RWB

A bargain!

Auctions are for selling. Long ago auction companies graded and examined coins before listing them. Today, a glance at a slab label is about it. The rest is a seller's job of building a story and enticing potential buyers.

Time does not care how it is reckoned....

The coins are strange. I don't know if each is unique, never having examined the 2nd one.

RE: This statement, "... Saint experts like John Albanese were also very definitive in saying if you didn't see the date you'd swear it was a 1909 Proof," falls apart in and over itself. I compared coin detail, striking characteristics, edge and the remaining physical features of one of the 1921s to original 1909, 1910 and 1911 proof DE. I also compared the 1921 to other circulation 1921 DE. The 1921 subject coin had far less detail than any of the proofs, plus lacked the edge, rim and other characteristics common to satin proofs DE. The 1911 comparison demonstrated nothing because of sandblasting. 1921-to-1921 comparison showed detail similar to ordinary circulation pieces; however, the surfaces were abnormal with the appearance of light overall polish. Conclusion: strange looking surfaces, not made on a medal press, nor from satin proof dies, coin not altered. There are other things discovered, but they must remain unspoken. Interestingly, no one bothered to contact me about the one coin. Owners of the other coin refused to allow independent examination. Read the DE book. That's the last I have to say on the matter.

I've examined one of the two 1921 DE in question. My opinion is in complete disagreement with the "proof" or "specimen" labels. That is fairy tale-driven absurdity.

The correct grade of the coin is entirely separate from any tarnish. Their causes are unrelated and they should not be conflated into a meaningless mess. Using only the photo above, the coin is MS-65 or possibly 66 due to the prominent damage to GW's nose, bump on his cheek and field scratches. Toning, which I happen to like in this case, is a market/individual valuation factor. The $20,000 reserve sounds like etsy or some other slime pit.

At that "level" photos are not a lot of help unless of high resolution and multiple lighting angles.

There were other simple historical and factual errors in the competitive exhibits. This is something I expect the exhibit judges to include in their notes to exhibitors. To me, accuracy (educational aspect) is a critical factor. Decorated pigs don't get awards, except at the county fair. Maybe the resident exhibit judge, festooned with ribbons and key to the executive washroom, can speak to the imporance of historical accuracy.

Charmy Harker's ANA photo report is interesting and a good "read" ("look" ?) for those who have never attended a large show. There were also many educational presentations not shown, but one person (and her cat) can't do everything! It was disappointing, however, to see so many factual mistakes on the competitive exhibits. With so many modern resources for accurate numismatic information, There has to be real concern when exhibitors continue to use ancient copy-cat material, or than anyone would claim there were "1921 special proof" coins.

If you predecease your wife, she will need help in preparing the Estate. So your task might be to identify a good local law firm to help her, make accurate lists of your assets (all types, not merely coins) with values. Generally, everything will transfer to her unless you stipulate otherwise in your Will. The attorney can help her get a contemporary appraisal of numismatic assets.

Yes, that's the example I was thinking of. There are others with almost identical requests. It was impossible to provide small change for the citizenry if parts were not publicly distributed.

VF, although the rim/edge gouge might kill it.

Communities, and the banks within them, needed small change: cents, half dimes and dimes. Many bank requests are for that combination of coins. The basic problem was that the Mint did not coin silver for its own account as it did cents so it officially had no small silver coins to distribute if they legally could. However, Moore and Patterson made occasional exceptions for distant rural banks and the feisty Postmasters who carried considerable influence. In an instance I recall, a Bank in rural Ohio got abut $50 in cents and the same amount in half dimes and dimes - everything was packed into one keg and shipped at Treasury expense (which was only for copper coins). The director made sure to insure the keg for only the cent value, telling the Bank Cashier that the rest was at his risk.

I put "Rogaine" on all the slabs so they would have a nice head of heir. But now I can't read some of the labels -- and red heir'd ones are always arguing about their grades. Geeezzz.

"coins" are not a logical collection. It is almost entirely emotional and historical connection. Investors (who are not really collectors) are financially "logical" about the subject, and feel no more remorse about selling than they would selling a building.

Keep them to remind you and your family of an interesting time a fascinating personal story.

It's a minor rotated die, as Mr. Bill mentioned. The awful scratched render the almost worthless to a collector. There are no errors visible.

From mid-1795 copper coins were issued by the mint treasurer to the Treasurer of the US. From 1800 forward, the Purveyor of Public Supplies did this from his office in Philadelphia. He sold them to banks with the government paying transportation, insurance, packing, etc. by water plus 1% to the Treasury Agent. This continued to 1812 when the position was abolished. Treasury stopped most distribution beginning in Nov. 1811. The Agent approach was revives in 1816 but with the Mint Treasurer doing this and collecting a separate 1% commission. A New York City shipping agent was engaged in 1821 with several companies doing this. When Crocker Bros. won the Mint planchet contract in December 1837, they also forwarded kegs of coins in addition to those sent by the Mint Treasurer, NY forwarding Agent, and the Bank of the United States.

There appear to be too many mistakes for some of what you've posted to come from primary sources. If you want help, send me a PM and we can take a look at what you have and where it came from. (A "coin" is an historical artifact embodying results of processes and materials; not strictly a primary source.)

Don Taxay's call slips occasionally pop up as do those of Dorothy Pascal. Several defacements of letters/reports seem to match Breen's handwriting, but there are other that do not. It is almost impossible to separate contemporary clerks' notes from 20th century scribbles.

Breen guessed and invented and lied to satisfy the people paying him, such as Ford, FCI and others. NARA records and graffiti in his handwriting indicate that he did little original US document research. Breen's writings show limited understanding of US Mint coinage processes and equipment, and almost nothing except "looks-like" guesses in most cases. The mixture of dishonesty with some otherwise accurate information limits the value of everything he wrote from the J J Ford indenture until he died. ["Looks-like" guesses = "Well it looks like a proof/specimen/prototype to me, so it must be a proof/specimen/prototype." That an item resembles something does not mean it IS the thing."

1) Wrong. The report shows coins delivered to the Treasurer from the Chief Coiner during 1831, but does not ensure they were all produced that same year. 2) Silver and gold coins were issued from the treasurer to depositors as soon as ready. Accounts were recorded daily and reported monthly or quarterly depending on what the Treasurer U S wanted. However, copper coins were delivered to the Mint Treasurer several times a week, but only issued to the Treasurer U S Agent in Philadelphia. The Agent shipped them out to banks based on pre-paid orders. Again, date on the coin/year of manufacture was not important. The Treasury Agent during this time was also the Mint Treasurer and was paid a 1% commission on all copper coins he distributed. This was reported quarterly to the Treasurer US. The sequence of custody of copper coins for this period was: Boulton and/or Crocker to Mint Treasurer to Chief Coiner to Mint Treasurer to Treasury Dept Agent to buyer. Copper account books were kept by weight. 2,200 half cents weighed 26.4 lb Avd (385 oz T). Accounts are not always clear about which weight system was being used. Copper, not being a precious metal, was shipped to the Mint by the long ton of 2,200 lbs. PS: The first (and possibly only) request for half cents after 1831 was May 11, 1832 (reply May 16) for $2,000 to a customer in NYC. Some questions to think about --- What are your information sources? Can you divide them into documented facts, documented assumptions, hearsay, speculation, fabrication? How much of each do you have in your draft? Is your article a summary of what is presently known/assumed, or does it present new information? What do you understand these terms to mean: issued, delivered, distributed?

The Guide Book of Peace Dollars will help you learn the differences between proof and circulation strike coins, as well as sandblast and satin proofs.

One of the sections that is consistently correct, too! The "1917 proof nickel authentication" is entirely bogus.