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

On 12/18/2022 at 7:48 AM, RWB said:

That's what I thought when ANA began grading....then they sold out and had their backbone removed. Now it's every centipede for itself.

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.

On 9/19/2022 at 3:46 PM, disme said:

      For use as alloy in the gold and silver coinage.

 

 

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.

On 9/16/2022 at 4:20 PM, Just Bob said:

Do you mind if I ask which tpg certified the two circulated dollars, and what the grades were?

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!

On 9/4/2022 at 12:54 PM, EagleRJO said:

@CaptHenway Coin World Almanac, 8th Edition, Pg 370 under "Rotated Dies".  For other editions maybe check: Chapter 11 Errors, "Die Errors, Varieties, States & Stages" and then "Rotated Dies".

Thanks

I asked Fred Weinberg if he knew of any official mint tolerance on die rotations, and he replied that on tours of both the Philadelphia and Denver Mints he saw signs which said that die rotations may not exceed 27 degrees!

Now, I don't know if the Mint's office in Washington, D.C. would agree in writing that that is their official tolerance, but that is what the Mints are using out in the field.

TD

Which Coin World Almanac do you have, and what page number, please? I worked on the first two issues, long ago in a galaxy far, far away........

On 9/1/2022 at 6:35 PM, EagleRJO said:

It really does look dumb, particularly when placed in a set with other "normal" $1 coins.

I am still curious if RWB or perhaps someone else can shed some light on the official die rotation tolerance and source for that.

I know nothing about any "official Mint tolerance" for die setup rotations, but I have heard (unofficially, with no documentation) that 15 degrees was close enough for government work. Back in the 1970's error collectors generally considered anything less than 15 degrees to be insignificant.

Curiously, many early Buffalo nickels show die rotation such that if you flip the reverse over top to bottom the date ends up at the 6 o'clock position. I suspect (again, no documentation) that the people setting up dies in coin presses were used to the date being at 6 o'clock (except on the Lincoln cent, of course) and they just automatically set the Buffalo nickel dies in that way out of habit even though the date is offset to the side a bit. I wonder if the early Mercury dimes have the same problem?

I remember when being a numismatist meant, among other things, that you knew how to look at a coin........

Here's another wild speculation. In what quantities were Half Cents normally delivered from the Coiner to the Mint Treasurer and/or from the Mint Treasurer to the U.S. Treasurer? Was it a nice round number, like 10,000 pieces, or a round dollar amount, like $100.00, or what? I know that in later years the Mints likes to deliver things in nice round number when possible to simplify the bookkeeping, but I have no idea what things were like in 1831.

When the Mints did that, it meant that they had to carry some odd numbers of struck coins on the books as either planchets or bullion or work in progress or whatever until they had enough pieces to hit that magic number for a full bag or a full keg or whatever was customary. Then those previous year coins got quietly mixed in with the newer year coins and issued. There is the well-accepted story that all of the BU 1893-S Morgan Dollars came out of a BU bag of 1892-S dollars that needed about 30 (?) pieces to top it off. I think I have proven that 700 leftover 1872-S dollars (not enough to fill up a bag) were issued in 1873 and recorded as 1873-S coins that never existed.

So, 2,200 1829 Half Cents (not enough to fill up anything) could have sat around for a while waiting to be issued with 1830 Half Cents that never happened and then with 1831 Half Cents that never happened (except for Proofs) before the Coiner got tired of looking at them and the odd amount got pushed out the door.

I can't prove a word of it, but it's plausible.

TD

I am perfectly willing to accept the theory that the 1831 coinage was from 1829 dies, but I don't think that anything can be proven at this late date.

On 8/19/2022 at 5:54 PM, RWB said:

What suggests a "pattern piece?" What's different from former designs and why do you think that was done? How many 1831 half cents are known? Pattern pieces prior to 1836 are extremely unusual.

Can you describe how a proof (aka "master coin") were made in the 1820s-30s ? Your can't really prepare an article without knowing how processes operated and what differed between "master coin" and production coin.

Will help in any way I can.

I've got nothing. 

Are we sure that they were struck in 1831? Just speculating wildly here, I could see the Mint beginning the production of the 1832's with a very limited press run very late in 1831 because they had run out of the denomination and that press run going into the Mint Report as 1831 half cents, and then later when collectors saw that entry but they could not find any such coins the Mint obligingly making a few back-dated Proofs for the collectors. Again, this is wild speculation.

Imagine if the plan had gone through to put the incumbent President on the coinage. I can just see the book now:

"The Fantastic William Henry Harrison Dollar!"  Struck only for inclusion in Diplomatic Proof Sets!