RWB

The work would have been performed by the Medal Dept., who were the same ones who used a medal press to strike the coins. It is important to understand that there are several ordinary 1921 and 1922 low relief coins that were sandblasted outside of the mint in order to imitate a proof. To confuse things further, there seem to be several 1921 and 1922 HR coins that were both sandblasted and antiqued to more closely resemble medals. Some of these have appeared slabbed as proofs, but lack the necessary clarity of detail.

I have the same reaction when a restaurant tries to make customers use stupid QR codes, then want the diner to scroll through 20 pages of victuals. No menu. No customer.

Matte refers ONLY to early Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels. The other two are correct. Referring to the 1921/1922 sandblast proof dollars as "matte" was a pile of horse droppings that someone (Breen ?) started just after WW-II. I blame Breen because he was prone to invent things when he didn't bother to do the research to learn the truth. From the first coin-use of sandblasting in 1908, the coins were always called "sandblast" or "sand blasted" which was also the Medal Dept.'s normal means of finishing most medals. (The work was done in the same department bu the same people.) About 20 years ago Dave Bowers and I began reverting to the original descriptive names for such pieces. "Matte" returned to "sandblast;" "Roman proof" returned to "satin." I was the one who did the research and discovered what was actually done. Kevin Flynn added more about sandblasting from a document he located. Since then, usage has slowly moved back to the original description approach for these and several other terms that have been misused for a long time. I also recommended reserving "matte" for the Lincoln and Buffalo proofs because that was a suitable descriptive term, and there could no longer be confusion about what "matte" meant. I have no clue about what the US Mint means with their surface descriptions. They refuse to fully explain and are not consistent -- hence I ignore them.

OK. Simple answer w/o footnotes. Dies received late April 16. First coins struck afternoon of April 17. Ten (approx) for distribution, then rest run a power until reverse die broke just short of 1,000 pieces. Only coins from this die pair, called VAM-60, were made the first day. No other coins share this reverse. The so-called "Specimen" is merely an early strike off a new die pair. It has not connection to the first coins struck at SF. There is no documentation about it being specially made, or any other unique circumstances. Therefore, it earns no special designation, and no special label. Further the word "Specimen" is undefined and has no meaning.

Word processors are all capable of producing indices on various levels -- something like a nested list. However, that means tagging every word that is to go into the index with its level. The WP files become larger, unwieldy and prone to crashing -- a lot. A simple searchable PDF file eliminates all the mess. Yes. That is the core problem. A printed index stays with the book, but every page is expensive in today's print market and every added page makes the book heavier. A digital index sold with/included is small, costs about $1 and is available to the book owner as needed -- but format changes can make even the best digital version obsolete within a year or two. A separate on-line index imposes maintenance and hosting expenses that cannot be recovered at the book sale. I'm trying to keep this simple, convenient, and inexpensive for buyers and myself.

Is it proportional in mass to Mercury?

Keep it in the original container. I presume other planetary ephemera are in the kitsch series.

No one can help without some good photos.

...but is the weight correct? The ad doesn't mention weight.

Yes, RG104 Entry 1 Box 002 Warrants 1792–1817 located at NARA Philadelphia.

Just for grins, here's a sample of what the original images looked like. Also, the photographer had the camera so far from the pages that they only filled about 1/4 of the frame -- thus wasting 3/4 of available resolution and producing fuzzy, grainy/pixely photos with poor resolution. The lighter vertical strip at center is white cloth binding tape -- about 235 on the 255 brightness scale.

Think of them as a long-term investment in personal enjoyment, history, finance and numismatics. If you'd spent the money on a snow blower, it'd be useless most of the time.

The US Mint was the authoritative place for assaying. Many people sent ore samples for assay. Most were just mica, pyrite, or plain old dirt. The original ink color was black. The sepia or reddish color in the photo is an artifact of very poor color photography. The original images were underexposed and made under low-wattage tungsten lights, but with the camera set on "daylight" color balance. This produced dark orange images. To correct the paper color to something closer to normal, I had to let the ink color slide to whatever part of the spectrum it happened to land in. It is possible to isolate the color range of the ink and shift that back to black, but the amount of work necessary is not worth the result. The amount of correct necessary for the above quality of appearance and readability is not trivial, so I have to decide if the content is worth the extra work. Much also depends on the condition of the original photo, but this is all we have for several decades.

That works well for some books. But is not a lot of help for something like FMTM or Ulysses.

Here's the original letter.

This little letter seems to be among the earliest describing gold in North Carolina. Anyone know of earlier correspondence with the Mint or Treasury Dept.? Cabarrus Court House N.C. November 23, 1803 Director of Public Mint Honored Sir, Enclosed you find a simple of metal of which we find considerable quantity. I will thank you to try it, and inform me as soon as possible what you will give in coined gold per ounce; or what you have for coining. We sent you a small piece some time ago and your answer which said it was worth 18-1/2 $ per ounce, whether you will give that or not you did not say. Since the reception of your letter there was one piece found which weight 28 lb. There are found from 20 dwt to 130 [dwt] per day. Please state in your answer whether you would detain [see note – Ed.] a person who might take to Washington 30 or 50 lbs of it any time; or change Eagles directly for it. I am respectfully, Your humble servant Richard Brandon Navy agent [Ed. – “Detain” is used in the sense of “delay” such as until the gold was coined, or if it could be immediately exchanged for Eagles.] (RG104 E-1 Box 004)

Just mentioning what I think the book should have. A ToC would be useful; and index less so.

The Saint-Gaudens DE book needs a table of contents, but an index would only help with obscure references as you note. Other books, especially when they get complicated or cover multiple subjects, should have a good index. The best index is a fully-searchable text. I want to get as close to that ideal as possible, but without generating continual expenses.

Don't be overly sure....

Babe Ruth's called HR costs nothing. "Just part of the mythology costs $$$$ and falsifies history."

The difficulty is that a digital site must be maintained which creates continual expenses that cannot be recovered from selling the books.

One of the better commemoratives. Apply for a tax refund.

Messy coin.

Modern counterfeiters copy anything on which they can make a profit. Low value authentic coins get little scrutiny and are much more likely to be copied, sold, resold, and when the music stops, some poor schmoe is stuck with a piece of cheap steel. Coin collectors are, by nature, suspect of attempts to capture their personal information. After all, coins are money, and thieves don't usually care if the nickel they steal is date 1912 or 1913. A 1927-D double eagle is just gold to melt....

Is either pair accurate?