmodern Jukebox
RLJ 1958 - 2023
About a year or two ago, Roger Burdette said he had all of the mint correspondence and production records involving New Orleans for early 1879, when the 79-O proofs were supposedly made. I had him look for any record of the production of the 12 special coins. Nothing. I then tried to follow the trail of assertions that they were authorized and there was record of the authorization back through auction records, only to find nothing but earlier assertions. The quality of the coins suggest they were made in Philadelphia with a New Orleans reverse, not a newly opened and staffed New Orleans mint. About the same time they were supposed to have been made, there was a meeting of the assay commission in Philadelphia. Roger suggested that they may have been souvenirs. Neither I nor someone who has spent a lot of time and effort studying 1879 Morgan dollars was able to match up the obverse with a known 79-P proof or business strike.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Messydesk: "Interesting sideways shift doubling on just the very tops of the stars. The die wiggled as it was withdrawing and the tops of the stars got touched by the corners in the die."
I believe the "T shift"" resulted in the same way.
That comment was mine.
I have no opinion on this coin--but perhaps a 4th possibility is that the Mint's recording keeping for proof gold in 1911 was not comprehensive, and the book you reference may be inference, rather than fact, driven? (e.g. using an absence of a record--in an organization known to not produce records, or for which many were destroyed--- as a primary basis for an assertion)
Did not find a response, but did not go deep.
Write up was great btw--and appreciated.
There Were 10 DE dies made in fiscal year 7/1/1910 to 6/30/1911 (observe and reverse combined). If all proofs were struck on or before May, 20, 1911 as alleged, die markers should match a business strike variety from one of these 10 dies? Identifying the business strike variety would be an alternate way to validate your own hypothesis--and be much more persuasive.
.
I was not implying that knowledge is secondary to good pictures. Absent the coin in hand, it would not be possible to make determinations like this without photos clearly showing the die markers. Being able to come to the conclusions that you did without ever touching the coin is a great advancement in the hobby. Anyone in the world with access to quality photos has the ability to research and expand knowledge without having to risk mustard stains.
Pleasing your new boss might be a good reason to make a few SPs:
An old thread of possible interest:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/7570155#Comment_7570155
Good read. To add to that old discussion.....
Term "specimen" is actually older than the Constitution.
Morris's Report to the Confederation Congress:
Thanks for that trip down memory lane, CH.
I believe since that thread was active that RWB has examined in-hand 1 of the 2 (maybe both) 1921 Double Eagle "SP" coins both for his book on SG DEs and for his own research. One has a provenance with the San Francisco Ghirardelli chocolate family.
I can go back to my book and some other publicly-available information if folks want more on the 1921's.
Anyone know what would get a numismatist like RBW banned from this place?
Ghirardelli, eh? I knew that the Mint Director in 1921 had connections in the San Francisco Bay area. FWIW his ashes are interred in Oakland, CA.
This story mentions his visit to San Francisco in December of 1921.
https://coinweek.com/making-the-peace-dollar-part-three-victory-or-disgrace/
Seems "special requests" were not so unusual in 1911:
I wonder who they were for, and if they still exist with the documentation?
Fascinating. Must have been for someone who a lot of clout!
I remember Roger getting into some very heated political arguments with some of the other forum members. After several warnings, they finally had to ban him. It's sad that he couldn't follow the rules because he was an otherwise valued member here.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Excerpt from Denver Mint die record book showing that they had the 1912-dated dies in plenty of time to begin production on January 2, 1912. unfortunately this ledger only shows the date that a die was received and the date it was retired, but not the date it was installed in a press.
standard truth/power conflict.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Ask @dcarr about that. I have a lot of respect for RWB as a numismatist/researcher but he has gotten VERY nasty at times. His behavior warranted banning (although I greatly miss his knowledge and input on coin matters).
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Well, the 1912 cent story and my 1921 Double Eagle story prove that the Mint in this era was amenable to providing certain perfectly legal special coins to special people.
As to the OP’s coin, I really don’t see anything special about it from the pictures, but I have not seen the coin in hand and I may well be missing something.
yah he got way more leeway than most and he still stepped over the line. He still posts on other forums last I checked
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
.
We still have our public "disagreements" on the other forum.
.
Yah thats his problem, I too question the legality of the high quality alterations you make to coins but can also acknowledge your bona fides as an engineer, numismatist and gentlemen. Some people conflate opinions with facts and make it personal with people who disagree.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Yup...but does that mean we can PROVE that something "different" was done to/with the coin and/or the striking process ?
It's OK to discuss possibilities and probabilities in a Forum like this....but should it be officially designated the coin's provenance ? Should it be on the label/holder ?
Some individuals are sticklers for having PROOF and not just SPECULATION regarding such matters....something I've picked up in recent years.
Didn't say it was, didn't say it wasn't. All I said is that I am trying to remain open to possibilities.
As I said:
Well, the 1912 cent story and my 1921 Double Eagle story prove that the Mint in this era was amenable to providing certain perfectly legal special coins to special people.
As to the OP’s coin, I really don’t see anything special about it from the pictures, but I have not seen the coin in hand and I may well be missing something.
>
Fully agree with what you mention about discussions here about possibilities and probabilities. Exchange of ideas, opinions, documents etc., to me, is what this place is about,
From a separate perspective-----If you were owner who submitted the coin for auction, what level of evidence would you expect to see from a person challenging the designation --made directly to the auction house--which results in your coin being pulled?
Mint did not keep comprehensive records, and many records which were made were destroyed. I found no records with specific delivery dates of proofs. In fact, I found a bit of chaos in the accounting by denomination. There were 30’s proof dies made that year, but records I saw did not break them down by denomination.
OP also stated he found no record, or reason why SPs would be made in 1911. Seems there MIGHT have been—e.g. a special request from the Acting Director of Philly for a set of business strikes.
Has OP proven the coin was neither a proof or a SP? Should he have done more before writing to the auction house?
Generally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not the other way around. I also see no reason why a document from the mint director expressly asking for business strike coinage (i.e. - not special, or he would have asked for Proofs) would support the evidence a special coin was struck in that year. Evidently, my evidence was enough to convince NGC the coin was not a Proof.
Die records are found in NARA-P, RG104, entry 107E "Proof Coin Journal," and RG104, entry 107G, "Proof Coin and Medal Book." according to Burdette's work.
I think it’s a huge leap from “Seems there MIGHT have been—e.g. a special request from the Acting Director of Philly for a set of business strikes.”
to that being a reason that “SP” examples might have been produced.
In fact, the use of the words “business strikes” as opposed to “Specimens” works against that possibility,
Also, I don’t see any need for the OP to have proved that the coin was neither a Proof nor a business strike before contacting the auction house.
He did plenty to raise a legitimate question about the coin’s method of manufacture and I applaud his efforts. NGC apparently felt that his position had enough merit that they relabeled the coin as an “SP” instead of a “Proof”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Certainly, But that was not my point. It was directed to OP's Statement:
"There are several issues with this [SP] designation, mostly due to the ambiguity of which coins from this die pair get the designation and the lack of any reason for the Mint to strike a SP coin.
There was a request from the Acting Director. Think that calls into question the "lack of ANY reason" [emphasis added] assertion. I have not taken a position regarding the coin. But I believe the above statement is factually, not accurate.
Do not take issue with your ultimate opinion. Myself, I think the underlying secondary source he relied upon is questionable. More than willing to retract that, if the actual records for delivery of the proofs to the cashier can be shown. Records I found, and one I posted, calls that secondary source into question. Unknown if the secondary source reconciles that document.
Did you review the primary source?
I trust Burdette. The information was also corroborated in a separate published work by Dannreuther. I don't feel the need to check every primary source when there's two solid secondary ones. I know Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7th, 1941, despite the fact I've never talked to someone who was there on that day.
The director asked for business strike coinage, and I imagine would have been quite peeved if his direct order was disobeyed.
Up to you to write as please. For what it is worth, if anything, standard practice when I served on Journals was to pull all secondary sources cited in proposed articles. Many times, the cite would not match, or the secondary source itself relied on secondary sources, and the onion would need to be peeled back until the primary source could be found and vetted.
I have read some of the writings you reference, and trial transcripts.... Hence my question.
Do you not find the posted letter of Dec. 11. 1911 from the Acting Director incongruous with your secondary source?
It seems that era lasted the better part of a century?! Anybody have an idea when these large scale shenanigans ended?
As long as the special coins were legally made, I think “shenanigans” is an unfair characterization .
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Special striking of sample pieces occurred in the 19th century. Was that legal if the Secretary of the Treasury sent a letter to the mint director asking for those pieces?
'Tis a broad spectrum. The "Midnight Minter" making plain edge 1804 Dollars and selling them to Philadelphia collectors was outright Malfeasance and Theft. The Mint officials buying them back, waiting a few years, lettering the edges and selling them to collectors was Fraud. The 19th Century Mint selling off-metal strikes to collectors was probably Shenanigans. The question is, did the Mint get part of the proceeds. The Coiner selling (not giving) a 1921 Double Eagle (that may or may not have been a Proof) to the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint for his Niece was just "Rank Has Its Privileges." The striking of huge quantities of fake error Proof coins and smuggling them out of the Mint in a forklift truck was outright Malfeasance and Theft.