<< <i>Sure it is. In the case of the 1895 Dollars, there is at least some well founded supposition that they might have actually existed.
i was always under the impression that 1895 business strike coins were struck and melted without being released. >>
It is my understanding that mint records indicate they were struck, but that either 1) they were struck, but subsequently melted, or 2) the mint records were in error and the coins were never produced.
either way, they are relagated to a very similar status as the 1964-D Peace Dollar which seems to have been your choice for choosing this particular date. from that standpoint it sort of renders Lee's posts as moot at best and in error at worst since the 1895 possibly could exist unless further research shows that none were ever struck. the Mint has a proven track record of shoddy record keeping so i figure it's realistic to presume that 1964-D Peace Dollars are just as likely to exist as 1895 Mint State Morgan Dollars, or vice versa.
<< <i>either way, they are relagated to a very similar status as the 1964-D Peace Dollar which seems to have been your choice for choosing this particular date. from that standpoint it sort of renders Lee's posts as moot at best and in error at worst since the 1895 possibly could exist unless further research shows that none were ever struck. the Mint has a proven track record of shoddy record keeping so i figure it's realistic to presume that 1964-D Peace Dollars are just as likely to exist as 1895 Mint State Morgan Dollars, or vice versa. >>
Ultimately, surface finish aside, "1895" Philadelphia dollars exist, "1964" dollars do not (according to the US Treasury).
I think it only fair, to post here, what I wrote to Mr. Carr in a PM today:
<< Dan, though respectfully disagreeing with your choices, I give you loads of credit, for hanging in there and posting lke a gentleman, time and time again. And that's whether the questions and comments aimed at you are gentlemanly or not.
<< <i>I think it only fair, to post here, what I wrote to Mr. Carr in a PM today:
<< Dan, though respectfully disagreeing with your choices, I give you loads of credit, for hanging in there and posting lke a gentleman, time and time again. And that's whether the questions and comments aimed at you are gentlemanly or not.
Sincerely, Mark >> >>
I agree 100% and hope that DCarr understands that while I disagree with the production of these pieces, I have the utmost respect for him and think he has incredible talent. I also hope he continues to produce beautiful products as he has in the past, with the exception of pieces like this 64 which I think hurts the hobby in the long run.
<< <i>Sure it is. In the case of the 1895 Dollars, there is at least some well founded supposition that they might have actually existed.
i was always under the impression that 1895 business strike coins were struck and melted without being released. >>
It is my understanding that mint records indicate they were struck, but that either 1) they were struck, but subsequently melted, or 2) the mint records were in error and the coins were never produced. >>
I think over 100 years of numismatic scholarship is worth more than a single entry in the treasury's records. As mentioned previously, this would not be a controversial issue with the treasury or secret service, so if it truly existed it almost certainly should have surfaced by now. Has anyone even heard rumors that this coin exists?
Not to divert the thread, but how special would an 1895 business strike dollar be? Say a beat-up MS63 or generic-appearing AU surfaced somewhere, or a small hoard was found. What would such a coin be worth? More than a nice proof? To me the only nice thing about finding 1895 business strikes is that it would increase the population of 1895 dollars as a whole (and maybe make them more affordable/available)
<< <i>There's no "famed" 1909-o (micro-o) never released from the mint. Some are interested, but I wonder how popular they'd be. You may ask your followers. >>
I just have an urge to do it because I think it would be neat. If it isn't "popular", so be it.
<< <i> But, considering the info above, then it sounds like you would make a 90% 2009 UHR of the original dimensions, or a Proof 1933DC double eagle. I'd bet people would be standing in line for a Proof 1933DC DE. >>
I think the price (due to gold content) of such a piece would discourage a lot of folks.
But, instead of a "1933-DC" proof, I'd rather make a regular "1934". >>
I acknowlege that, but you could make 1 variety instead of 5 or 6 like the 64D.
And, the price of 5 1964Ds was how much ? I have 4 and spent over $500.
Plus, to reduce the gold price fluctuation concern and upfront outlay on your part, the common date MS Saints could be customer supplied.
But, I acknowledge I really don't know demand for these, I only think people would be lining up for them.
perhaps there could be a section on your site where you float ideas by people and get their interest level?
<< <i>I think it only fair, to post here, what I wrote to Mr. Carr in a PM today:
<< Dan, though respectfully disagreeing with your choices, I give you loads of credit, for hanging in there and posting lke a gentleman, time and time again. And that's whether the questions and comments aimed at you are gentlemanly or not.
Sincerely, Mark >> >>
I agree 100% and hope that DCarr understands that while I disagree with the production of these pieces, I have the utmost respect for him and think he has incredible talent. I also hope he continues to produce beautiful products as he has in the past, with the exception of pieces like this 64 which I think hurts the hobby in the long run. >>
Good on you guys for calling this out in light of your positions. Nice. FWIW-I love his work, have no problem with the 64 piece and think it was exactly what this hobby needed at this time. A swift kick in the pants..............It created a lot of awareness and loads of information has come forth concerning the background of this piece. I know I've learned a lot in the countless threads about this "dollar". I also learned that horses have nine lives...........and counting.
I fully respect the other point of view as well and the numismatic weight of some of the illuminaries that have posted can not be discounted.
FYI- this piece is stunning MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i><< I am thinking I will make a "1909-o" micro-o Morgan Dollar fantasy over-strike. >>
I would rather see a 1909-O Lincoln cent (with or without the VDB). >>
Might as well do a C, CC, D, M & W while you're at it.........
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.
the D.Carr Peace Dollar controversy will seemingly never end ........... lets get them all to the top until everyone has has their fill and are plumb sick of the issue
Comments
<< <i>Sure it is. In the case of the 1895 Dollars, there is at least some well founded supposition that they might have actually existed.
i was always under the impression that 1895 business strike coins were struck and melted without being released. >>
It is my understanding that mint records indicate they were struck, but that either 1) they were struck, but subsequently melted, or 2) the mint records were in error and the coins were never produced.
<< <i>either way, they are relagated to a very similar status as the 1964-D Peace Dollar which seems to have been your choice for choosing this particular date. from that standpoint it sort of renders Lee's posts as moot at best and in error at worst since the 1895 possibly could exist unless further research shows that none were ever struck. the Mint has a proven track record of shoddy record keeping so i figure it's realistic to presume that 1964-D Peace Dollars are just as likely to exist as 1895 Mint State Morgan Dollars, or vice versa. >>
Ultimately, surface finish aside, "1895" Philadelphia dollars exist, "1964" dollars do not (according to the US Treasury).
<< Dan, though respectfully disagreeing with your choices, I give you loads of credit, for hanging in there and posting lke a gentleman, time and time again. And that's whether the questions and comments aimed at you are gentlemanly or not.
Sincerely,
Mark >>
<< <i>I think it only fair, to post here, what I wrote to Mr. Carr in a PM today:
<< Dan, though respectfully disagreeing with your choices, I give you loads of credit, for hanging in there and posting lke a gentleman, time and time again. And that's whether the questions and comments aimed at you are gentlemanly or not.
Sincerely,
Mark >> >>
I agree 100% and hope that DCarr understands that while I disagree with the production of these pieces, I have the utmost respect for him and think he has incredible talent. I also hope he continues to produce beautiful products as he has in the past, with the exception of pieces like this 64 which I think hurts the hobby in the long run.
<< <i>
<< <i>Sure it is. In the case of the 1895 Dollars, there is at least some well founded supposition that they might have actually existed.
i was always under the impression that 1895 business strike coins were struck and melted without being released. >>
It is my understanding that mint records indicate they were struck, but that either 1) they were struck, but subsequently melted, or 2) the mint records were in error and the coins were never produced. >>
I think over 100 years of numismatic scholarship is worth more than a single entry in the treasury's records. As mentioned previously, this would not be a controversial issue with the treasury or secret service, so if it truly existed it almost certainly should have surfaced by now. Has anyone even heard rumors that this coin exists?
Not to divert the thread, but how special would an 1895 business strike dollar be? Say a beat-up MS63 or generic-appearing AU surfaced somewhere, or a small hoard was found. What would such a coin be worth? More than a nice proof? To me the only nice thing about finding 1895 business strikes is that it would increase the population of 1895 dollars as a whole (and maybe make them more affordable/available)
<< <i>
<< <i>There's no "famed" 1909-o (micro-o) never released from the mint.
Some are interested, but I wonder how popular they'd be. You may ask your followers. >>
I just have an urge to do it because I think it would be neat. If it isn't "popular", so be it.
<< <i>
But, considering the info above, then it sounds like you would make a 90% 2009 UHR of the original dimensions, or a Proof 1933DC double eagle. I'd bet people would be standing in line for a Proof 1933DC DE. >>
I think the price (due to gold content) of such a piece would discourage a lot of folks.
But, instead of a "1933-DC" proof, I'd rather make a regular "1934". >>
I acknowlege that, but you could make 1 variety instead of 5 or 6 like the 64D.
And, the price of 5 1964Ds was how much ? I have 4 and spent over $500.
Plus, to reduce the gold price fluctuation concern and upfront outlay on your part, the common date MS Saints could be customer supplied.
But, I acknowledge I really don't know demand for these, I only think people would be lining up for them.
perhaps there could be a section on your site where you float ideas by people and get their interest level?
<< <i>
<< <i>I think it only fair, to post here, what I wrote to Mr. Carr in a PM today:
<< Dan, though respectfully disagreeing with your choices, I give you loads of credit, for hanging in there and posting lke a gentleman, time and time again. And that's whether the questions and comments aimed at you are gentlemanly or not.
Sincerely,
Mark >> >>
I agree 100% and hope that DCarr understands that while I disagree with the production of these pieces, I have the utmost respect for him and think he has incredible talent. I also hope he continues to produce beautiful products as he has in the past, with the exception of pieces like this 64 which I think hurts the hobby in the long run. >>
Good on you guys for calling this out in light of your positions. Nice. FWIW-I love his work, have no problem with the 64 piece and think it was exactly what this hobby needed at this time. A swift kick in the pants..............It created a lot of awareness and loads of information has come forth concerning the background of this piece. I know I've learned a lot in the countless threads about this "dollar". I also learned that horses have nine lives...........and counting.
I fully respect the other point of view as well and the numismatic weight of some of the illuminaries that have posted can not be discounted.
FYI- this piece is stunning
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I would rather see a 1909-O Lincoln cent (with or without the VDB).
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i><< I am thinking I will make a "1909-o" micro-o Morgan Dollar fantasy over-strike. >>
I would rather see a 1909-O Lincoln cent (with or without the VDB). >>
Might as well do a C, CC, D, M & W while you're at it.........