RWB

To the OP: What indicates to you that the coin is somehow special and worth the cost of authentication, variety identification and grading? Confused.

Wasn't the French standard .900 fine gold .100 copper already? That is what the old Napoleons are.

The subject is deeply ingrained in hobby-lore as a pile of illegal money making acts - but has only been presented with the same few complaining letters. My goal is to understand what the subject meant to contemporary people, if there was real profiteering, and how it all occurred. Thus far, there is no evidence of anything illicit or illegal, or of any money being made except a few dollars paid to workmen for doing things on their personal time. The coins run in parallel with the medal situation, but at a much lower and simpler level. For example, Master coins - polished fields, superior details - were exchanged ('traded') for coins for the Mint Cabinet and/or sold at face value. It appears that anyone who wanted some merely had to ask and pay the specie cost. Master coins had no special accounts because they were just ordinary coins and there was no markup to record on the accounts. This is all contrary to numismyth which imagines a profit oriented semi-criminal organization conspiring with selected cognoscenti...the only things missing are a severed horse head and a chain of pizza joints. BUT -- it is early in weeding the garden.

There were differing skill and pay levels for "workman," but limited opportunity for advancement or job changes. A "workman" was one notch above "laborer" on the Mint scale of employees. The lowest level was usually "female" doing any job, although several directors admitted they did many jobs as well or better than men and should be paid the same. But no one did anything.

The project is an examination of restriking circulation and pattern pieces. The original quote is at the very end of a 16-page section titled (for now) "Collecting and Trading." This applies specifically to the 1820s-50s era. Some of the other sections are: Cabinet of Coins Early Master Coins Mint and Medals Pattern-Experimental coins Beginnings of Coin and Pattern Restrikes

An advantage of not writing to deadlines - is many drafts until it "feels right." "Supernumerary" was a deliberate choice to emphasize the striking (no pun, please) difference between approaches. The strange word will make most readers stop and think a little, especially since the word's meaning is not clear from the context. "Democratized" is sort of a two-step side-step for "commercialized" with its layers of modern implications.

...or maybe the Foreman thought he had a bad foot for 22 years, and it was really from smuggling coins out.

Yeah.....I thought it out of place too.....That's what drafts are for.

No TPG is going to do the kind of research you want for this piece. Also, what is "magnet tests like silver" supposed to mean?

This is typical of the odd, and sad stories that come from the 19th century mint. The employee was fired had to look for work wherever he could find it. Mint of the United States, Philadelphia October 2, 1857 Hon. Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury Sir, I have the unpleasant duty to inform the Department that on Yesterday evening one of the workmen in the Coining Department of the Mint was detected in the act of secreting on his person twenty-one quarter dollar planchets or blanks, of the value of $5.25. On being charged with the crime he denied it, but on an examination of his pockets, drawers and boots it was found upon his person. I thereupon caused him to be detained, and, having taken the advice of Mr. van Dyke, the U.S. District Attorney, he has been arrested and is now in the custody of the U. S. Marshall. The name of the workman is Henry Smidt, and he has been employed in the Coining Department of the Mint from Feb. 1835, until yesterday, and was regarded as a faithful and excellent workman. These cases of want of integrity are most painful indeed, as tending to destroy our confidence in men. I have the honor to be with great respect, Your obedient servant, James Ross Snowden, Director of the Mint

Photo is too fuzzy to tell, but it likely is not a doubled die coin. However, it does seem to have dandruff.

These are two closing paragraphs from the current research project. The section is about early U.S. coin collectors and factors that changed the hobby into the 1850s. The quoted material is copyright 2021, Seneca Mill Press LLC. The cumulative effect of these and other changes was to increase demand for rare coins by established and newly-minted numismatists. Consistent with greater demand came several means to supply collector wants – coin dealers, some approaching full time businesses, appeared publicly almost like cyclical cicadas; and the Philadelphia Mint developed as a potential source of rare coins. Master coins, not thought of as anything particularly unusual, developed a following. Quantifying “rare” became important as demand rose and we find Joseph Mickley publishing a pamphlet titled Dates of United States Coins and Their Degrees of Rarity in 1858 – a snapshot of Mickley’s collection with rarity values based on his experience in acquiring coins over the years. The definition of “rare” evolved from “I haven’t found one but I think they exist,” to “Ten are known and they are owned by these collectors.” The coin business (or “coin trade” as Edward Cogan termed it) popped into existence by giving supernumerary value to numismatic holdings, and brokering those holdings between one collector and another. What had largely been an informal specie exchange system between gentlemen enthusiasts, became a democratized value-added competitive practice.

$7.99....Hmmmm over priced by $8.00 after postage.

Correction: "You found a counterfeit coin in change yesterday." No value except to have been exposed to the depth of human deceit, dishonesty and lies.

His very own private dumpster....?

No value, unless it actually is 0.9999 gold, then only melt if that.

They all use filtered compressed air at several stages of handling. All the modern (less than 20 years old) air compressors I've seen have moisture traps or filters. ISO clean room standards go into considerable detail about how to reduce particulates, not merely blow them about with a balloon inflator. When you submit your coins in 2.5x2.5 flips a lot of dust and dirt go along for the ride, so TPGs are already working with a contaminated item. (Look back at the science in the distance viruses can travel from a sneeze....)

The original "bronze" standard was 95% copper and 5% tin and zinc - the proportions were not specified but it was often about 2% tin and 3% zinc. (True "French bronze" sometimes called "bell metal" is approx. 93% copper 5% tin and 2% zinc.) The original alloy was used until the Spring of 1941 when the mints eliminated "all but a trace" of tin. That alloy - which was really brass - continued (except 1943) until the change to zinc in 1983. The so-called "transition error" is nothing more than the Mints using leftover planchets of the old alloy. It doesn't "transition" anything, except possibly cleaning out the "attic."

Contamination. Each time a coin like this is exposed to the atmosphere it is also being exposed to contaminants. Sorry, but that's one of the risks of buying these things or having them "graded."

Nope. Mostly dirty.

Unusual. Wonder what it looks like in person. Also, Heritage has a 22-S with almost compete circumferential die cracks/breaks and a strange looking mintmark. Sale and Lot 60205-91258. The coin is barely MS-62 in my opinion.

From the BBC --- How to earn a gold medal. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57345703

No. real source with details.

Very nice MS-65 and a really clear set of drawbench marks! Glad something I mentioned was helpful and interesting.

Source?