RWB

Neither Solomon nor Schrodinger could resolve the paradox by cutting the baby in half or sawing the cat-in-the-box in half. MCMVII’s, like the baby or the cat, was a single indivisible entity.

Normal variation in coinage. Some Lincoln cents look spectacular, some are ordinary and some are inferior. Those are individual opinions. Nothing more. It is similar to some TPGs calling early strike coins "SMS" or "Specimens" or other such nonsense - the expansion of ignorance. With every MCMVII coin being handled by multiple people a minimum of five times each, the range would be expected to be greater than single-strike coins. Further, after manufacture the coins were inspected, counted, weighed and baged. The bags shipped to sub-Treasuries -- lots of routine handling, fingering, poking, etc. The first 500 were likely to have received LESS of this because they were made to please President Roosevelt, and thus kept in one place until later distribution. If NGC has a clear, reliable means of distinguishing these first 500 from the rest, that would be a nice addition to our knowledge about these coins. And I feel it would be reasonable to mention that on a label -- but the criteria MUST be clear, repeatable by others, and verified by comparison with known pieces from the first 500. (Also -- must be before they met the Persians at Thermopylae...or any film producers.)

Yep. As I've commented many times: they were all made the same way so they are all "proofs" or all "not proofs." They cannot be divided.

See correspondence between Dir. Andrew and William Woodin in 1910 concerning gold proofs.

There are a few marks and dings. One is on the neck, a couple in the obv rays, and on the eagle's back. The first coins off a new die will have a satin-like appearance - no real luster as that term is commonly used - from the original surface of the die. Luster develops as the die is used and the surface deforms. It takes only 25 blows to remove most of the original satin.

No. You are culpable. You deceived yourself. You did not check the copious on-line resources to help validate the pieces you submitted. You assigned value. You knew in advance from the submission form the cost. You decided to submit them to the UK office (unless you live in the UK or EU). You signed the form agreeing to the terms and conditions. You owe (or paid) the invoice amount. You got the independent opinion of authenticity as agreed. You accepted responsibility for your decisions. You failed in 'due diligence.' Now you want to blame others for your mistakes.

So...there's no truth to the idea that was how the early settlers learned to dance?

The definition of a "proof coin" was subject to fluctuation from 1908-1916 due to artist's objections to mirror polishing of their medallic-style coin designs, and the Mint's search for something distinctive for coin collectors. Products included "satin" proofs, "sandblast" proofs, and "matte" proofs (made by sandblasting dies not the finished coins). Nothing was done between 1917 and 1936 when the Mint reintroduced proofs for collectors. These were indented to be mirror proofs for silver and satin proofs for minor coins, but all soon became mirror proofs later in the same year. (See my book U.S. Proof Cons 1936-1942.) Early (pre-1840) Master coins (aka proof coins) are a different matter and we have to examine multiple features of the coins and literature to make a reasonable assessment of whether a coin was supposed to be a Master coin or merely a sample specimen for review. Much of the time the word "specimen" in old documents refers simply to a sample or example and not something prepared for a special purpose.

...as opposed to the Heavy Metal band called "Lead Rot." The Light Metal band named "Beryllium Rot" did not do well and was disbanded when it absorbed too many neutrons.

Maybe "Cat Bath" has one of his icons available. Then you could have a snack while examining the baking results.

NEW ! IMPROVED ! Now !! Try the new SHAKE 'N' BAKE for COINS ! Bring out the best in your coins with NEW Yummy, SHAKE 'N' BAKE for COINS ! So simple...So easy...Even a novice can do it! Works with ANY coin ! NEW ! TASTIER ! ANTIBACTERIAL TOO ! Have Fun ! Make Loads of Money ! Just shake, bake, then put on Krebs List for thousands. Easy and simple to use. Join the Fun !

Beginning in the 1840s "Master coins" were made from deliberately polished dies and circulation coins were not. That became a clear point of distinction along with greater detail imparted by using the large medal press to strike proofs for collectors, and for patterns and sample coins (so-called branch mint proofs). Those distinctions were still in use in 1907. In 1908 sandblasting, as often used for medals, was tired. The rest is the Mint's attempt to make something as distinctive as mirror proofs but with dies of uneven basins. In 1936, after uniform basins had been adopted for the 1909, 1913, and 1916 designs, mirror proofs again became standard.

Interesting examples of "Golden Roast" coinage. Wonder if one can make tea from them? Presumably the over was preheated before baking. Consider content of the oven remaining from prior baking/broiling events and their contribution to color changes. Heat would accelerate oxidation along with other chemical reactions. Would results have been different if each coin had been cleaned in acetone before roasting? If clean silver dollar, Ike dollar, and modern small dollar were used, what might happen? Is there a lower temperature/time combination?

Interesting, didn't know that as I have next-to-nothing with Peace Dollars. Mark's comment is correct. This opinion was adopted by PCGS long ago before we had accurate and more nearly complete information. Their present policy on this subject parallels that of NGC on "proof" MCMVII coins: neither is supported by facts and research.

It was an attribution error - or wishful thinking - made absent any solid information. There were no "proofs" made of MCMVII coins. That is simply a fact and does not change if one wants to cop-out with a bit of word-play. As more and better information becomes available, we, as both hobby and business, must learn how to deal with the inevitable changes. Sticking one's head in the sand and invoking stasis, does not work.

More blows from the press and their status as patterns and thus not technically coins. RE:"....can we say that maybe the 3 strikes, metal press, annealing, fast replacement of dies.....all created that "proof-like" appearance on the High Reliefs that were freshly struck with new dies among other factors ?" The first 500 MCMVII were made from the same trio of dies: obverse, reverse collar. A second trio was introduced in November and both sets were in use through the first days of January. There were no replacement dies. The first 500 had potential for being the "best possible" coins, but virtually all had the objectionable fin which marred the coin's appearance.

The editorial content in the book is mine. Heritage supplied pricing, notable examples, variety numbering. They did not tinker with the other content, but checked it. The pattern pieces can reasonably be called "proof" since that was the format of nearly all pattern/experimental pieces. They got 7 blows from the large medal press.

That search would make sense, since there were no "proofs" made. All the MCMVII were made the same way with the same dies and the same equipment by the same people in the same place, etc., etc. There is not a shred of proof any are/were prepared as "proofs." (The designation was invented several decades ago - long before we had today's depth of facts.

Good, careful research! Nice to see.

"The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, 'Round and 'round, 'round and 'round. The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, All through the town." [W. Shakespeare, Macbeth (original version)]

See Trivers' theory of self-deception. This might help understand some comments.

It's barely worth one-cent. Minor delamination and lots of damage, staining.

Slight abrasion/wear on highest surfaces - AU.

If you visit on a cold moonless night, and bring some good sippin' juice, Hank has been known to play a tune or two for guests.

A comment/ warning for new collectors --- Personal observation suggests that any coin seller who puts a bunch of "++++" on a coin holder, or adds the words "RARE" or "GEM" does no know what he/she is doing. Coins so labeled will invariably turn out to be inferior and usually overgrazed. [That's a new numismatic term from my spell checker....]