Promising news about collector strike Silver Eagles for 2010
Akbeez
Posts: 2,697 ✭✭✭✭✭
In CoinNews.Net today -- here's the link
2010 Proof Silver Eagles Possible, Congressional Hearing Reveals
By Darrin Lee Unser on Jul 20th, 2010 in Coin or Numismatic News, United States Mint News and Information
American Eagle Silver Proof Coin"The State of U.S. Coins and Currency" was discussed today by the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.
And topmost interest for collectors, the hearing revealed the possibility of amending law to approve the minting of 2010 American Eagle Silver Proof and Uncirculated Coins at the the expense or producing fewer bullion versions.
Led by Chairman Melvin L. Watt, representative from North Carolina, and ranking minority member Representative Ron Paul from Texas, the subcommittee had several lines of questioning as it related to U.S. coins and currency.
To answer those questions, two panels were called upon by the committee. The first panel included Edmund C. Moy, Director, United States Mint, Larry Felix, Director, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Louise L. Roseman, Director, Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and Ken Jenkins, Deputy Special Agent in Charge, Criminal Investigative Division, U.S. Secret Service.
Panel two included Craig A. Hesch, Chairman, National Automatic Merchandising Association, Michael B. Clark, President, Diamond State Depository and Gary Marks, Chairman, Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee.
While many topics were discussed including coin compositions, coin designs, coin counterfeiting and the use of coins by the public — one of the main areas of interest revolved around the American Eagle program. US Mint Director Moy opened this area of concern in his testimony with this statement:
"In Fiscal Year 2009, bullion coin sales approached $1.7 billion — an all-time high and nearly 80 percent above the previous year’s sales," stated Mint Director Moy. "The United States Mint increased both planchet acquisition and production to meet rising demand."
However, as anyone with a glancing knowledge of the coin collecting world knows, last year the Mint was not able to keep up.
"We had no difficulty in obtaining gold, silver and platinum in raw material form, but we experienced considerable difficulty in getting this raw material fabricated into planchets by our vendors in sufficient quantities to meet public demand," added Moy.
As such, it initiated two measures. First, the Mint established an allocation system for its network of authorized purchasers in which they were only shipped a portion of their requested order based on their past order history. Second, as the Mint is required by law to strike the bullion coins to meet demand, it canceled proof and uncirculated versions of the gold and silver eagles.
Struck for numismatic interests, the proof Silver Eagles have been available from the Mint since the debut of the American Eagle program back in 1986. The numismatic uncirculated Silver Eagles were added in 2006. These annual coins, however, came to an abrupt end for the first time in 2009 as all available planchets, or coin blanks, were dedicated to bullion production.
To alleviate this situation in the future, Moy suggested that Congress follow through with the request that it allow the Treasury Secretary to approve the striking of the collector coins.
"I am encouraged to know that the Subcommittee is exploring the possibility of an amendment to the law that would afford the Secretary the authority to approve the minting and issuance of American Eagle Silver Proof and Uncirculated Coins even when we are unable to meet the public’s demand for the bullion versions of these coins," stated Moy.
"We can mint 200,000 per month, and if we can begin by September, we will be able to produce about 830,000 one-ounce silver American Eagle coins to meet collector demand for this product in the remaining months of 2010," Moy added.
Michael B. Clark, President, Diamond State Depository took it one step further in his testimony. Clark’s company is a subsidiary of Dillon Gage, Inc., one of the U.S. Mint’s 12 authorized bulk purchasers for U.S. American Silver Eagles.
"At the heart of the problem is the Mint’s inability to source sufficient planchets (or blanks) from multiple producers," explained Michael Clark about the Mint’s Eagle production issues. "Its reliance on just three suppliers is flawed."
To rectify the planchet shortage, Clark recommends that Congress direct the General Accountability Office to review the Mint’s policy of only using those three planchet suppliers and make recommendations on what could be done to improve the bottleneck.
Earlier this year, Mr. Moy had indicated the potential to increase the supply of planchets, but at a cost of committing the Mint to exceedingly high order levels for many years into the future, irregardless to the actual public demand for the coins at the time.
Whether any changes will occur from this hearing, only time will tell. One thing is certain, however, many are interested in the outcome as it relates to this year’s American Eagles.
<end>________________
Well, it's no sure bet, but at least a good sign that a solution may be in the works. Of interest is the mintage suggested of 830,000 for this year with a Sept production start (200k/mo?) -- this seems to be inclusive of both unc and proof strikes as I read it. Sub-400k mintages (or lower) would be great.
2010 Proof Silver Eagles Possible, Congressional Hearing Reveals
By Darrin Lee Unser on Jul 20th, 2010 in Coin or Numismatic News, United States Mint News and Information
American Eagle Silver Proof Coin"The State of U.S. Coins and Currency" was discussed today by the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.
And topmost interest for collectors, the hearing revealed the possibility of amending law to approve the minting of 2010 American Eagle Silver Proof and Uncirculated Coins at the the expense or producing fewer bullion versions.
Led by Chairman Melvin L. Watt, representative from North Carolina, and ranking minority member Representative Ron Paul from Texas, the subcommittee had several lines of questioning as it related to U.S. coins and currency.
To answer those questions, two panels were called upon by the committee. The first panel included Edmund C. Moy, Director, United States Mint, Larry Felix, Director, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Louise L. Roseman, Director, Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and Ken Jenkins, Deputy Special Agent in Charge, Criminal Investigative Division, U.S. Secret Service.
Panel two included Craig A. Hesch, Chairman, National Automatic Merchandising Association, Michael B. Clark, President, Diamond State Depository and Gary Marks, Chairman, Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee.
While many topics were discussed including coin compositions, coin designs, coin counterfeiting and the use of coins by the public — one of the main areas of interest revolved around the American Eagle program. US Mint Director Moy opened this area of concern in his testimony with this statement:
"In Fiscal Year 2009, bullion coin sales approached $1.7 billion — an all-time high and nearly 80 percent above the previous year’s sales," stated Mint Director Moy. "The United States Mint increased both planchet acquisition and production to meet rising demand."
However, as anyone with a glancing knowledge of the coin collecting world knows, last year the Mint was not able to keep up.
"We had no difficulty in obtaining gold, silver and platinum in raw material form, but we experienced considerable difficulty in getting this raw material fabricated into planchets by our vendors in sufficient quantities to meet public demand," added Moy.
As such, it initiated two measures. First, the Mint established an allocation system for its network of authorized purchasers in which they were only shipped a portion of their requested order based on their past order history. Second, as the Mint is required by law to strike the bullion coins to meet demand, it canceled proof and uncirculated versions of the gold and silver eagles.
Struck for numismatic interests, the proof Silver Eagles have been available from the Mint since the debut of the American Eagle program back in 1986. The numismatic uncirculated Silver Eagles were added in 2006. These annual coins, however, came to an abrupt end for the first time in 2009 as all available planchets, or coin blanks, were dedicated to bullion production.
To alleviate this situation in the future, Moy suggested that Congress follow through with the request that it allow the Treasury Secretary to approve the striking of the collector coins.
"I am encouraged to know that the Subcommittee is exploring the possibility of an amendment to the law that would afford the Secretary the authority to approve the minting and issuance of American Eagle Silver Proof and Uncirculated Coins even when we are unable to meet the public’s demand for the bullion versions of these coins," stated Moy.
"We can mint 200,000 per month, and if we can begin by September, we will be able to produce about 830,000 one-ounce silver American Eagle coins to meet collector demand for this product in the remaining months of 2010," Moy added.
Michael B. Clark, President, Diamond State Depository took it one step further in his testimony. Clark’s company is a subsidiary of Dillon Gage, Inc., one of the U.S. Mint’s 12 authorized bulk purchasers for U.S. American Silver Eagles.
"At the heart of the problem is the Mint’s inability to source sufficient planchets (or blanks) from multiple producers," explained Michael Clark about the Mint’s Eagle production issues. "Its reliance on just three suppliers is flawed."
To rectify the planchet shortage, Clark recommends that Congress direct the General Accountability Office to review the Mint’s policy of only using those three planchet suppliers and make recommendations on what could be done to improve the bottleneck.
Earlier this year, Mr. Moy had indicated the potential to increase the supply of planchets, but at a cost of committing the Mint to exceedingly high order levels for many years into the future, irregardless to the actual public demand for the coins at the time.
Whether any changes will occur from this hearing, only time will tell. One thing is certain, however, many are interested in the outcome as it relates to this year’s American Eagles.
<end>________________
Well, it's no sure bet, but at least a good sign that a solution may be in the works. Of interest is the mintage suggested of 830,000 for this year with a Sept production start (200k/mo?) -- this seems to be inclusive of both unc and proof strikes as I read it. Sub-400k mintages (or lower) would be great.
Refs: MCM,Fivecents,Julio,Robman,Endzone,Coiny,Agentjim007,Musky1011,holeinone1972,Tdec1000,Type2,bumanchu, Metalsman,Wondercoin,Pitboss,Tomohawk,carew4me,segoja,thebigeng,jlc_coin,mbogoman,sportsmod,dragon,tychojoe,Schmitz7,claychaser, Bullsitter, robeck, Nickpatton, jwitten, and many OTHERS
0
Comments
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
As for sub-million mintage, there were only two years of million+ proof mintage (1986 & 2006). Averages were more like 700-800k.
Sub-300k mintages wouldn't hurt my feelings. We need some numismatic excitement this year...
I wonder if they took notice
Keeping my fingers crossed.
I only want a couple.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
I,m ready to go when the mint is.
I was highly disappointed when the Mint decided not to
produce the 2009 Proof ASE. I only order one per year
and the gap in production has bothered me; however,
the image shown by Mr. Carr of the 2009 - D {?} Proof
has me totally thrown for a loop.
Is that a Photoshopped image ?
Looking forward to being able to order the 2010 Proof ASE.
Thanks for the update !!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
<< <i>I just updated my credit card info for my mint subscription in the hope I'll get to use it. >>
i'm in, too.
<< <i>Great for silver, but what about 2010 Gold Eagles? >>
Here's a bit more on the proof AGEs out today.
2010 Gold Proof Eagles Link
<< <i>
<< <i>Great for silver, but what about 2010 Gold Eagles? >>
Here's a bit more on the proof AGEs out today.
2010 Gold Proof Eagles Link >>
"With gold hovering around $1,190 an ounce as of this writing, a 2010 proof Gold Eagle would cost $1,435 while an uncirculated version would be $1,428 — a hefty leap from when they last launched in 2008 for $1,199.95 and $1,119.95, respectively. These higher premiums pressure demand, making it easier for the Mint to tackle their release."
Far from pressuring demand, a $1435 price for a proof 1-oz. Gold Eagle would likely cause an instant sellout unless ordering limits were imposed. Common date proof 1-oz. Gold Eagles are currently fetching nearly $2000 wholesale, mainly for placement in IRAs.
An additional 60,000 coins would not impact this price very much - the 1986 alone has a mintage of over 400,000. The supply/demand equation for proof Gold Eagles is very different today compared to when they were last offered by the Mint in 2008.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>I was highly disappointed when the Mint decided not to
produce the 2009 Proof ASE. I only order one per year
and the gap in production has bothered me; however,
the image shown by Mr. Carr of the 2009 - D {?} Proof
has me totally thrown for a loop.
Is that a Photoshopped image ? ... >>
No, not an altered photo. The photo accurately shows what the coin actually looks like.
However, the coin was originally a normal non-proof business strike 2009 Silver Eagle with no mint mark.
I over-struck the coin to impart a proof-like finish and a "DC" mint mark to create a novelty piece.
No metal was added or removed. So it is still a legal-tender $1 Silver Eagle. The "DC" is a mint mark
(actually a "D" for surplus Denver Mint coin press which is used in the process, followed by a crescent moon
for Moonlight Mint).
There was a lot of discussion about these and more pictures in a previous thread:
I can't believe no proof gold/silver eagles for another year.
<< <i>Ah, yes....The sad saga of Mr. Carr's altered/mutilated bullion coins. The gentleman even had the audacity to add his initials although he had nothing to do with the designs. >>
As I said previously, the "DC" is a mint mark, placed where the US Mint puts "P", "S", and "W" mint marks on Silver Eagles.
The original "JM" initials are still there - to the lower right of the eagle.
Would you prefer that I use a "W" mint mark instead, just like the US Mint ?
Or maybe no identifying mark at all ?
I think it is better to have the "DC" so that the coins can be easily identified.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ah, yes....The sad saga of Mr. Carr's altered/mutilated bullion coins. The gentleman even had the audacity to add his initials although he had nothing to do with the designs. >>
As I said previously, the "DC" is a mint mark, placed where the US Mint puts "P", "S", and "W" mint marks on Silver Eagles.
The original "JM" initials are still there - to the lower right of the eagle.
Would you prefer that I use a "W" mint mark instead, just like the US Mint ?
Or maybe no identifying mark at all ?
I think it is better to have the "DC" so that the coins can be easily identified. >>
I see no issue with them, others just like to complain or gripe unless they come up with the idea. Figure out where a market is and fill it. More people need to look at that. Otherwise China will find it and fill it. I do not own any silver eagles but i will/would pprobably order this one.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
The first "sucker" buys a "novelty;" the next forgets to call it a "novelty" in the ebay auction; the third decides it's "really rare" and on and on....
<< <i>Yep, same "no issue" as with any other altered coin. Add a mintmark? Sure - "no issue." Buff out some scratches? Sure - "no issue."
The first "sucker" buys a "novelty;" the next forgets to call it a "novelty" in the ebay auction; the third decides it's "really rare" and on and on.... >>
Not the same issue at all. Nefarious "coin doctors" are secretive and don't publish details and charactersitics of their work. My 2009-DC proofs will be widely publicized in Coin World and elsewhere. I'll have some on eBay with full disclosure in the description. In your scenario above, the fault would lie entirely with the seller who failed to properly disclose, and the last buyer. You can't protect someone from their own stupidity in all facets of life.
Suppose someone took one of your books, tore one page out of context, and used that page to convince some buyer that a coin was worth more than it really was. Would you be to blame ?
Who is to blame when someone drives drunk, the car maker or the drunk ?
If you don't like novelty coins, maybe you could buy up every love token, counter-stamped coin, encased coin, replica, etc., and melt them.
Besides being a dumb idea in the first place, the only problem I have with the above explanation is that - as surely as the sun rises in the east, the resellers will be listing these as "genuine US coins, made at the US Mint." In addition, if the current price structure for DC 1 oz. silver creations is any indication, these coins will be priced above what the Mint charged for the real thing in years past which in my own mind would make them way overpriced.
I like many of D. Carr's original pieces and some I don't like, but they are his creations. There are so many markets that he could tackle besides cheesy knockoffs of Mint products that his plan for restruck coins really doesn't make sense to me. But hey, it's not technically illegal and it's still a (somewhat) free country.
I knew it would happen.
I've been involved in conversations about the private minting of historical coin designs as novelties and reproductions, and the question has often arisen about the use of the Hobby Protection Act COPY stamp.
When Ron Landis ran the Gallery Mint Museum, he had designed a great Massachusetts Pine Tree thruppence. He struck (rather than rolled) some samples (some sent to Ken Bressett for comments), but decided against going into production, even with a COPY stamp. (That was the only historical repro he did that didn't get reproduced. That and a 1909-S VDB Lincoln storecard for David Lange.) But then, when Moffatt & Co. took over the Eureka Springs operation, they put Landis' dies into operation and sold them commercially. On a related note, when Larry Lee took over from Gallery Mint Museum (prior to Moffatt & Co.), he modified a Landis design to create a fantasy 1815 cent and they decided to use the COPY stamp, which is why I chose not to purchase one.
It is simply your personal opinion on the matter, an idiosyncrasy, as opposed to a universal norm.
<< <i>Unethical. >>
Unethical would be misrepresenting the coins when selling them.
If I sell the coins, I may require that the buyer sign a document stating that they
are fully aware of the nature and origin of the coins.
Have you ever "dipped" or "conserved" a coin and sold it without telling the buyer ?
Have you ever sumbitted a coin three times to get the grade you wanted, and then
sold it without telling the buyer that it took three submissions to get the grade ?
My "proof" Silver Eagle is a perfectly legal and harmless novelty that everyone is free
to ignore.
You want to talk "unethical", perhaps you should direct your attention towards
serious issues like grade inflation, or "cash for gold" rip-off schemes, or Chinese
counterfeiting, or ?
<< <i>I was highly disappointed when the Mint decided not to
produce the 2009 Proof ASE. I only order one per year
and the gap in production has bothered me; however,
the image shown by Mr. Carr of the 2009 - D {?} Proof
has me totally thrown for a loop.
Is that a Photoshopped image ?
Looking forward to being able to order the 2010 Proof ASE.
Thanks for the update !! >>
________
With all due respect to Mr. Carr, your work is very impressive. No doubt.
However, I have been trying to define why I have such a problem with your "proof" silver eagles. They are a very nice product judging by your photos, but modifying our legal tender coinage to attempt to fill a gap in a series without making it patently obvious to the casual collector will undoubtedly be problematic in the future. This became obvious to me with the poster above who was "thrown for a loop" with this coin.
I believe that once these are released beyond Mr. Carr (who seems sincere in wanting to take all appropriate measures to disclose their true provenance), there will be confusion and second-nth generation buyers who believe they are the real deal. Modifying the mintmark is not enough to disclose their origin -- there must be something else done to the coin to make it clear they are not original Mint products. Maybe sunglasses on Lady Liberty? (joke ... or not?)
FWIW -- Just knowing human nature, your attempt to fill this gap is bound for trouble no matter your sincere efforts.
<< <i>Interesting timing. There may be a Coin World article soon published about these (shown below). >>
You've hijacked this thread for your own self promotion.
Now i may buy a few....
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting timing. There may be a Coin World article soon published about these (shown below). >>
You've hijacked this thread for your own self promotion. >>
I replied in this tread because in a previous thread I said that my making of 2009-DC "proofs" might,
among other things, help entice the US Mint to make proof Silver Eagles again. Either the timing
of the recent hearing (the main subject of this thread) is coincidental, or the US Mint took notice
of the posts here.
<< <i>
With all due respect to Mr. Carr, your work is very impressive. No doubt.
However, I have been trying to define why I have such a problem with your "proof" silver eagles. They are a very nice product judging by your photos, but modifying our legal tender coinage to attempt to fill a gap in a series without making it patently obvious to the casual collector will undoubtedly be problematic in the future. This became obvious to me with the poster above who was "thrown for a loop" with this coin.
I believe that once these are released beyond Mr. Carr (who seems sincere in wanting to take all appropriate measures to disclose their true provenance), there will be confusion and second-nth generation buyers who believe they are the real deal. Modifying the mintmark is not enough to disclose their origin -- there must be something else done to the coin to make it clear they are not original Mint products. Maybe sunglasses on Lady Liberty? (joke ... or not?)
FWIW -- Just knowing human nature, your attempt to fill this gap is bound for trouble no matter your sincere efforts. >>
What you say is certainly something to consider. I don't think the nth-generation transactions would be a problem, like you postulate. Someone who would buy one without researching it probably wouldn't spend a lot of money. Anybody foolish enough to pay a lot of money for a coin that isn't listed in coin books, without doing any research on it, is someone that is just too gullible to be protected always. Sooner or later they'll have to learn their lesson the hard way.
Imagine a novice walking into a coin show with a wad of cash, and no knowledge or guidance. Literally thousands of potential pitfalls await, like overgraded and/or damaged coins, retoned coins, etc. Their first step should be to do some research, and solicit advice from experts. If they don't do that, they only have themselves (mostly) to blame.
2009-DC "proof" Silver Eagles.
Here is a synopsis of the complete procedure:
1) I take ordinary non-proof (no mint mark) US 2009 Silver Eagle coins
and tap around the edge with a hammer to reduce the diameter slightly.
(At some point I'll get or build a rimming machine to do this).
2) The "rimmed" Silver Eagle coins are placed in a vibratory polisher
with stainless steel beads and cleaning/polishing/lubricating compound.
This is similar to the US Mint's "burnishing" of coin blanks.
The burnishing does not remove any metal, just pushes it around
microscopically on the surface. This is done for about 15 to 30 minutes,
after which the coins look somewhat polished.
3) The burnished coins are inserted into the coining chamber and over-struck
four times at about 200 tons per blow, using dies to impart the proof-like finish
and "DC" mint mark. About 98% (figuratively speaking) of the original underlying
design is obliterated and reformed. Since the alignment of the original coin and
the dies is rarely perfectly accurate, there are usually a few faint "ghost" outlines
visible on the finished "proof". After over-striking, the coins have a reformed
reeded edge and are the same diameter they were originally.
No metal is ever added to, or removed from, the original coins.
The making of the dies is quite involved and I'm not going to disclose
how that is done, exactly.
Newbies may assume coins are minted in Washington, DC, and assume "DC" refers to the city instead of Daniel Carr. Maybe a longer "DCarr" would avoid the possible confusion?
Can this same technique be used to convert other series' business strikes into proof-likes? For example, produce a cameo proof-like Standing Liberty quarter from a business strike?
-Mike
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>I received a Private Message request to outline the procedure I use to make the
2009-DC "proof" Silver Eagles.
Here is a synopsis of the complete procedure:
1) I take ordinary non-proof (no mint mark) US 2009 Silver Eagle coins
and tap around the edge with a hammer to reduce the diameter slightly.
(At some point I'll get or build a rimming machine to do this).
2) The "rimmed" Silver Eagle coins are placed in a vibratory polisher
with stainless steel beads and cleaning/polishing/lubricating compound.
This is similar to the US Mint's "burnishing" of coin blanks.
The burnishing does not remove any metal, just pushes it around
microscopically on the surface. This is done for about 15 to 30 minutes,
after which the coins look somewhat polished.
3) The burnished coins are inserted into the coining chamber and over-struck
four times at about 200 tons per blow, using dies to impart the proof-like finish
and "DC" mint mark. About 98% (figuratively speaking) of the original underlying
design is obliterated and reformed. Since the alignment of the original coin and
the dies is rarely perfectly accurate, there are usually a few faint "ghost" outlines
visible on the finished "proof". After over-striking, the coins have a reformed
reeded edge and are the same diameter they were originally.
No metal is ever added to, or removed from, the original coins.
The making of the dies is quite involved and I'm not going to disclose
how that is done, exactly. >>
Interesting. Forgive my ignorance -- but this sounds like you have the ability to actually strike new coins with a complete die set. That
is not a simple alteration any more. Seems like risky ground to be treading.
<< <i>This is an interesting thread. Obviously there are many pros and cons to the "DC" proofs.
Newbies may assume coins are minted in Washington, DC, and assume "DC" refers to the city instead of Daniel Carr. Maybe a longer "DCarr" would avoid the possible confusion?
Can this same technique be used to convert other series' business strikes into proof-likes? For example, produce a cameo proof-like Standing Liberty quarter from a business strike?
-Mike >>
Yep.
If the USMint went after Chattanooga Coin for their advertisements about the ATB quarters, I can imagine what will happen if/when these get on their radar......
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>I received a Private Message request to outline the procedure I use to make the
2009-DC "proof" Silver Eagles.
Here is a synopsis of the complete procedure:
1) I take ordinary non-proof (no mint mark) US 2009 Silver Eagle coins
and tap around the edge with a hammer to reduce the diameter slightly.
(At some point I'll get or build a rimming machine to do this).
2) The "rimmed" Silver Eagle coins are placed in a vibratory polisher
with stainless steel beads and cleaning/polishing/lubricating compound.
This is similar to the US Mint's "burnishing" of coin blanks.
The burnishing does not remove any metal, just pushes it around
microscopically on the surface. This is done for about 15 to 30 minutes,
after which the coins look somewhat polished.
3) The burnished coins are inserted into the coining chamber and over-struck
four times at about 200 tons per blow, using dies to impart the proof-like finish
and "DC" mint mark. About 98% (figuratively speaking) of the original underlying
design is obliterated and reformed. Since the alignment of the original coin and
the dies is rarely perfectly accurate, there are usually a few faint "ghost" outlines
visible on the finished "proof". After over-striking, the coins have a reformed
reeded edge and are the same diameter they were originally.
No metal is ever added to, or removed from, the original coins.
The making of the dies is quite involved and I'm not going to disclose
how that is done, exactly. >>
Interesting. Forgive my ignorance -- but this sounds like you have the ability to actually strike new coins with a complete die set. That
is not a simple alteration any more. Seems like risky ground to be treading. >>
I clearly differentiate potential to do wrong from doing wrong. I can give examples - target practice vs shooting people for one.
<< <i>Bochi -- what was the Chattanooga Coin issue? >>
I think that was the right advertiser. Open to correction by anyone if I am wrong, but I think that was them.
Anyway, they were advertising rolls, I believe, and product picked up from launch events and saying "America The Beautiful" (what the US Mint calls the program). They didn't get permission from the USMint and they got sent a cease and desist, I believe.
To be honest, I skimmed it because I wasn't as interested, but I did find it interesting to the point that the USMint didn't like the way things were worded and put a stop to it with legal threats.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
I don't have access.
because that term has been copyrighted by the US Mint. Some US Mint coin designs are copyrighted,
but most are not. In 2000 a company (I think it was "Washington Mint" or something) got sued by the
US Mint for making a giant (3") Sacagawea medal using the design from the dollar coin. The Sacagawea
dollar obverese is one of the few US Coin designs that is actually copyrighted. The Silver Eagle design is
not copyrighted. From the US Mint web site:
"The United States Mint may own copyright by assignment, as permitted by 17 U.S.C. § 105. In fact, the United States Mint owns copyright in several commemorative and circulating coin designs. Although the copyright symbol does not appear on the coin itself, the United States Mint generally includes the symbol on marketing materials. Copyrighted coin designs include several designs used in the 1995-1996 Olympic Commemorative Coin Program, the 1995 Civil War Battlefield Commemorative Coin Program, and the Golden Dollar (Sacagawea) coin obverse. If your company wants to use a copyrighted design, then you will need to contact Jean Gentry, Deputy Chief Counsel, United States Mint, 801 9th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20220. Requests may be faxed to (202) 756-6110. The United States Mint deems any unauthorized use of a United States Mint copyrighted design to constitute copyright infringement."
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"