RWB

They had a negative 1:10 split and Bowers got out soon after. The company value was low which was the reason for the split. However, Bowers evidently got a lot out of the Stack's deal, but I have nothing definite. (The PCGS info came from SEC filings.)

We actually know little about when US gold was first used for US coins, or even available. Documents and archives describe early discoveries, and some gold samples exist in the SI geological and ore collection (some from the old Mint Cabinet). I am not aware of anyone actually doing the data collection and measurements. But it is common for each gold or silver vein (or even placer run) to have its individual trace elements. The earliest Carolina and Georgia gold was all placer, so there were not real "mines" until the 1830s

Small denomination silver and hard-metal come to mind....half dimes, and dimes, 3-ct CuNi and 5 -ct CuNi - they were coins required in large quantities so dies were often run too long. 20th century cents -- esp in the 1920s. I;m sure others have suggestions.

It would be interesting to be able to pinpoint the earliest use of Carolina or Georgia gold in US coins.

Many coin collector approach these like the painted "collector plates" sold by Bradford Exchange and Franklin Mint. As for paint chipping, I doubt there are any collectors of these who will want such a coin. Regarding "grading" it might be called "damaged" much like a badly scratched or cleaned coin. Just some thoughts.....

There's not much about die states -- focused on die varieties. Early gold dies were sometimes used too long, but not to the extent of cent and half cent, or half dime dies. I have not seen a clear trend in post-1850 large gold, but so many of the coins were struck, exported and immediately melted, that the population sample is unreliable.

He once held a million shares of PCGS parent company.

Lab grade equipment would be required - but the major TPGs have access to this. I agree that it would be difficult to analyze the European gold component and that considerable data is required to get the statistical parameters well established. Internal trade patterns would help, and some European countries have metal samples going back hundreds of years. It's clearly a long term project requiring patience and consistency -- but we cannot predict what might suddenly pop-up, either.

Technology of elemental XRF analysis ppresents an indirect method for determining the place or country of origin for the gold and silver used in early US coins. Refining by US and European Mints was somewhat inefficient and normally incomplete. Trace elements found in native gold and silver ores were often retained in the final coinage products, and these allow us potentially match elemental signatures of mineral specimens mined from known locations to coins created with those metals. For early US coins we have a situation where nearly all gold and silver was obtained by melting melting foreign coins (sometimes bullion) and then adjusting the fineness to US standards. Therefore it is possible to show that during a certain month of coinage at Philadelphia, the gold came from melted 8 Escudos and that in another month the gold origin was English. This could also help us identify when American gold from the Southern Gold Fields first gained use in American coins. Much the same could be done with silver, possibly to the point of establishing the proportions of silver used that originated from different Spanish mints. Given the rarity of these early US coins, the logical place to make measurements at at authentication company facilities. XRF nondestructive elemental testing could be incorporated as a routine, in-house authentication step. The data would, after several years, begin to accumulate to the point where similar data sets could be obtained from European, South American, African and Caribbean sources. Elemental analysis matching to location of origin could then begin -- hopefully as a cooperative international endeavor.

Wondering that also.

I don't know. I don't recall ever seeing that kind of a responsibility breakdown. The coins I received were easily separated by "picker." The Bower & Merena setup might have been more like you mention.

A very nice coin with above average details. Don't let anyone talk you down on it's value. ("VAM-1F2" = dies used for striking proofs that were then sandblasted, not "matte" - that term is now used only for the early Lincoln and Buffalo proofs.) Compare details with this (same coin as earlier in thread only color balance returned to normal):

When I bought from Bowers & Ruddy, I could always tell who selected the coins - and almost everything Ruddy sent got returned; cleaned, rim damage, low-end, etc.

No. Auction buyers always examined the coins in person or with an agent. Many of the auction companies used fuzzy grading, misleading terminology, etc. I recall returning a lot of lots from older Kagan sales because of gross overgrading or incorrect descriptions or cleaning. Jim Ruddy's "grading" was an inside joke and Bowers put in a lot of effort to correct that. The very best consistent mail order coin quality came from Bowers when he ran Hathaway and Bowers. I never bought a coin there that was anything but excellent and on-the-nose for grade. When I had some graded years later, the Bowers "choice and gem" coins never came back less than 67-68 or better.

A book about cacti has leaves, though.... But look at that "Secret M" put there by a rogue sculptor engraver who worked on the design but did nto get official credit -- or even a vending machine coupon.

No. The Pratt pattern was known only to Pratt, Barber and Pres. Roosevelt. The accession card merely says "1908 $5. Gift of W. S. Bigelow." The pattern would only be evident to someone who had seen the coin and been told what ti as, or had read the archived internal documentation. When the collection was auctioned, everyone associated with long dead.

There was no intention of "degrading" you or anyone else, and you should not assume that was its purpose. So much of the material presented here is obviously damage, or somehow created by misleading internet junk, that it is difficult to imaging anyone remotely thinking otherwise. Jfanti's coin is not damaged. Merely misunderstood; yet that does not respond to the Gov. of Alabama's comment "Use some common sense, people."

Whoever told you this should be on your "Do not listen to" list.

I've asked this before -- but, why would jfantj think this was in any way of value? Same question for road-kill coins, holes punched in them, invisible "doubling" damage? What is fueling this?

Demand a refund!

Unpeckable = "Not peckable," as in a pun on "impeccable."

Or...they might have been in museum collections but never displayed or accessed in modern times. Lots of these museum coins have been sold at auction. The only known Pratt $5 pattern might have been among those sold by the Boston Museum. No one knew about the pattern back then. When the collection was sold the pattern likely went out the door to be lost.

Yep...and we've lost an important resource for research and law enforcement recovery of stolen coins with known auction backgrounds.

I'll leave that to those who want to explore the subject. When working with the Newman papers a decade ago, it was low on the biographical research list.

It was once common for auction companies to take nice coin photos on B&W or color film, then print life-size illustrations in their catalogs. After the sale the negatives/slides were filed, forgotten and thrown out. All we have today are the low quality printed catalogs. Imagine the information lost (and the potential revenue).