RWB

Joe, that's good information for others to know -- taking really good coin photos -- ones like yours -- is not as easy as some like to pretend. Plastic slabs make the whole thing more difficult not only because of the first and second reflections from the plastic, and plastic deformation, but from the inconsistent angle at which coins are inserted. My post was not intended to be negatively critical -- just an informational opinion. I would not hesitate to have you photograph my coin collection -- if I had one.

Mitchelson donated his entire collection to the Connecticut State Library with the stipulation that current coins were to be added for each year as they were issued. For many years after Mitchelson's death, the State librarian, Godard, worked directly with the Mint Cabinet Curator, T. Louis Comparette, to provide new coins. Most of these were fresh off new dies and are possibly the finest pieces in existence --- never cleaned or "improved." I've examined parts of the collection and it forms some of the information basis for my objections to undocumented titling of nice circulation coins as "Specimen" or similar false language. When Comparette died in 1922, and with transfer of the Mint's Cabinet to SI, the flow of new coins quickly diminished. SI continued to buy annual coins from the Mint, but they were no longer the highest quality, with some exceptions.

In this letter, noted collector Joseph Mitchelson (now the Connecticut State Coin Collection) was told to send $20 - face value - for one of the patterns, and Director Leach would try to get a coin for him. December 30, 1907 From: Leach To: Joseph Mitchelson Your letters of the 20th and 25th at hand. Send me $20 and return postage and Registration fee and I will try to secure one of the $20 for you. Mr. Kunz has already applied for trial piece of the first designs for his Society, I do not think there are any left of the first model. If you will send another $20 for your Society I will also endeavor to secure a coin for it as well…

From the BBC. The Royal Mint is busy: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-60796417

Excellent points, Coinbuf. However much we happen to enjoy this hobby, it is tiny, has a tiny market segment, and correspondingly minuscule ability to absorb new material. A handful of coins from certain date/mint combinations would crash the "value" of "rarities."

We have no reliable information about the quantity of proof quarters (1936-42) that have not been evaluated for cameo contrast. We also do not have an empirical standard for the term, although this seems to be better understood than the PL language.

That's all that is important.

Not being in the coin business opens interesting information channels -- including collections that dealers have never heard of, and family holdings. I've been allowed to examine some fantastic pieces untouched by slabbers and grabbers.

I heard from an unreliable source that the active dealers block off the restrooms and negotiate from stall to stall transactions. It also give them a convenient place to scrub, dip and launder coins. The source was sitting at the same dinner table and was absolutely unpeckable.

PS: The cent was color balanced by assuming the white tabs were neutral; and that the brightest highlights on the nickel were also neutral by overexposure. Contrast was adjusted to open the midtones and bring out details.

The quality of coin photos really depends on how close they come to accurately depicting the coin. I like the sharpness and overall image quality. To me, there are difficulties with tonal range and possibly color balance....But consistency with the original outweighs any individual opinion.

"Two eyes, four eyes, six eyes, a spider. All for arachnids sit down beside 'r." (From the "Little Miss Muffet" cheerleading handbook..)

Ooooh... A cosmic ray whacked the die

You'll have to ask Stacks. My source was a MTB employee who was involved. I think he's dead now.

I don't use NNP much. I gave them some of the material, so I've had it for years before NNP. I concentrate on new, undiscovered materials -- and those will eventually become part of the NNP database. (Presuming they fix the AWFUL search engine.)

Yes. Stacks had nothing and claimed to know nothing. MTB said they were the "originator" (or some such term). Just another example of the hearsay and original anecdotal sources dying off without writing down what happened and why. With the routine business documents lost in Hurricane Sandy, we have almost nothing except questionable pubic claims and sales bologna.

It usually comes down to searching for specific coins that are mentioned in archival literature, or learning in advance that a dealer or collector will have a specific piece at a show. Those are very unusual, and the amount of time available to devote to that is limited. Another way to look at it is this: an ordinary day examining US Mint documents will yield more useful information than any but the most extraordinary day at the largest coin show. That is the situation when searching for the unknown rather than looking for the "known."

He discusses EHR/UHR patterns with what was known at the time.

For research purposes those are still "ordinary and generic."

The coins...? You go for the coins...? I rarely go just because the coins are about all there is. Original research is about investigating sources, correlating information, analyzing data -- the coin is only a piece of this puzzle, and almost everything at a coin show is ordinary and generic, regardless of "rarity" or cost.

...."Naked and Afraid?" OR merely "Unclothed and Paranoid?"

It is missing the $10 and Pratt patterns. I discovered the $10 while working in the Smithsonian collection. John Mercanti found the $5 SG hubs in the Philadelphia Mint. Both discoveries were preceded by my location of documentation describing them. In these instances, the search for relevant contemporary written material allowed the prompt location of physical artifacts.

I think married ones might be available, but check with the local priest or televangelist pickpocket,,,the rules vary.

Nope....

Excerpt Dec. 3 1954 On several occasions recently misstruck coins have been referred to this office or to field offices by persons who have obtained them in various ways. For the guidance of the field offices in handling these matters, I wish to state that pieces which have been misstruck, that is, coins struck on the wrong blanks or on blanks that are too large or too small to meet the standards, are subject to recovery by the Government as property of the United States, title to which has never left the Government, and when submitted to us, cannot be returned. These are not coins authorized by the Congress and no coins other than those are specifically so authorized may be lawfully issued. W. H. Brett, Director