RWB

Thousands of older people habitually tossed these aside when issued and whenever encountered in circulation. Those Bi-Cen Quarter Jars are now being tossed back into circulation by heirs. An Aunt had 5 one-gallon glass jars of these.

Sublime, isn't it !

Yep. The relief was intentionally very low, and quite typical of John Sinnock's work. He clearly did not have the skill of making low relief look higher that George Morgan possessed.

But...but ...they all have a "CAC" approval on them -- so they must be valuable. I understand from a local historian that when the Negro Leagues played games in the old Griffith Stadium in Washington DC, the toilets were locked. When the American League teams played, the toilets were unlocked. [Well....it seemed appropriate given the "privy mark" comments.]

The highest relief portions require the greatest movement of metal. Tail feathers at low relief. Now, think it through again....;)

As I've said to the point of distraction: Without fixed standards, the concept of "grading" coins is specious. Five competent people are more likely to scatter grades than agree. Opinion plays too great a role for there to be statistical reliability or repeatability. I now return you to the confusion.

Still --- a very nice 1923-D

Very nice example and nearly full detail - missing a bit on the L-hand and central wing. AWW monogram is clear and sharp.

William Woodin "negotiated" a deal with mint director Andrew to return to sandblast proof gold in 1911. (He begged for some dated 1910, but Andrew refused.) ANA members voted for this change during the 1910 convention. Gold proof collectors did not like the sandblast proofs of 1908, but they liked the satin proofs of 1909-10 even more. This was also the time period when Woodin and Andrew negotiated the transfer of thousands of pattern pieces to Woodin in exchange for returning the 2 $50 half union patterns that A.L.Snowden had bought in 1877 to prevent their being melted at director Linderman's orders. The last date for sandblast proofs was 1915. No proof gold coins were made thereafter until the modern NCLT imitations.

Without the "W" it would be a $5,000 to $6,000 coin. With the defacement, possibly $2,500 at the most. (This is one of those unusual situations where professional smoothing of the field and re-authentication might be desirable. It depends on the cost of high quality surface work compared to any increase in potential value. The authentication company would give it a details grade with a "repaired" notation, and you, as seller would be expected to fully inform any buyer of the repair including photos.)

Thank You!

The DE book, much like some of my others, uses a more expansive approach the date/mint materials that is common. Nice that the "side bars" are appreciated.

I merely attempted to make what was already known clear and concise within the context of DE and related coins. This is one of several subjects where the US Mint could provide comprehensive and accurate information, but fails to to so.

I think Mark is one the right track. However, several places assign provenance to John Sinnock's possessions, but cite no sources. There were several coin collectors among US Mint officers. The one with the most inclusive collection of internal experimental and sandblast proof pieces was Frederick H. Chaffin. He died in June 1936. His coins, which were kept in his personal locker at the Philadelphia Mint, were sold to a coin dealer in NYC. Among the coins were proof peace dollars, sandblast commemorative halves and possibly other pieces made for internal US Mint use. (See Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921 for further information.)

Every die has its own deformation micro-structure. This derives from the original alloy, uniformity of elements, and especially the details of hardening and tempering applied to dies. Luster is also affected by the surface character and hardness of planchets -- This is why some pieces from the same year have very attractive luster and others seem subdued. Lastly, dipping and cleaning alters the original coin surface by adding minute irregularities which dull reflections. Sandblast proof coins are especially degraded by dipping because the grit left an array of chipped and angular facets on the coin, and these are visually altered more readily than normal luster. An extreme version of luster is called "starburst." The only differences are of scale. [PS: The previous post has a funny typo in the 4th paragraph. The word "typo" should be "type."]

Used for squeezing money out of insufficiently_thoughtful_persons.

The truncation of a portrait bust is a common area of excess metal stress during coinage. Lots of examples. Too insignificant to be of much interest. Sorry.

It's unique to every die, so there are hundreds of thousands of them. Occasionally useful for die matching, but not much other than amusement.

Not entirely. The primary reason was because SF had different presses and needed dies cut to different lengths than Philadelphia. Some of this involved Carson until they acquired a new Ajax press which was identical to one at Philadelphia. New Orleans also wanted dies cut to a different length, but Philadelphia told them to cut hardened dies. (NO was not fully trusted when it cam back on-line after 1877. A reason commonly given to Congress was security -- hardening and tempering coinage dies was very exacting work and not undertaken by just anyone. Thus, stolen soft dies were less of a threat to the coinage. Barber pushed for having all dies the same length in the 1890s and this was eventually followed in about 1897 (don't have an exact date, but by the only SF was left hardening their own.) By policy and practice all coinage experiments were made at Philadelphia until Denver got permission to open their own die shop.

RE: "Does the apparent destruction of records in the 1979-80 range make the coins “cease to exist”, as “Burdettian” thought processes require? Or do the coins truly “stand on their own” or “speak for themselves” as 1964 special coins are not allowed to? Sorry, but I just have to tweak noses over the fixation on documents." Numismatics without documentary research is like practicing law without written laws. Of course that fits the ignorance of an alleged lawyer some vigilante, seat-of-the-pants justice place. The coins are as they appear, but they cannot "stand on their own" because what we "think we see" is only part of the story, and easily subject to honest (or biased) misinterpretation. Research is investigation - as necessary in numismatics as in any other field of interest - it is part of the search for truth and reality. Personally, I have hope that more information about the 1927 experiments remains in Mint archives. There are more than 100 volumes of correspondence covering the period of interest that have never been opened. There might also be an internal report on the subject, tucked away in an as-yet unexamined file box. We don't know, but we have the means to find out, rather than brush the subject off as, "Well, they speak for themselves," bologna. (Coins do not "speak for themselves." They speak for our biases and presumptions built on individual and collective ignorance. Here's an example from an active thread: "This one then edge looks like a die bleed or something on the edge amd the 4 looks double the word TRUST looks like flat smooshed letters." To the writer of that sentence, the coin is "speaking for itself." Add a bit more numismatic terminology and you have "1964 SMS coins." )

National Bureau of Standards (NIST) is a secure and trusted government location and the only non-commercial place with scientific expertise sufficient to do the plating and understand the results. We can guess that the chromium microfractures mentioned in latter documents were noticed in 1927, but without the internal correspondence (and possibly a report) we can't know. From the latter 1930s and into 1943 (cent dies) chromium plating began production use on foreign dies, some proof dies (along with different alloy steel), and in 1943 of a substantial proportion of cent dies. (Chromium plated dies were less likely to clog with zinc dust.)

There would have been a few for review by mint officers and those connected with the plating equipment. It was 7 or 8 years later that the surface crazing was understood, but most of the plating was done at the Bureau of Standards (now NIST).

Not too long after zinc coated steel cents were introduced, the Mint began looking for ways to darken them before issue. The bright zinc coating caused confusion with dimes, although from this far in the future it seems difficult to believe. (Yes, it is documented. Even the President complained.)

People who have a lot of money, are not necessarily wealthy, at least in the full sense of the word. The people with a lot of money own things for personal validation, and to show others they are somehow "better" or superior based on one small category of humanity. Money is used to separate and divide, rather than improve unify; it becomes a surrogate for emotional greed and moral bankruptcy. A billionaire's coin "collection" might be worth a lot of money, but its value is not measurable by that means. (Look at the homes of Supreme Court justices - modest places in comfortable but not ostentatious communities. Those are rich men and women whose wealth is not measured by the number of helicopters that can land on their yacht's deck.) The billionaire owner of the Washington Football team (once the Redskins now the Commanders) is one of the most impoverished people in the region. He is poor in every measure of human culture and society except money. When he dies, even that tiny distinction will vanish. I really don't place any value at all on what a billionaire might collect: it is all for the wrong reasons.

I noticed the tangled thread on the PCGS board concerning these coins. 1) the description of 1927 nickels provided in the link is hopelessly garbled and filled with guesses and false assumptions. 2) there are no 1921 proof double eagles, and no "semi-proof" or other foolishness. They lack any authentic proof characteristics - George Morgan knew how to make authentic DE proofs on a medal press, either sandblasted or satin.