RWB

These are not legitimate "trial pieces" as understood by American collectors. There is no connection to real circulating coinage. These were deliberately made to catch a buck (or many bucks) from crows, mice and other accumulators of shiny objects. They are part of a product development and sales program put together by a contractor, and the "auctions" merely use Royal Mint trade dress to add an air of "legitimacy and gravitas" to the hawking of trinkets. (Compare to gem and jewelry sales on TV, or the "Royal Canadian Mint" scam.) This is simply a gross abuse of the authentic Royal Mint's cachet.

No political stuff, please.

It appeared in a thread that was closed today, but the comment did not seem to be a cause.

This appeared on a site on the other side of the tracks. Can someone please translate? Mint mark is a mark on a coin from the mint. If a coin from the mint has a mint mark, it is an error—if the coin does not come from the mint nor have a mint mark, that is also an error. Many of these coins have die on them. A die is something on coins’s surfaces and two of them on a coin (double die, dice) are gold in your pocket. Double die (dice) shows up with DDO, DDR, cuds, and ANACS on the coin as well. They’re easy to identify because they’re one of a kind. Many are certified without certification. You have to keep an open mind when you look at certain sellers’ coins now.

Here's a handy explanation. https://www.free-bullion-investment-guide.com/troy.html

John Danreuther's book on proof gold is about as close as it comes, but it is not detailed on how and why.

If each person in the United States retained $100 in gold coin, the total would exceed all gold ever coined in the U.S. or mined. Most of the coins were already in Treasury possession and had been for decades....there was very little public demand.

Treasury and Secret Service depended on Theodore T. Belote, Curator at the SI Museum of American History for determination of what was "recognized special value to collectors." However, they also accepted the opinion of numismatists including members of the ANA. Belote made the determination that 1933 DE were of special value and that led to the coin's export.

Makes good sense. The register set nonsense is based on money and greed; largely ignoring real numismatics.

Section 3: (a) Gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 belonging to any one person; (b) Gold coin having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin;

You can post my comment to that thread if you wish. ALL MCMVII coins were made the same way. Differences in appearance are normal variation and there are/were no special pieces, specimens, proof or other such pieces. Any claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of the facts. This is another example of incomplete, inept research, and a failure to consult knowledgeable sources outside of their own little factories. RE: Collars.There were only two collars used for the HR MCMVII. The first was carried forward from the pattern pieces and was in sole use until mid-November when a second collar and pair of dies were added to manufacture. From then until the final pieces were struck both collars were in use without special distinction or identification.

That is a false assumption. ALL the HR pieces were struck with that collar (it was the only one) until a second pair of dies and collar were added in late November 1907. The UHR pieces are patterns, not coins, and were struck with more blows of the medal press and more annealings. The dies/design differs from HR MCMVII and patterns are closer to pure gold color (yellower) because the 6 annealing and acid dipping cycles depleted copper in the surface. (See Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 for facts, not fantasy.) If the PCGS Board poster's comment is correct, then the designation is false. Why was a change made from accurate attribution to a lie?

Sounds like a meaningful project. (My comments are probably very different than the others -- I have no business or selling interests in the coins.)

...but not every time, and you don;t know in advance.

...and back up your PC drive.

It took a couple of months to locate the data in my database, and about 3 weeks (overlapping research) to write and edit. I guess locating data took maybe 3 hours; correlating about 20 hours; verifying another 2 hours; rechecking database another hour; writing and editing abut 10 hours. Obviously, this was done as time was available with thought and reconsideration in between. However, my database goes back 20+ years and is fully searchable. If it had to be done from scratch, the basics would have taken every day for many months --- and there'd be a lot of gaps.

It fell out amidst all the creativity that went into that composition.

Yeah....well, that sounds like a nom de plume, or maybe a nom de nom. (This was prepared by popular request. Took quite a while to find and correlate all the pieces, then craft a clear story line so it would be easy to read.)

The portrait is a composite. Impossible to tell which eye came from one person and whose nose arch came from another. You cannot legitimately credit any of the 3 Native Americans Fraser mentioned as being "the" model. Look in Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915 for details.

If the same coins were submitted, it is then you would see gradeflation on the labels. There evidently aren't enough high grade pieces available to disturb the current distribution curve.

Yes. A couple of Saudi gold discs as part of research into die varieties, and another coin to remain anonymous until I've completed research. I would like to acquire all coins and data relating to 1921 Peace dollar proofs including the ones that are slabbed that way but are not real proofs. Try approaching it this way: I collect pieces of history, economy, society, and American culture. I collect the information they might contain, and the coin itself is merely a carrier (and investment) of the item. Anything discovered, becomes available to collectors and numismatists through publication.

The following is a partial explanation for off-center strikes using a new Ferracute press in 1893. This defect - stripped threads - allowed the entire upper die stake to drift out of alignment. Look at the patent press drawings in Journal of Numismatic Research, Issue #1 to better understand the letter. Mint of the United States at Philadelphia May 11th 1893 Hon O.C. Bosbyshell, Superintendent Sir: The thread in the holes in the cast iron head of the Ferracute coining press where the long bolts run through the arch to hold the upper dies has torn out - this permits the die holder to move about and consequently the die does not strike the centre of the planchet. The thread seems to have been too short in length to hold. A new head will have to be furnished and the Ferracute Company had better send here and see what is needed. Very Respectfully W. S. Steel [RG104 E-17 Box 1 Vol 1 May 19 1892-Apr 18 1899]

This letter includes a good, brief description of automatic weighing and sorting machines, 1897.

Here are my buying criteria. They are likely very different than those of others. 1st – Is the coin special in some way relating to numismatic research? 2nd – Is it unique or readily available? 3rd – Is it of superior quality with respect to the features that make it a research subject, or supporting evidence. 4th – Cost to acquire. Is this possible? 5th – Is it likely to increase in value or should it be disposed of quickly?

Please see and take the pledge. https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/432522-hold-up-your-right-hand-and-repeat-after-me/