@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.
‘Midnight Minters’ have been around since the U.S. Mint opened in Philadelphia. This 1795 Dollar that I sold is most likely mint sport.
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.
The 1804 cent 'restrikes' were made from discarded mint dies that were then modified and struck outside the mint. Certainly not 'legal', but collectable nonetheless. The issue with many special strike coins is that there may be some evidence that they were made, but without provenance their identification becomes very subjective.
@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.
‘Midnight Minters’ have been around since the U.S. Mint opened in Philadelphia. This 1795 Dollar that I sold is most likely mint sport.
A great piece, and there is certainly a plausible explanation that it was used as a deliberate die setup piece to check the die alignment without wasting a difficult to make dollar planchet.
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.
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.
‘Midnight Minters’ have been around since the U.S. Mint opened in Philadelphia. This 1795 Dollar that I sold is most likely mint sport.
A great piece, and there is certainly a plausible explanation that it was used as a deliberate die setup piece to check the die alignment without wasting a difficult to make dollar planchet.
Thanks! Yes you are correct. It could be a die trial set up piece, a deliberate ‘mint error’ or possibly struck on a half cent planchet. Fascinating piece!
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:
.... The issue with many special strike coins is that there may be some evidence that they were made, but without provenance their identification becomes very subjective.
Admittedly haven't dug too deep, but hope the three coins mentioned below have not been lost to history: ( Jackson to Treasury Secretary Woodbury):
Thanks! Yes you are correct. It could be a die trial set up piece, a deliberate ‘mint error’ or possibly struck on a half cent planchet. Fascinating piece!
hmmmm. you think the the least chance would be half cent planchet? weren't they manually fed?
Thanks! Yes you are correct. It could be a die trial set up piece, a deliberate ‘mint error’ or possibly struck on a half cent planchet. Fascinating piece!
hmmmm. you think the the least chance would be half cent planchet? weren't they manually fed?
In my listing, the second paragraph explains why it could be struck on a half cent blank:
This unique 1795 Small Eagle Dollar was struck on a 96 grain copper planchet. Certified by PCGS as AU 55, it still retains much luster and is absolutely stunning. In my professional opinion, this 1795 Small Eagle Dollar was struck on a half cent planchet. This scenario seems most logical since the weight of 96 grains falls between the two weights of early dated half cents, 84 grains and 104 grains. Early half cents are known to have different weights and even the Red Book states that "the figures given are statutory. Actual weights will vary."
There is obviously the possibility that it was a die trial set up piece or an intentional midnight strike.
Also in my listing is the US Patterns page on this coin. It is noted that it was struck from dies not known to be used on any regular issued silver dollars!
So my best guess is- a midnight minter took a set of unused dies, used a half cent blank and struck this coin…
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.
So my best guess is- a midnight minter took a set of unused dies, used a half cent blank and struck this coin…
Admittedly random info follows---some favor in house striking, other Moonlight/Outside the Mint production:
In house experimental strike:
New press-- first medal press-- was built/put into service in 1795 (the fourth mint press),
On September 9,1795, John Eckstein was paid $30 for 2 models of dollars, and
De Saussure, in his report of October, 1795, said there was no copper on hand fit for coinage, attempts to use copper; nails, sheet copper; and scraps of all kinds being a failure (struck on scrap?)
In favor of Moonlight (or outside) Mint) hypothesis:
From the Mint’s 1795 Report, December 3. 1795 (urging Federal legislative action):
The stealing of the dies, hubs, milling-stamps, screws, presses, or other instruments used in the coinage, as well as the taking, receiving, adulterating, or secreting, the metals kept in, or belonging to, the mint, call for special provision from the Legislature of the United States. The Director is sorry to say, that his observations are justified by facts that have already happened at the mint. The laws of the several States are not particularly adapted to these objects, so as to guard against these evils.…
Above apparently was in response to the acquittal for lack of evidence of William Hodgins and Charles McNair who were indicted for attempted theft of dies from the Mint.
So my best guess is- a midnight minter took a set of unused dies, used a half cent blank and struck this coin…
Admittedly random info follows---some favor in house striking, other Moonlight/Outside the Mint production:
In house experimental strike:
New press-- first medal press-- was built/put into service in 1795 (the fourth mint press),
On September 9,1795, John Eckstein was paid $30 for 2 models of dollars, and
De Saussure, in his report of October, 1795, said there was no copper on hand fit for coinage, attempts to use copper; nails, sheet copper; and scraps of all kinds being a failure (struck on scrap?)
In favor of Moonlight (or outside) Mint) hypothesis:
From the Mint’s 1795 Report, December 3. 1795 (urging Federal legislative action):
The stealing of the dies, hubs, milling-stamps, screws, presses, or other instruments used in the coinage, as well as the taking, receiving, adulterating, or secreting, the metals kept in, or belonging to, the mint, call for special provision from the Legislature of the United States. The Director is sorry to say, that his observations are justified by facts that have already happened at the mint. The laws of the several States are not particularly adapted to these objects, so as to guard against these evils.…
Above apparently was in response to the acquittal for lack of evidence of William Hodgins and Charles McNair who were indicted for attempted theft of dies from the Mint.
Interesting mystery....
Regardless of the how, why and when it was struck, it remains one of the most pedigreed, mysterious and fascinating coins ever certified by PCGS or NGC.
Purchased for an arm and a leg from Andy Lustig, I managed to still make a profit when I sold it for $375k. The customer is building a world class collection that might surface some day!
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.
Those early Saint proofs were pretty much universally disliked by collectors, dealers, and reviewers....I wouldn't be surprised if someone considered the Business Strike superior and did NOT want a proof.
Whether that Business Strike was enhanced a bit to make it stand out is above my pay grade.
.... "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.....
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....
>
Mint records contradict Burdette's claims as to number and dates of delivery of 1911 proof DEs-- just a couple of examples below taken from the Medal & Proof Gold Book. There are more errors. Sometimes primary sources tell a story different than secondary sources. I have previously found errors in other claims made involving other matters.... Why I asked if you pulled primary source
@GoldFinger1969 said:
Those early Saint proofs were pretty much universally disliked by collectors, dealers, and reviewers....I wouldn't be surprised if someone considered the Business Strike superior and did NOT want a proof.
Whether that Business Strike was enhanced a bit to make it stand out is above my pay grade.
The coin being discussed was initially designated as a Proof and later as a Specimen. There’s no good reason (other than to confuse readers 😉) to refer to it as a Business Strike.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.... "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.....
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....
>
Mint records contradict Burdette's claims as to number and dates of delivery of 1911 proof DEs-- just a couple of examples below taken from the Medal & Proof Gold Book. There are more errors. Sometimes primary sources tell a story different than secondary sources. I have previously found errors in other claims made involving other matters.... Why I asked if you pulled primary source
Quite to the contrary. Burdette addressed this discrepancy - the Medal and Proof Coin Book does not match the Daily Coinage Journal nor the Deliveries 1900-1910 ledger, both of which report the same figures. He surmises the Daily Coinage Journal is only listing the good coins ready for sale.
Quite to the contrary. Burdette dressed this discrepancy - the Medal and Proof Coin Book does not match the Daily Coinage Journal nor the Deliveries 1900-1910 ledger, both of which report the same figures. He surmises the Daily Coinage Journal is only listing the good coins ready for sale.
Perhaps you might have not noted the date of the first attachment---January 14, 1911?
If you do, you will find that convoluted surmise impossible. Medal and Coin Book Book reports receipt of 150 coins, 70 good, on January 14, 1911. 2 days before his surmise about January 16th being the first day proof DE were struck that year. Hard to receive 150 coins, and reject 80--and have 70 of them ready for sale---- 2 days before they were allegedly even struck.
Also, if that is so, how does he arrive at a figure of only "100" good coins" , delivered in 3 batches--- just the 2 cited entries above list 110 accepted coins?
Suggest you refer to a separate source relating to how the Medal & Coin book was kept. The very premise/foundation of his surmise is not correct. It is another example on stacking inference upon inferences
Bernadette's surmises are just that, and in this instance were wrong--and plainly so.
Quite to the contrary. Burdette dressed this discrepancy - the Medal and Proof Coin Book does not match the Daily Coinage Journal nor the Deliveries 1900-1910 ledger, both of which report the same figures. He surmises the Daily Coinage Journal is only listing the good coins ready for sale.
Perhaps you might have not noted the date of the first attachment---January 14, 1911?
If you do, you will find that convoluted surmise impossible. Medal and Coin Book Book reports receipt of 150 coins, 70 good, on January 14, 1911. 2 days before his surmise about January 16th being the first day proof DE were struck that year. Hard to receive 150 coins, and reject 80--and have 70 of them ready for sale---- 2 days before they were allegedly even struck.
Also, if that is so, how does he arrive at a figure of only "100" good coins" , delivered in 3 batches--- just the 2 cited entries above list 110 accepted coins?
Suggest you refer to a separate source relating to how the Medal & Coin book was kept. The very premise/foundation of his surmise is not correct. It is another example on stacking inference upon inferences
Bernadette's surmises are just that, and in this instance were wrong--and plainly so.
I've reached out to Burdette to see what he has to say beyond what I have already discussed. I for one am quite tired with discussing a completely unrelated topic with you, and I'm quite confused how this relates to the coin at hand, which clearly does not match the one die pair used to strike Proofs.
If you're convinced it's a Proof, Specimen, or otherwise feel free to prove it. Otherwise, there is little point in debating the semantics on exactly when a certain number of Proofs were delivered, especially when the OP coin no longer relates to Proofs, or even continuing this conversation.
If you're convinced it's a Proof, Specimen, or otherwise feel free to prove it. Otherwise, there is little point in debating the semantics on exactly when a certain number of Proofs were delivered, especially when the OP coin no longer relates to Proofs, or even continuing this conversation.
Burden of proof is on you is it not---your claims are it is not a proof or a specimen?
The "authority" you cited. to have an auction pulled was demonstrably wrong. I had the impressions you seem to have aspirations to do research. Some might take a lesson that relying on secondary sources--which have proven to be incorrect--- may not be prudent in the future. After all, one's credibility is only as good as the proof that can be offered for an assertion made under one's own name.
I have found Burdette problematic given his propensity to state as fact, what in reality are rather untethered inferences (upon inferences). The statement you cited was an example. He was wrong. Thus, my post alerting you to the error in that secondary source.
I apologize if the only thing I achieved was your weariness. My intent was to pass along lessons learned, but that seems unwelcome.
If you're convinced it's a Proof, Specimen, or otherwise feel free to prove it. Otherwise, there is little point in debating the semantics on exactly when a certain number of Proofs were delivered, especially when the OP coin no longer relates to Proofs, or even continuing this conversation.
Burden of proof is on you is it not---your claims are it is not a proof or a specimen?
The "authority" you cited. to have an auction pulled was demonstrably wrong. I had the impressions you seem to have aspirations to do research. Some might take a lesson that relying on secondary sources--which have proven to be incorrect--- may not be prudent in the future. After all, one's credibility is only as good as the proof that can be offered for an assertion made under one's own name.
I have found Burdette problematic given his propensity to state as fact, what in reality are rather untethered inferences (upon inferences). The statement you cited was an example. He was wrong. Thus, my post alerting you to the error in that secondary source.
I apologize if the only thing I achieved was your weariness. My intent was to pass along lessons learned, but that seems unwelcome.
How is the precise quantity of Proofs struck and when relevant to the proper designation of the subject coin?
@FlyingAl had/has no burden to prove anything about the coin. He presented his case to NGC, whose decision it was to make.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I hate the way specimen is used for coins. I just looked up the word "Specimen" in the dictionary. It has no relation to the way it is used for coins. The word is not used or defined in the ANA Grading Guide.
R. Burdette uses the word correctly to identify a specific object such as Specimen #4 of a 1933 $20. I have a mineral "specimen" on my desk and several butterfly "specimens" in a frame on my wall. The government and companies produced "specimen" banknotes and stamps. Stamps and notes overprinted or hole-punched with the word "Specimen" were examples of the normal issues used as samples to ID the genuine issue.
In recent times the US Mint has identified certain of their products with a non-normal surface as "specimens."
Google:
Numismatic Specimen: A specimen coin, particularly in numismatics is a coin that is struck to a higher standard than regular circulation coins, often with a unique finish. It's characterized by a special strike and/or finish that makes it visually distinct from standard issues, demonstrating the capabilities of the mint or highlighting a new design. While the term "specimen" can have nuances, it generally refers to a coin that's more than just a regular uncirculated piece, exhibiting a distinctive surface or relief.
Proof and Specimen are both methods of manufacture. I would assume there would be a record of this in an ideal world, yet we don't live in an ideal world and records can be lost or non-existent.
So, it seems that we can call virtually any coin that is different a "Specimen." Therefore, I've learned something tonight. My frustration all these years with the use of this word was unfounded. It would be very interesting to go back into numismatic history and discover the first time this word was used in a way that was exclusive to coins.
Information copied and pasted from Roger below. I'm sure he has more to come in the next day or so.
I have only been able to glance at this.
"1911 Proof Double Eagles
Multiple authentic sources are available including:
Philadelphia Mint. Coiner’s Notebook “Deliveries of Gold Coin 1900-12.” (Robert
Clark)
March 28 Proof DE. $680; May 20 Proof DE $560; December 9 Proof DE 760.
Total: $2,000 = 100 pieces delivered.
RG104 E-105 Proof Coins, Minor & Silver 1909-1916 (Robert Clark). Page 17.
January 16 Proof DE 150 struck, 70 good.
May 20 Proof DE 50 struck, 46 good.
Total: $4,000 struck, $2,300 good = 200 struck, 116 pieces good.
Dates struck and dates delivered were normally not the same. Proofs were struck
as time and working conditions allowed, and were delivered when requested by
the Cashier for sale.
RG104 E-107E & G, Medal and Proof Coin Book. Jan. 9, 1902-June 14, 1923.
January 17 Proof DE. Good – 70; No good – 80; Total – 150. Page 378.
May 20 Proof DE. Delivered 40. (No breakdown. Not known if new or from Jan.
17 production.) Page 401. No other 1911 gold proof DE noted.
The above three all originate from Assistant Coiner Robert Clark’s hand written notebooks.
There are multiple inconsistencies.
RG104 Entry 273 “Coinage Deliveries 1911-1915”
March 28 Proof DE. $680; May 20 Proof DE $560; December 9 Proof DE 760.
Total: $2,000 = 100 pieces delivered.
This volume was compiled at Mint HQ in Washington from data supplied by the Mints
(Philadelphia in this case).
RG104 Entry UD (Central Files) Box 81, Folder 1. Dated May 23, 1939. Typed lists of
proof coins issued by the US Mint through 1938.
CY 1911 Proof DE 100. (No breakdown by month.)
This list was compiled by Mint employees at Philadelphia, but they did not mention their source
materials.
Other sources, presently incomplete and awaiting scanning are:
NARA RG104 Entry 330 “Cashier’s Daily Statements” 1911. (Record of every delivery
and payment of coins for each working day.)
NARA RG104 Entry 63 “Cashier’s Blotter” Volume ? ( Series is supposed to end 1902;
however, these have been found with dates into the late 1940s. Thus, we can’t be sure
what years are in the series.)
Philadelphia Mint. Box: Ledgers Coining #3, “Monthly statement of Coinage 1907-
1916.”
NARA RG 104 Entry 229 “Letters Received. Many of these include Cashier’s Daily
Statements that were not removed and place in Entry 330. These might include CY 1911."
@JCH22 said:
Many of the 9 Volumes in this answered request do not appear on this list (redacted address):
I have not the slightest clue what your point is here.
To attempt to put this to rest, please let me try again to make clear the salient point I was attempting to make--- the hazards of relying on secondary sources. It was not to ask you to pay operator so I could engage in a game of telephone with a banned user. The opposite actually. I know of a board I could register on to attempt to point out his incorrect assertions-- if that is what I wished. I do not, as I believe the odds of a civil discussion very small to nil, --and the documents speak for themselves.
You provided a laundry list of info relayed by your secondary source. That secondary source was incorrect-and the latest laundry list does not include the records I saw. As a courtesy, and to forestall needless debate, I referred to the records where those documents I posted, and he missed, were found.
Whether you wish to independently look at those records yourself— that’s entirely up to you.
@JCH22 said:
Many of the 9 Volumes in this answered request do not appear on this list (redacted address):
I have not the slightest clue what your point is here.
To attempt to put this to rest, please let me try again to make clear the salient point I was attempting to make--- the hazards of relying on secondary sources. It was not to ask you to pay operator so I could engage in a game of telephone with a banned user. The opposite actually. I know of a board I could register on to attempt to point out his incorrect assertions-- if that is what I wished. I do not, as I believe the odds of a civil discussion very small to nil, --and the documents speak for themselves.
You provided a laundry list of info relayed by your secondary source. That secondary source was incorrect-and the latest laundry list does not include the records I saw. As a courtesy, and to forestall needless debate, I referred to the records where those documents I posted, and he missed, were found.
Whether you wish to independently look at those records yourself— that’s entirely up to you.
What can I say - not my fault you’re looking in the wrong places.
I am reminded of an episode of MASH where Frank Burns was in charge of the camp. A Korean family that used to live on the site of the camp wandered into the camp. Maj. Burns asks them, through Radar, for their "papers.' They present them. Maj. Burns looks at the papers, and then asks "Do you have any papers that prove that these are your papers?"
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
‘Midnight Minters’ have been around since the U.S. Mint opened in Philadelphia. This 1795 Dollar that I sold is most likely mint sport.
https://mikebyers.com/44551874.html
The 1804 cent 'restrikes' were made from discarded mint dies that were then modified and struck outside the mint. Certainly not 'legal', but collectable nonetheless. The issue with many special strike coins is that there may be some evidence that they were made, but without provenance their identification becomes very subjective.
A great piece, and there is certainly a plausible explanation that it was used as a deliberate die setup piece to check the die alignment without wasting a difficult to make dollar planchet.
Thanks! Yes you are correct. It could be a die trial set up piece, a deliberate ‘mint error’ or possibly struck on a half cent planchet. Fascinating piece!
Admittedly haven't dug too deep, but hope the three coins mentioned below have not been lost to history: ( Jackson to Treasury Secretary Woodbury):
hmmmm. you think the the least chance would be half cent planchet? weren't they manually fed?
In my listing, the second paragraph explains why it could be struck on a half cent blank:
This unique 1795 Small Eagle Dollar was struck on a 96 grain copper planchet. Certified by PCGS as AU 55, it still retains much luster and is absolutely stunning. In my professional opinion, this 1795 Small Eagle Dollar was struck on a half cent planchet. This scenario seems most logical since the weight of 96 grains falls between the two weights of early dated half cents, 84 grains and 104 grains. Early half cents are known to have different weights and even the Red Book states that "the figures given are statutory. Actual weights will vary."
There is obviously the possibility that it was a die trial set up piece or an intentional midnight strike.
Also in my listing is the US Patterns page on this coin. It is noted that it was struck from dies not known to be used on any regular issued silver dollars!
So my best guess is- a midnight minter took a set of unused dies, used a half cent blank and struck this coin…
....
Admittedly random info follows---some favor in house striking, other Moonlight/Outside the Mint production:
In house experimental strike:
New press-- first medal press-- was built/put into service in 1795 (the fourth mint press),
On September 9,1795, John Eckstein was paid $30 for 2 models of dollars, and
De Saussure, in his report of October, 1795, said there was no copper on hand fit for coinage, attempts to use copper; nails, sheet copper; and scraps of all kinds being a failure (struck on scrap?)
In favor of Moonlight (or outside) Mint) hypothesis:
From the Mint’s 1795 Report, December 3. 1795 (urging Federal legislative action):
The stealing of the dies, hubs, milling-stamps, screws, presses, or other instruments used in the coinage, as well as the taking, receiving, adulterating, or secreting, the metals kept in, or belonging to, the mint, call for special provision from the Legislature of the United States. The Director is sorry to say, that his observations are justified by facts that have already happened at the mint. The laws of the several States are not particularly adapted to these objects, so as to guard against these evils.…
Above apparently was in response to the acquittal for lack of evidence of William Hodgins and Charles McNair who were indicted for attempted theft of dies from the Mint.
Interesting mystery....
thanks for tolerating my poor reading skills
Regardless of the how, why and when it was struck, it remains one of the most pedigreed, mysterious and fascinating coins ever certified by PCGS or NGC.
Purchased for an arm and a leg from Andy Lustig, I managed to still make a profit when I sold it for $375k. The customer is building a world class collection that might surface some day!
Those early Saint proofs were pretty much universally disliked by collectors, dealers, and reviewers....I wouldn't be surprised if someone considered the Business Strike superior and did NOT want a proof.
Whether that Business Strike was enhanced a bit to make it stand out is above my pay grade.
.... "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.....
Mint records contradict Burdette's claims as to number and dates of delivery of 1911 proof DEs-- just a couple of examples below taken from the Medal & Proof Gold Book. There are more errors. Sometimes primary sources tell a story different than secondary sources. I have previously found errors in other claims made involving other matters.... Why I asked if you pulled primary source
The coin being discussed was initially designated as a Proof and later as a Specimen. There’s no good reason (other than to confuse readers 😉) to refer to it as a Business Strike.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Quite to the contrary. Burdette addressed this discrepancy - the Medal and Proof Coin Book does not match the Daily Coinage Journal nor the Deliveries 1900-1910 ledger, both of which report the same figures. He surmises the Daily Coinage Journal is only listing the good coins ready for sale.
Perhaps you might have not noted the date of the first attachment---January 14, 1911?
If you do, you will find that convoluted surmise impossible. Medal and Coin Book Book reports receipt of 150 coins, 70 good, on January 14, 1911. 2 days before his surmise about January 16th being the first day proof DE were struck that year. Hard to receive 150 coins, and reject 80--and have 70 of them ready for sale---- 2 days before they were allegedly even struck.
Also, if that is so, how does he arrive at a figure of only "100" good coins" , delivered in 3 batches--- just the 2 cited entries above list 110 accepted coins?
Suggest you refer to a separate source relating to how the Medal & Coin book was kept. The very premise/foundation of his surmise is not correct. It is another example on stacking inference upon inferences
Bernadette's surmises are just that, and in this instance were wrong--and plainly so.
I've reached out to Burdette to see what he has to say beyond what I have already discussed. I for one am quite tired with discussing a completely unrelated topic with you, and I'm quite confused how this relates to the coin at hand, which clearly does not match the one die pair used to strike Proofs.
If you're convinced it's a Proof, Specimen, or otherwise feel free to prove it. Otherwise, there is little point in debating the semantics on exactly when a certain number of Proofs were delivered, especially when the OP coin no longer relates to Proofs, or even continuing this conversation.
>
Burden of proof is on you is it not---your claims are it is not a proof or a specimen?
The "authority" you cited. to have an auction pulled was demonstrably wrong. I had the impressions you seem to have aspirations to do research. Some might take a lesson that relying on secondary sources--which have proven to be incorrect--- may not be prudent in the future. After all, one's credibility is only as good as the proof that can be offered for an assertion made under one's own name.
I have found Burdette problematic given his propensity to state as fact, what in reality are rather untethered inferences (upon inferences). The statement you cited was an example. He was wrong. Thus, my post alerting you to the error in that secondary source.
I apologize if the only thing I achieved was your weariness. My intent was to pass along lessons learned, but that seems unwelcome.
How is the precise quantity of Proofs struck and when relevant to the proper designation of the subject coin?
@FlyingAl had/has no burden to prove anything about the coin. He presented his case to NGC, whose decision it was to make.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I hate the way specimen is used for coins. I just looked up the word "Specimen" in the dictionary. It has no relation to the way it is used for coins. The word is not used or defined in the ANA Grading Guide.
R. Burdette uses the word correctly to identify a specific object such as Specimen #4 of a 1933 $20. I have a mineral "specimen" on my desk and several butterfly "specimens" in a frame on my wall. The government and companies produced "specimen" banknotes and stamps. Stamps and notes overprinted or hole-punched with the word "Specimen" were examples of the normal issues used as samples to ID the genuine issue.
In recent times the US Mint has identified certain of their products with a non-normal surface as "specimens."
Google:
Numismatic Specimen: A specimen coin, particularly in numismatics is a coin that is struck to a higher standard than regular circulation coins, often with a unique finish. It's characterized by a special strike and/or finish that makes it visually distinct from standard issues, demonstrating the capabilities of the mint or highlighting a new design. While the term "specimen" can have nuances, it generally refers to a coin that's more than just a regular uncirculated piece, exhibiting a distinctive surface or relief.
Proof and Specimen are both methods of manufacture. I would assume there would be a record of this in an ideal world, yet we don't live in an ideal world and records can be lost or non-existent.
So, it seems that we can call virtually any coin that is different a "Specimen." Therefore, I've learned something tonight. My frustration all these years with the use of this word was unfounded. It would be very interesting to go back into numismatic history and discover the first time this word was used in a way that was exclusive to coins.
Information copied and pasted from Roger below. I'm sure he has more to come in the next day or so.
I have only been able to glance at this.
"1911 Proof Double Eagles
Multiple authentic sources are available including:
Philadelphia Mint. Coiner’s Notebook “Deliveries of Gold Coin 1900-12.” (Robert
Clark)
March 28 Proof DE. $680; May 20 Proof DE $560; December 9 Proof DE 760.
Total: $2,000 = 100 pieces delivered.
RG104 E-105 Proof Coins, Minor & Silver 1909-1916 (Robert Clark). Page 17.
January 16 Proof DE 150 struck, 70 good.
May 20 Proof DE 50 struck, 46 good.
Total: $4,000 struck, $2,300 good = 200 struck, 116 pieces good.
Dates struck and dates delivered were normally not the same. Proofs were struck
as time and working conditions allowed, and were delivered when requested by
the Cashier for sale.
RG104 E-107E & G, Medal and Proof Coin Book. Jan. 9, 1902-June 14, 1923.
January 17 Proof DE. Good – 70; No good – 80; Total – 150. Page 378.
May 20 Proof DE. Delivered 40. (No breakdown. Not known if new or from Jan.
17 production.) Page 401. No other 1911 gold proof DE noted.
The above three all originate from Assistant Coiner Robert Clark’s hand written notebooks.
There are multiple inconsistencies.
RG104 Entry 273 “Coinage Deliveries 1911-1915”
March 28 Proof DE. $680; May 20 Proof DE $560; December 9 Proof DE 760.
Total: $2,000 = 100 pieces delivered.
This volume was compiled at Mint HQ in Washington from data supplied by the Mints
(Philadelphia in this case).
RG104 Entry UD (Central Files) Box 81, Folder 1. Dated May 23, 1939. Typed lists of
proof coins issued by the US Mint through 1938.
CY 1911 Proof DE 100. (No breakdown by month.)
This list was compiled by Mint employees at Philadelphia, but they did not mention their source
materials.
Other sources, presently incomplete and awaiting scanning are:
NARA RG104 Entry 330 “Cashier’s Daily Statements” 1911. (Record of every delivery
and payment of coins for each working day.)
NARA RG104 Entry 63 “Cashier’s Blotter” Volume ? ( Series is supposed to end 1902;
however, these have been found with dates into the late 1940s. Thus, we can’t be sure
what years are in the series.)
Philadelphia Mint. Box: Ledgers Coining #3, “Monthly statement of Coinage 1907-
1916.”
NARA RG 104 Entry 229 “Letters Received. Many of these include Cashier’s Daily
Statements that were not removed and place in Entry 330. These might include CY 1911."
Many of the 9 Volumes in this answered request do not appear on this list (redacted address):
I have not the slightest clue what your point is here.
Is @JCH22 Robert Julian? If so - I LOVE YOUR ARTICALS!
Many members here do not accept PM's.
No
Thanks for the reply. You sure do know a lot and I appreciate your posts with the other experts.
To attempt to put this to rest, please let me try again to make clear the salient point I was attempting to make--- the hazards of relying on secondary sources. It was not to ask you to pay operator so I could engage in a game of telephone with a banned user. The opposite actually. I know of a board I could register on to attempt to point out his incorrect assertions-- if that is what I wished. I do not, as I believe the odds of a civil discussion very small to nil, --and the documents speak for themselves.
You provided a laundry list of info relayed by your secondary source. That secondary source was incorrect-and the latest laundry list does not include the records I saw. As a courtesy, and to forestall needless debate, I referred to the records where those documents I posted, and he missed, were found.
Whether you wish to independently look at those records yourself— that’s entirely up to you.
What can I say - not my fault you’re looking in the wrong places.
I am reminded of an episode of MASH where Frank Burns was in charge of the camp. A Korean family that used to live on the site of the camp wandered into the camp. Maj. Burns asks them, through Radar, for their "papers.' They present them. Maj. Burns looks at the papers, and then asks "Do you have any papers that prove that these are your papers?"