RWB

For those not aware of it, the Eric P. Newman Numismatic Educational Foundation sponsors the Newman Numismatic Portal housed at Washington University of St. Louis. NNP is a completely free repository for information relating to American numismatics (and some foreign). All the assets are digital and open to anyone. The Foundation supports digitization work at several sites, sponsors author projects, symposia, and encourages numismatic communication and research. (I don't know about the hot dogs -- not sure what they'll be like after emailing....)

Nice! How much are the hot dogs?

Notice the textures and detail in most of the foreign products -- especially the OP's items? The "hippy-bottom-us" is ready to jump off the silver round. Now, compare to the stuff on US commemoratives.

Did you get fired from there too....? Complain about it on Tweeter....

Turn them around -- then they won't be "reverse proofs."

#1 A normal coin. How it was handled a decade after production is the controversy. #1 No controversy. #3 No controversy. They were made, then destroyed, None are known to have survived. #4 A novodel made to fill a hole in a diplomatic gift box. Newman & Bressett took care of the controversy parts long ago. #5 Nothing controversial at all, unless you count stupidity (the add the Franklin half, too). #6 The chain came highly recommended and had a long background of understanding. The design and workmanship were crappy. Meh---maybe #7 Not a coin. Move on.... #8 Zerbe's ego on display along with the goddess Greed. (Does the quizmaster intend "Zerbe's 'proof' "? #9 Not an authorized US coin. Much like #5

You'll never find a "seedy" Grand Watermelon !

"Matte" is reserved solely for Lincoln and Buffalo early proofs. No more confusion not more ambiguity, etc.

These are correct and appropriately descriptive. The others are bovine excrement left over from Wally being... "out, standing in a field."

The following false comment was posted ATS by a well known numismatist. Obviously mistakes happen, but these are simply perpetuation of falsehood. "The Mint responded by altering the proofing process in 1909 and 1910. The coins were struck on specially selected blanks and struck multiple times, but the sandblasting was no longer done. These pieces were struck on a medal press, multiple times, with special dies, and on special planchets. However, their appearance was still confusing to many collectors to that of a fully detailed business strike. The finish used on these coins has gone by several names over the years. These have been variously referred to over the years as brilliant matte proofs, Satin proofs, bright proofs, new style proofs, and yellow proofs. But the name that has stuck has been the enigmatic "Roman Gold" proof. This term has been in use since the early 1940s, but no one seems to know the source of the term. According to Walter Breen (1977), the surfaces of such coins are "light in color, midway between satiny and mirrorlike, entirely without the granularity of matte or sandblast." The first two highlighted comments are absolutely false. Satin proof gold of that era was struck once on a high pressure medal press. The ONLY difference between satin and sandblast, is the actual physical sandblasting of the coin at the Philadelphia Mint. The longer third comment is also false because the Breen BS of "Roman Gold" has been abandoned by modern collectors and dealers in favor of the accurately descriptive "satin proof." Breen's term was totally meaningless and invented becuase he did not do the research necessary to learn what was really done in 1909-10 and in other situations at later dates. There is no evidence one way or the other that blanks were "specially selected;" however, it is a reasonable idea when making a premium product for very picky collectors.

Note that this was after the normal clean-out done every year at Annual Settlement June 30. ($3,000 paid the annual wages of 3 workmen or 4 adjusters.)

Yes. Annually, it amounted to several thousand dollars, which was credited back to the M&R Dept. Here's the first page of 9 relating to this in 1879. There are others on the subject from earlier and later dates.

No. You would lose at least $29.95 on the transaction.

...that's why the vacuum cleaner was invented -- to get rid of "black lung."

Hence, the explanation offered before the question was asked.

The quantities produced match the Mint's 1939 list of proof coins.

Nope. That is what happened when the heat was too high. Vaporization was another problem that had to be controlled. Each had its set of proposed solutions (no pun intended) and many failures often due to the Mint's insular approach to technology.

Sets of steel letter stamps were mad for the US Mints by an outside contractor. This letter identifies the person doing the work in 1885. May 6, 1885 Calvin J. Coles, Esq., Assayer in Charge U.S. Assay Office Charlotte, N.C. Sir: In reply to your inquiry of April 30th ulto., I beg to say state that Mr. F. J. Rentlinger, No. 57 North 7th Street, Philadelphia, whose card I enclose, makes all the steel stamps for numbering and lettering bars for this Mint, the new Orleans Mint, and the Western Mints, and Assay Offices For sizes No. 1 to 6 inclusive, he charges fifty cents for each letter or figure. For Nos. 7 and 8, seventy-five cents each; and for No. 9, one dollar each. These are his regular prices, and his work is of the best. Very respectfully, A. Loudon Snowden, Superintendent

The female adjusters worked on the hottest days in rooms with almost no ventilation -- to protect the gold, not the workers. Imagine July in New Orleans.... Gold and silver evaporated during melting and were annually recovered from flues and chimneys -- even from the roof of an adjacent building.

March 17, 1885 Hon. H. C. Burchard, Director of the Mint Washington D.C. Sir: In compliance with the request contained in your letter of the 13th inst., I enclose herewith a statement, giving the number of Trade Dollars struck and sold at this Mint from 1878 to 1883 inclusive, with the profit thereon indicated. You will notice that in 1880 and 1881 there were more pieces sold than struck. This is accounted for by the facet that some of the dollars of the previous year were sold in the early part of the year, before the proofs for that year were prepared. In the other years, the number sold is less than the number struck. The dollars over were exchanged with the Coiner for those of the succeeding year. Prior to 1881 the Trade Dollars were sold in the silver and minor coin sets, and also separately. After that period I stopped the sale of the Trade Dollar separately, as I did not think it wise to encourage their issue, restricting them, as far as possible, to legitimate coin collectors who would purchase the entire set. In calculating the profits on the Trade Dollars sold in sets, I have given a relative proportion of the profits so derived. When I assumed the Superintendency of the Mint, I found the proof sets, including the Trade Dollars, were selling at $4.50. This seemed to me excessive. I therefore recommended a reduction to $4, which was approved by the Director of the Mint, and went into effect on the 15th of April 1879. Previous to that time, Trade Dollars – when separate – were sold at $1.50; after that period at $1.25. Trusting the statement and foregoing remarks may cover the information you desire. I remain, Very respectfully, Your obedient Servant A. Loudon Snowden, Superintendent * * * * * Statement Number of Trade Dollars struck and sold at the Mint of the U.S. at Philadelphia, from 1878 to 1883, inclusive. Year No. Struck No. Sold Profits 1878 900 689 $ 189.00 1879 1,541 1,488 388.95 1880 1,987 2,009 369.25 1881 960 990 148.50 1882 1,097 1,055 158.25 1883 979 1,019 152.85 Totals 7,464 $7,250 $1,406.80

Sadly, the situation is no better elsewhere. The mass hysteria passively called "social media" has concentrated lies and self-interest to a point where many people cannot separate lies and greed from simple truth. I certainly wish Oldhoopster well, and hope his medical issues will revert to something benign and manageable. RWB

Every bar was weighed. There are extensive lists of silver and gold bars among mint archives. Gold dust, nuggets, or scrap was weighed, melted, assayed and refined, then cast into bars in bulk. Zinc volatilization was one reason the US Mint contracted out production of cent blanks in 1943. Zinc dust was produced during cent striking and this not only clogged dies but irritated workers. Refinery workers were constantly subjected to acid vapor, chlorine gas and steam. There are occasional mentions of worker complaints and injuries. Furnace injuries seem to have been less common, possibly because the workers used tongs, had protective gloves and face shields, and the dangers of liquid metal were well known. (The cynical might suggest much of this was aimed at preventing metal loss rather than worker loss.) In the pre-1960 period very little attention was paid to worker safety - especially to passive sources. Adjusters, for example, complained of vision deterioration, repetitive stress was a problem in some jobs. Workers did not complain much - they needed the jobs - and if they died early or suffered from acid-burnt lungs, that was just part of life, and death.

VF.

Use a flashlight reflector.

LBMA does not recommend stamping the weight on bars. Each par is weighed on receipt and that is its official weight. This allows for transportation wear, damage, and weight discrepancies. During the gold coinage period, the only accepted weight was that taken by the Mint or Assay Office - not what was stamped on a bar.