numisport

If you ignore the ignored, then do you go back in time ?

On 9/11/2022 at 7:08 PM, VKurtB said:

You wound me, sir. My B.A. was in economics. 

After you fully recover from your wounds maybe explain how Crypto is related to Numismatics ?

On 9/8/2022 at 10:26 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

[I still don't understand a word of what anyone is saying. As it is said, "ignorance is bliss." Maybe some day but not to day.]  😉  

Dont't worry I'm not sure they get it either. 

On 9/3/2022 at 8:11 PM, zadok said:

...correct, the NGC rep at the ANA in chicago told me the same thing...reason , the excessive delay times n slow delivery on USPS registered mail was the reason....

Part of the problem may have been delays in recieving and shipping, just not sure. Last few times I sent registered USPS packages to Sarasota it took 10 to 15 days for them to post, then about the same on the way back. Irvine Ca. and Bedminster N.J. only about a week. Slow Florida registered mail has long been a slow boat.

On 8/12/2022 at 3:31 PM, Hoghead515 said:

I had a really good friend help me out. I also been hauling some scrap metal and doing some side work. Doing mechanic work. 

I've been through that pain and others are so right, don't sell that quarter. Just put it away and forget about it; you'll be glad you did. Should be other ways such as rental books (if you're lucky). How about a loan through your employer or are you self employed ?

Cool design though 

On 8/3/2022 at 7:28 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

[I know that but when the doorbell rang, I opened it and next thing I know two guys duct-taped my hands behind my back and ordered me to give the Forum a rest.]  

I recommend they don't come to my home unless they have a warrant

So why can't the U.S. Mint market these themselves ? Just how many fleece collectors are out there ?

Tin was a valuable wartime metal due to its use as an alloy metal. To this day I still save tin scraps to use for bullet casting but I admit that much of it may be wasted in the dross during the heating process. I save certain wine and bourbon caps when I find them.

On 7/5/2022 at 2:27 PM, DWLange said:

Many years ago I wrote on the subject of USA silver circulating in Canada and that nation's attempts to drive it out.

Disclaimer: My hair is no longer thick and brown... https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/585/

That's a great article Mr. Lange, and by the way my hair never was thick and brown. 

Nice going and I love my Washingtons too. I chose the proofs though from 1936 through 1967. Yes I think the SMS coins fit better as proofs. If you're patient you can find all 3 that look like proofs. Here's a thought for your mint state set, some 1965 SMS quarters have luster and no mirrors that would be a nice accent to your set !

On 6/28/2022 at 3:05 PM, FlyingAl said:

This makes sense, the coins were struck in the same process as the sandblast gold, and they weren't made with sandblasted dies. Thanks for the clarification!

I know this was true for the 1936-42 proofs, but did this carry over into the 1950-64 era? I got the diamond dust compound statement from a book that was specifically focused on the 1950-64 proofs, so I wonder if perhaps the book was wrong or the agent did change?

Rick Tomaska's book is very informative and involved input from early collectors and dealers that specialized in the heaviest contrasted proof coinage of 1950 through 1964. Whether or not diamond dust was used exclusively is tough to confirm, but he was the one who lobbied NGC and PCGS to include Cameo designations in their grading services. In his book you'll find some of the most heavily contrasted coins imaged but not all necessarily the highest graded pieces. I think these same die prep practices carried into 1971 and appears to be used for SMS coinage as well. 

Looks like a relatively high grade coin if it hasn't been cleaned

According to Dean F. Howe in his 1992 study '78-S dies struck an average of over 100,000 coins each. For that very reason I can see how the finer coins can be thought of as Specimen strikes although I assume mine is nothing more than a fresh die or pair.

On 6/18/2022 at 12:34 PM, numisport said:

Mine is a really deep obverse die that almost looks like a proof at first glance. Reverse is just short of prooflike. Don't know if the variety can be idebtified but it's a cool coin.

 

 

Sorry here are different images

On 6/17/2022 at 12:00 PM, FlyingAl said:

Alright, here we go.

Facts (Roger, your book was a godsend):

1. The mint sent San Francisco 8 reverse (7/8TF) and an unknown amount of obverse dies (at least 7) were sent on (Late March?) but they arrived April 17th.

2. The mint sent an additional fifteen pairs of dies on April 17th (this would be critical).

3. The first strike ceremony in San Francisco was on April 17th, with one coin being struck by a manual turn of the press. A specimen would be described in mint reports of the era as what we now call "proof" (all patterns are referred to as "specimen". The modern term as we know it is not mentioned in mint reports and therefore it is up for debate if the mint ever internally struck them. This is critical as for a coin to be a "Specimen", as how PCGS defines it is that a coin would have been a proof if it had been struck on the same planchet, with the same dies, just in a medal press.) There is no clarity as to why the mint in San Francisco would polish a pair of dies and a planchet, especially when they had to condemn eight dies because the mint couldn't harden them, let alone polish. Only this first planchet (hand turn of the flywheel), with the possible extra pressure, could be a specimen, as the rest of the coinage would be identical. This is unlikely. 

4. 8 reverse and 3 obverse dies were condemned on April 20th, Dodge later mentions 7 pairs were condemned. 48,000 coins had been produced at this point, most with die cracks in the surfaces (VAMS).

5. Linderman requests five standard silver dollars on April 29th. (I have a great theory here that perhaps Roger can help me out with, see assertion #7).

6. Dodge complies, sends the five coins on April 30th, less than one day later. Is there time to polish a die in there? I doubt it.

7. Linderman responds, saying the coins are satisfactory in execution and finish. 

8. Normal coins would have sufficed.

9. Dodge had bigger things to worry about than ordering a die to be polished and a press taken up for a few hours to strike five specimens from an old die pair. He had huge quotas of dollars to produce and stopping a press for any amount of time for such a frivolous action would have been noticed. 

 

Assertions (Some False):

1. (Mine) No one on the San Francisco Mint staff was skilled enough to perform the difficult process of polishing a die to meet the standards needed for proofs. This can be seen in DMPL coins, the polish is rough and missing in spots. 

2. (Mine) The mint at Philadelphia would not have the time to polish a die for San Francisco because the engravers were practically losing their minds just trying to produce dies they could use. Seriously. The first batch of dies was a bust, and they had to redesign the master die. (7/8TF and 7TF dies)

3. 3 or 4 additional specimens (false)

4. The coins could have only been from two die pairs, VAM-58 and 60. (False)

5. All five of the coins shipped to Philadelphia must have been specimens. (false) 

6. Dodge wanted to impress Linderman, so he sent specimens. (can't be proven false or true)

7. (Mine) Linderman wanted the five coins from the second package of dies sent to San Francisco (sent April 17th) (7TF) to see how they did compared to the failed 7/8TF dies. 

8. The mention of finish could be interpreted either way, it could mean that the coins were looking good for commerce, or that they were a special finish,. I think Linderman would have been rather concerned if the coins showed up looking like proofs, and he would have asked why San Francisco was wasting their time polishing dies.

 

Falsehoods: marked above

 

My conclusions:

1. From my own research, only using the mint ledger is a huge mistake. You need the general correspondence files. That's where the good stuff is, and that why the condemning of 8 reverse dies was missed. This alone blows up the whole thing. 

2. The coin has some interesting characteristics. It's better than any DMPL I've seen, and it could just be a fluke to create that. I need to look, and if there's another or few more similar, I'd suggest that a die was severely polished to try and remove cracks and keep it in the press as more dies failed. They had to mint tens of thousands of these coins each day (2.2 Million per month across all mints). The extra pressure could be attributed to inexperience in the amount of pressure needed to strike the new coins. This makes a little more sense.

Mine is a really deep obverse die that almost looks like a proof at first glance. Reverse is just short of prooflike. Don't know if the variety can be idebtified but it's a cool coin.

On 4/17/2021 at 6:49 PM, Buffalo Head said:

Incredible coin, Unbelievable luster and color. My compliments just what is it ?

IMO the '84 and the '98 could have eye appeal improved (if they will conserve). But you could lose a grade if a couple hairlines are revealed when the haze is removed.

I strongly recommend (to anyone who plays at auction for coins) that you read this entire thread. There's information there that I did not know after bidding for 6 or 7 years now. I was aware of Heritage history though which was enough to steer me away years ago.

On 5/28/2022 at 8:02 PM, RWB said:

You can buy the book and get much more minutiae and little extra cost -- plus a full CD of nano-minutiae right down to the molecules in a gnat's eyelash.

 

OK--ok--the gnat part is a bit of hyperbole.

If you would have acted a few years ago you could have had one signed by Roger 

On 5/19/2022 at 5:57 PM, VKurtB said:

I try for logical consistency. I see the 1937-D 3 leg the same way you do. It’s an over polished die, period. Why should it be seen as special because of where the polish job was? 

Not only is a 3 Legger a poor quality Buffalo it is also not rare and maybe not even scarce. Many dealers have several. You could probably buy 10 examples if you could afford them.

It"s a superb '48-S looks semi prooflike great coin they just don't make them anymore. 

On 5/7/2022 at 6:08 PM, FlyingAl said:

This is very true. An example of such a coin can be seen below. It's a PR65, an average coin based on 1942 grades. I paid a pittance of $90 for it, and it shows better details than many 1942 proof quarters. This can be seen based on the eagle's tail fathers, full detail on all lettering, and some contrast being seen throughout. (Please note that contrast does not necessarily mean good detail, unless it is shown on the low points of the relief throughout the design.

In contrast, this PR67+ below shows much weaker detail on the eagle's tail feathers, wings, and lettering. It would cost me around $700 today. 

This all goes to show that a lot of the best detailed and attractive coins aren't PF67s, 68s, or 69s. They are often 64s, 65s, and 66s. I have a stunning 1942 Lincoln cent in 64CAM. I would take that any day over a severely over polished 68RD example because it shows what proofs should - full details and what the designer wanted the finished coins to look like. It's a shame that many of the collectors of this era compromise on detail for higher grades. The detail that proofs should show and the reason proofs are struck is therefore lost on many of the top sets, and those with lower grade truly stunning examples go unnoticed. 

Thats a nice '42, the Pf 65 coin I mean. Of course no Cameo quarters have been identified but here's one I bought as a duplicate and would call it Ultra Deep but no contrast. 

Its for real too. ANACS Pf 67 with no obvious hairlines but couple curious marks that probably would only merit a Pf 65 grade. I think the coin is rare this nice, any comments ?

On 5/6/2022 at 2:48 PM, FlyingAl said:

The 1937 has slightly more detail, though not much. This coin is support for possibility number one in my post and aligns with relief reduction.

The best coins of this series have a combination of the following:

1. Full detail

2. Color- not haze, but nice attractive original toning

3. Contrast

4. Deep mirrors

All of these can be found independent of numerical grade, and therefore a lot of lower grade coins can often be found with more eye appeal overall than some PF68s. The more coins there are in a grade level the more likely it is that some of these gems exist. This is why many CAM coins are lower in the grade scale when compared to non-CAMs.

I'm fond of this series as well and have avoided Pf 68 coins and because they are so few in numbers, they are often hazy and display luster rather than deep mirrors. Take a look at my Jefferson Nickel registry set if you wish. A couple Star coins are really attractive and show better than Pf 68 examples IMO. Last I looked it was rated 5th but the images are there.

Not here enough to know you were gone. Glad you're feeling better !