CaptHenway

Correct. Oklahoma City was just approved for 2025. 2024 is still ROsemont. TD

I have spoken with the ANA. They are aware of this FALSE RUMOR that the 2024 convention is being moved to Oklahoma City and they categorically deny it.They are working on a press release which will discuss upcoming convention sites, which does include Rosemont in 2024.TD

Hey, I began the ANA grading service in 1979. We stayed as consistent as possible until I left in the Summer of 1984. This meant that during the hot market of 1979-1980 everybody was whining that we were undergrading because in a hot market anything goes and everybody knew that the market grading standards were going to be even looser next week, and during the cold market of 1981-on the same people were whining that we were overgrading because the market grading standards had tightened up like "The Incredible Shrinking Jockstrap" even though WE had not changed our standards. It was the market grading that was rubbery. I am not responsible for anything that happened after the Summer of 1984. Are you talking about the ANA selling ANACS around 1989? TD

Love the old documents!

Just to get this on the record, because the coin and certificate are still out there somewhere, back in 1973 the then relatively new ANACS accidentally certified a "1959 Wheat Cent" with an altered date as genuine. It is not. It has an altered date. I have seen the coin and I agree. Here is a blurb about the piece that ANACS put out in the Sept., 1975 The Numismatist.

A very historical piece.

Just as an aside, back during the Y2K madness of 1998-1999, we had some wealthy church in the suburbs get on a "buy gold because the banks are going to implode on 1-1-2000" kick. They wanted relatively small coins, such as Sovereigns and 20 Francs for barter purposes, and we must have sold the parishoners at least 50,000 20 Francs if not more. When we got deliveries of product it was in 2,000, 4,000 or 5,000 piece lots and we were running them through the frippin' coin counter as nickels!!!!! After the supplies of Roosters dried up we bought Angels. After those dried up we took Belgian 20 Francs, and near the end basically any LMU 20 Franc equivalent.

I guess that would make sense if they had an immediate need for copper alloy for the precious metal coinages and could not get any through normal channels, though it seems awful wasteful to do so.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1999-prototype-2000-p-sac-dollar-aka-circulated-cheerios-dollar.397969/page-4#post-8536300

What was the reason for the 1833 melting?

I submit that it is no longer necessary for a TPG to remove a Cheerios pattern reverse dollar from the original holder in order to certify it as a Cheerios pattern reverse coin. I have now seen in hand two circulated pattern reverse Cheerios dollars certified by a major TPG. As we have long speculated, many of them were simply spent after being removed from cereal boxes. That is what many a non-collector kid would have done. There was no trouble being certain of their attribution and/or authenticity. You can leave the word "Cheerios" off of the label if you wish and just certify it as a pattern coin with the FS number, but any competent Authenticator can certify these coins as genuine. The grading is what the grading is. TD

I suppose it makes sense that some serious maintenance needed to be done with the Mint equipment well over 30 years old. And they may have been installing new and better equipment. One of the things that caused the 1922-D cents to be coined was the fact that when the coinage of the 1922 Peace dollars was unexpectedly delayed because of the relief problems that popped up at the very end of December, 1921, the Denver Mint could not just strike Double Eagles instead because its refinery was being completely rebuilt between 1920 and 1923. The result was a better quality of gold output, and the 1923-D $20's do have a wonderful luster to them, but the old equipment was only 15 years or so old when it was ripped out.

Where was everybody in August? At the beach? Yellow Fever attack?

Any news?

They are kidding on that estimate, right? I used to own this little 49.04 Tr. Oz. New York Assay Office bar dated 1950 in my birth year set and it was not worth multiples of melt!