RWB

And just more BS non-thinking, there. "The numismatic community at large" is so imbued with sloppy thinking, "looks-like" guesses, and false assumptions, ignorance and lies from long ago, that only a little of the "received wisdom" is actually useful. As a small example, compare the knowledge about our 1905-1921 coins and design from before the Renaissance of American Coinage series and after. One can also examine every other publication to see that the material is fact-based and documented, not isolated guesses. A "true proof" is one that meets the identical physical and appearance standards of proofs or Master coins made by the Philadelphia Mint in the 19th century. A proof must, therefore, be produced on the same type of equipment. No branch mint ever had a large screw press. Philadelphia had one used for medals and proof coins. There are letters mentioning shipment of sample coins to New Orleans in 1838 and 1839 as denominations were brought on-line there. The same procedure was followed with new seated Liberty designs. Multiple Trade dollar samples and dies went back and forth between SF, CC and Philadelphia because of persistent striking problems. (These were clearly ordinary mintmarked dies struck at Philadelphia by the Engraver as he tried to solve problems.) The last documented instance was in 1908 when sample DE were sent to Denver and San Francisco accompanied by engineering drawings for adapting their toggle presses to the new edge collars. Zadok is correct to state that little of the branch mint proof material has been published. I am only one person and must set priorities; so-called branch mint proofs are a trivial item that wil have to wait. [FYI Bob Julian and I are the only numismatic researchers with extensive hands-on work with original US Mint documents and volumes.]

As described in prior threads, it is not difficult to make PL determination a consistent, repeatable process, free of subjective bias.... But does any TPG want to do that?

The practice of sending sample coins to branch mints is documented from the late 1830s forward. Their purpose was to give the branches "best quality" samples made from their own dies so the branches had examples for comparison. Further, only Philadelphia had a medal press capable of making true proof coins. The speculation is about any real proof coin being made at a branch mint and that has never been demonstrated.

A planchet did not have to go to Denver to get a "D" mintmark. All the dies at that time were made in Philadelphia and the aluminum piece were likely struck there. Reasonable internal communications would have permitted samples to be sent west for review and opinion. A similar approach applies to so-called "branch mint proofs."

Auction companies usually did the authentication and grading as printed in the catalogs - but, buyers knew which auctioneers were honest and which ones overgraded, so they "bought the coin not the grade." Now everyone is so completely dependent on the 2 or 3 major "grading" companies, that coins just get stuffed in with loose descriptions. The smart buyers will cherry pick.

The main proposal is done, but I have more reviewing and cross-checking to do. It uses space-proven equipment and technology, and could be in operation within 18 months. "Terrestrial radio telescopes can fill much of the long wavelength electromagnetic spectrum. Yet at wavelengths greater than ten meters our present view from earth or space fades to dark. We know the photons are there for the “seeing,” but our safe atmosphere blocks long wavelengths from the surface, and our space exploration skills remain too modestly utilized for meaningful observation. "To open the ultra-long wavelength radio spectrum for observation, we need a radio telescope capable of operating in the ten to fifty meter range. With our present capabilities, the most reasonable and efficient option is to place a radio telescope on the far side of the moon. Our moon has no atmosphere to prevent long wavelengths from reaching its surface. Additionally, the moon’s far side faces away from earth during its orbit, thereby blocking radio noise from natural and human activities on earth, and solar radiation during the lunar night. As author Casey Dreier noted, a goal of the decadal survey is to open “new windows on the dynamic universe…and the full electromagnetic spectrum.” This proposal is consistent with that goal."

Thanks!

From Dan Owens, San Francisco area: Telegram Philadelphia May 14, 1870 To OH LaGrange Supt. U.S. Br. Mint Do not issue but recoin the pieces Will send dies Jas Pollock Director U.S. Mint

Lagrange clearly says one and 3 dollar dies, but does not state the quantity of each. Here's the telegram image. Searching for additional documents.

The Western Union Telegraph Company San Francisco, California May 13, 1870 Hon. James Pollock, Director of Mint Letter “S” omitted on one dollar and three dollar dies sent to this branch. For this year two thousand pieces coined, can they be issued? O. H. Lagrange Superintendent

From the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60426555 Maybe that includes counterfeit coins and medals....? Do they have a manufacturing branch in Colorado?

Did you get the cat slabbed? I see it's all ready.... Did PCGS pay for all the promotional photos?

Everyone gets to vote !

There is no truth to the rumor that ANA staff (what's left of them) have been out shoveling neighborhood driveways to earn cash to pay ANA's bills. PS: Colorado Springs is a great town - but a terrible location for a small national organization HQ. Isolated, and the only "draw" is the small museum that even the Colorado crickets seem to skip.

I think Macy's still has sheets and comforters on sale. They should be easy to spread.

I have never tried making a phone call on an old coin board, but will try at the next opportunity.

This is similar to the US Mint's August 1916 "Mercury" dime production where samples were sent to slot machine (telephones, vending machines, etc.) companies. Results were so bad due to thickness variations that the whole production was melted and changes made to the design. A few pieces were not returned, and these are now considered patterns and very highly prized. (The full story is in my book Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921.)

There were a handful of gold collectors in the 1930s. The only info they had were previous year's coinage figures -- the Executive administrations prior to FDR provided no other information except the coins offered through the Treasurer of the US to collectors. What we know today was all internal Treasury and Mint material - never made public.

"Most people" knew nothing of the kind and did not care. Read the essays at the beginning of each section --- they were prepared to answer this kind of modern mis-assumption. History is contextual. Coins of several denominations were struck based on instructions received before FDR took office. No one said "STOP." The Mint Bureau was not even included in initial EOs or planning -- again READ THE DAM...D BOOK.

I found no references to any request for coins by museums other than the Smithsonian during the 1930s. I did not look earlier - it was simply not relevant since the coins were routinely offered by the Treasurer of the US and NOT by the US Mint. Data for SI's 1932 request exist are are essentially identical to that made in 1933. SI's acquisition records would show if previous requests were made. [This whole nonsense is a waste of time. The US Mints had been removed from responsibility for selling individual coins to collectors and others in the early 1920s. Read the dam...ed books first - then ask meaningful questions.]

Ahhhh...the key word as "thus spake Zarathustra."

Auction catalog comment. "David Stone from Heritage Auctions surveyed auctions from 1935 to 1944. He found that a 1931 double eagle appeared twelve times, and in eleven sales both 1931 and 1932 coins were offered. The first auction appearance of a 1931 double eagle occurred in lot 1393 of the Needham, Herrick and Other Collections (Thomas Elder, 9/1937)."

The alloy is 95% copper and 5% zinc. Both react with almost any common acid, even acetic acid in vinegar. The OP's coin treated with acid and contrary to the claim "it has no apparent deterioration" when placed next to a normal cent the damage is obvious. If reported correctly, whoever this "area expert at a Virginia Beach coin show was," he/she was clearly either trying to humiliate the OP or was barely bright enough to inhale and exhale. Revision -- the person named by the OP is reported as the Virginia CONECA representative. Given this, it is possible the OP misunderstood what he was told. It is very difficult to imagine this person believing the OPs coin might be an "off metal" piece.

Did they turn in the holders or before you sent them off. Toning; PVC; crud; "milk" spots; 1804 dollars -- they turned into different grade in the holders, too.

Yep...and their illustration clearly shows the coin.....nothing about "coin not included." Courts have upheld false advertising claims in the past....