RWB

Do you mean "pretty colors" as toning, or something more normal?

Part of the research for my current long-term project includes studying Breen's early research. While very dated, it demonstrates keen intelligence and good basic research skills. His consistent failure to provide accurate (or any) source and archive data/metadata is a serious efficiency, which also suggests to me that his college education was deficient or missing. Letters from the Newman Estate show he was completely cowed by John Ford, Jr. and that his work for Ford and First Coinvesters was aimed at "proving" pre-concieved opinions rather than understanding and presenting facts. (Much of this damaging attitude remains in the hobby/business.) As time progresses from the early 1950s Breen's published and manuscript materials point to an increase in assumption, embellishment, invented "data," and outright lies. I agree completely with Mr. Lange in stating that R.W. Julian was the primary - possibly only - person doing fact-based numismatic research during that period, and he continue to be the premier numismatic researcher of today. This makes it doubly important that Julian's articles in Numismatic Scrapbook be made publicly available.

No photos visible. Open a reply window (bottom left). Drag the image file from your computer to the window. It will be visible to all once you hit the green "Submit Reply" button (lower right).

Even seeing is not half of reality. Five people witness a traffic accident. On questioning, all five reports differ yet all five people saw the accident. Numismatics must utilize orderly science-based examination of items and competent historical research if truth is to be identified. Adding false or misleading titles, and failure to publish complete data merely show how primitive and greed-based numismatics is.

Both EHR patterns (7 blows) and HR circulation (3 blows) were made on high pressure medal presses. The 1907 circulation issue was struck on a normal toggle press, and at much lower pressure. So JD's comments are older, and predate the book. They can then be excused due to age.

Thanks! Corrected. I'll suggest that collector not dig too deeply into the Stack's coin ancestry - there are many things swept under the carpet, along with the good.

Hmmm...never was interested in the subject so know nothing except child molesters "ought" to be put on a meat slicer front-to-back.

I have not been tracking the "modern" US Mint very much. Presumably someone has, is, or will. I was present for striking of the first 5-oz silver pieces. I don't recall the model except that it was a double stroke vertical press with special coin reception to avoid scrapes. The new pieces made good hand warmers right off the press. The Philadelphia Mint had to dig out the floor in a room to accommodate the press because it was so tall.

It's a nice find and certainly of interest. It also raises just the questions you asked. The difference is that through improved research, and especially much better information on production details, we can offer a better, more complete response. [If you borrow a copy of my book, From Mine to Mint, you'll get a bit of the flavor for more modern research knowledge, and information.]

To add a couple more facts. SMS coins were processed using slightly different operations than normal circulation coins. Those operations changed a little each of the three years of SMS issue. No 1964 coins received such defined handling differences. There is NO FACTUAL JUSTIFICATION for an "authentication" company to certify or "invent" a misleading and incorrect label for the pieces. Just as there is no factual justifications for some of the "specimen" "special proof" " prototype" or other perversions of truth.

This arrived from Kristen at Stack's-Bowers: "It is with great sadness we announce the passing of our friend and founder, Harvey G. Stack on January 3, 2022. His leadership over the years spearheaded our operations and his kindness and mentorship to staff, collectors, dealers, numismatic organizations and colleagues will never be forgotten." Read the rest of the message at --- https://mailchi.mp/60b0acee3d84/remembering-harvey-stack?e=12592e2e6d

My mask began as a paper bag with two eye-holes. I found it worked as well without eye-holes. Driving is a lot more exciting, now. I should go to F.U.N. sometime just to say I've been there during the electric light era. (Much of Florida remains in the gas light era.) But it's hard to rationalize spending the time and money to go and sit among hot dog bits, week-old "pretzels," and old farts -- I don't really collect coins; but rather information.

On this coin it might also be from exposure to acid; however, sharp edges near the base of the bust suggest mechanical rather than chemical causes.

The nominal alloy for 1918 cents was 95% copper and 5% tin and zinc. During melting copper sometimes oxidized due to careless handling and this produced cupric oxide, also known as "fire scale." If a small amount of this remained near the surface of a planchet, the pressure of striking could cause the coin to split or delaminate. The result might be a thin leaf of copper with an irregular mass of black cupric oxide under, or next to it. Your photos are a little fuzzy, and color balance if off, but I suspect that is what happened to your coin. There is limited collector demand since each is a unique example.

False. There is no evidence of any such pieces ever being produced. None. Claiming "it looks like" does not make it so. The "certification" is a lie based on ignorance of normal coinage and production. The "authentication" company has never presented its evidence for open examination and discussion, and never will. They, and their spawn are trapped in a money pit caused by ignorance and short-term greed. They fear the truth (and the expense of admitting to a false attribution) so they perpetuate a lie. The pieces given to Adams and the Smithsonian were early strikes off new dies. That is all. That is documented in SI files. That happens with EVERY new pair of dies, in EVERY year. That reality does not make those coins any more special than the last pieces off a worn out die. Again: Claiming "it looks like" does not make it so. So just remember: No Special Mint Sets were made for coins dated 1964.

Yes....and the added hair might cover the awful scratches....! The poor coin is hopeless.

That's correct. 1964 Mint Set coins were normal production at the two mints. Bagged, then shipped to SFAO for assembly and fulfillment. There was/is nothing unusual about the coins - except they might have fewer bag marks because the bags were handled less than through other delivery channels.

Breen lied a lot in his latter concoctions -- I won;t call it "work." He also had far more limited knowledge and research data than claimed, and routinely invented stories to enhance his ego, and thereby screw the hobby (and business).

Ample doses of B.S. and "hedging" from the old looks-like crowd, as opposed to facts. JD's comments, if current, are especially disappointing because they say nothing to show the coins are "proofs." No evidence of anything different beyond ordinary production variation - with two annealing cycles and three blows from a medal press, the likelihood of slight differences is magnified. Likewise, there are no "proof-like" HR pieces - just minor variation from piece-to-piece. However, in November 1907 a second pair of dies and collar were put into service. Thus, the first 500 in August/September, made to keep TR happy, were all from the same die pair and collar. Remember - none of this was known to Breen, or NGC, or anyone else until I did the research and found the documents. NGC might therefore be excused in its initial assessment. But, any continuation of this beyond publication of Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908, is inexcusable.

Because they do not exist. No "Special Mint Sets" were made of 1964-dated coins. Regular proof and mint sets were issued as in previous years. The coins being touted as "1964 SMS" are normal pieces from fresh dies. See the Smithsonian NNC for samples.

If the diagonal lies are raised and identical on multiple pieces, then they are caused by running file across the face of a die. This is seen on one variety of 1922-S DE. If the lines are not identical from piece to piece, then it is a mechanical error in the press. The old explanations about feeder fingers, etc. do not apply to modern vertical presses.

Now the graders have to eat all those shrimp and King crab legs....too bad.

...and they'll win.

Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this sun of York; And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house In the deep bosom of the ocean buried. Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths; Our bruised arms hung up for monuments; Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings, Our dreadful marches to delightful measures. [Shakespeare. Richard III. Act 1 Scene 1; by Richard, Duke of Gloucester.] But please stay away from Clarence...He's unlucky.

Nice set and good find on the 3/2. As you note, finding is 75% of the fun.