RWB

One set of footings for this bridge occupies a small island were the first 1913 Buffalo nickels were distributed to Native-American chiefs. A monument to the subdued and corralled tribes was planned for that island. Nothing was built except a bronze plaque. Wanamaker was a big booster of the project. [See Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915 for more information.]

For a long time assessing the character of a coin and circumstances of its manufacture was largely a combination of observation and hearsay, peppered with a few original documents. Don Taxay, Walter Breen did meaningful exploration into original source materials, but stifled additional work by providing only fuzzy references and sparse citations. R. W. Julian was probably the first to really use archival originals as the base for his work, but publication standards of the 1960s did not allow publication of precise sources. Today, we know much more about how coins were produced, how the equipment operated, how planchets were treated and many other details. These create a much richer data set than ever before and allow better balance between the relative strength of data types. Separating 1856 FE cents into categories based on die varieties and period of production opens the door just a bit more to how the US Mints operated internally - and how decisions were made, unmade, or adapted to suit an Officer's personal interests.

Yep. I used the detailed dies data for 1936-42 proofs plus a test using polished hardened steel against soft steel. Presumably, details of die steel alloy and hardening & tempering also factor into the mix. We also have information indicating that luster develops quickly on new dies, and that is a product of surface stress to a die. Has "renomedphys" ATS had any comment?

Unexpected number of comments sent to me on this subject. Will see what happens with time.

Select the coins that either, 1) will gain the most resale value from authentication, or 2) are subject to frequent alteration or counterfeiting. For just "looking pretty" coins, buy a few of the commercial slabs, print a nice label and enjoy the coin without wasting coupons or money.

They could save more by learning to accurately grade coins and avoiding useless "authentication-grading" companies.

The above is an excellent resource by Aaron Packard, a knowledgeable and careful numismatist.

Tell us what gas is in the bubble. That way, we'll know if the employees had bean soup for lunch.

No. Damage.

True. However the depth of reflectivity degrades and eventually vanishes.

Unfortunately, the Mint officers did not really know. Much of the early documentation was destroyed in a Treasury Dept fire in 1835 (I think...) so the officers had only limited original data. At the US Mint, institutional knowledge was kept in the memories of employees, not in complete written form. When wanting information about the Mint Cabinet collection, one had to ask Dubois and/or Eckfeldt - almost nothing was in writing.

Unortunately, the photos are distorted and out of focus. Check the product instructions - most of these perform best under specific circumstances. (There are at least a dozen Chinese manufacturers. Some are better than others.)

During the first decades, the Annual Assay examined coins made from the year between one Assay meeting and the next, so having two different year dates was normal. This tightened up as output increased and better, more traceable accounting was needed. Bob Julian explored some of this in one of his early Scrapbook articles. It was not until February 1838 that examination was limited to coins from the previous calendar year by utilizing the director’s discretion in the Act of January 18, 1837.

Planchet surface affected proof and PL dies over from 25 to 100 strikes. The die surface gradually conformed to the average surface of the planchets, and thus lost its mirror.

San Francisco was the only mint that used powdered lime to polish/resurface dies. The others used various grades (fineness) of emery. Below is a transcription of a letter requesting lime for polishing dies. [RG104 E-229 Vol 10-17 SF] The Mint of the United States at San Francisco, Superintendent’s Office January 31, 1881 Hon. Horatio C. Burchard Director of the Mint Washington, DC Sir: I have the honor to state that our Coiner requires for use in his department one can of Lime for polishing dies and two dozen polishing sticks, which I will thank you to cause to be procured and forwarded by the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. Very respectfully, Henry L. Dodge, Superintendent

From 1858 the proofs were sold as silver set and minor set, gold was also sold in a set but many more individual proofs were sold than complete gold sets. The term "set" was rather loosely used, just as it was in 1936. There was no unique packaging - a "set" was just one of each denomination/metal - buyers could purchase individual pieces also. Gold dollars were a favorite for individual purchase.

More details on the origin and development of the design, plus initial patterns and production. Book also includes similar info on Eagles and Pratt's HE/QE design. Also includes owners of some of the coins, distribution and the Saint-Gaudens Half Eagle.

The post at: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1052229/very-proof-like-business-strikes-and-the-curious-case-of-the-1856-flying-eagle-cent got my attention because it is clearly thoughtful, yet shows some confusion created by incomplete "expert" analysis. I've not copied the original - that would not be fair to the OP across the street. Maybe he/she will use the public cross walk so we can discuss the issues over here. This is my response to the OP's remarks: The OP’s comments well express the confusion that arises when coinage processes are either misunderstood or simply ignored. Let’s look at a couple of points: “…when the dies are new and the planchets are among the first struck, regardless of the intent of the coiner, certain coins can be produced that really look proof-like.” The quoted statement is a misunderstanding of how a “proof-like” coin is made. New dies are not mirror-like or some variant, but are more satin-like due to the final dip in acid given production dies. The “proof-like” weak mirror surface is given to a die by deliberate polishing to remove surface defects or repair minor cracks – essentially resurfacing the fields (aka “table”). The limited reflectivity imparted is incidental to die repair and not a deliberate manufacture. Let’s take another, “As we are told by the experts, the term ‘proof’ is more about the coiner's intent, and less about the die used….” The experts are not named, but the “Coiner’s intent” is meaningless. It is as if the Coiner said, “On Tuesday these coins will be proofs; but on Wednesday they will be for circulation.” As above, this is really about misunderstanding how coins of varying descriptions are manufactured. For the 19th and 20th century period under discussion, ALL circulation strike coins were made on toggle presses; ALL proof coins were made on a large screw press (aka “fly press”) or later a special hydraulic press. It was not the Coiner’s “intent” that mattered; it was the physical equipment and specific die preparation that distinguished proof and circulation strike coins. A proof coin of any denomination is an intentionally manufactured product. The dies are normal new dies that are deliberately polished to a mirror finish, and repolished as necessary to maintain the mirror characteristics. In most instances, the planchets are also polished although not to the same high degree of reflectivity. By polishing both dies and planchets, the mirror coin fields can be maintained at higher quality and for much longer than by polishing only the dies. (See Burdette: United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 for discussion of this relating to low quality 1936 brilliant proofs, and also for information on proof sets from 1858-1860 period.) Dies can sometimes be switched from making mirror proofs to making circulation coins and back again. All that is involved is allowing dies to lose their polish in the first instance, or repolishing them in the second instance. This is merely deliberate use of the same dies on different presses. Post-dating and restriking are separate nefarious actions, and only tangentially related to mirror fields on a coin. A closing observation regarding the statement, “Mint records were pretty clear and understood by authenticators, but going off the old ‘looks like a proof’ method, lots of mistakes were made.” In real research some US Mint records are not clear or are internally contradictory. This is, in fact, the normal situation when considering proof coins made before 1858. Early Master coins (aka “proof coins”) and medals were made by the Chief Coiner on his private account, and with complete authority to do so by mint directors and secretaries of the treasury. Some of these are documented and many are not. When a Medal Department was informally organized in 1854, it maintained very poor records of proof, pattern and other pieces struck on the medal press. The old “looks like a proof” method is seldom accurate – it ignores the fundamental physical production differences between different types of coin press, die finishing, and planchet use. This is why original research and investigation is critical to uncovering the truth about various coinages such as 1856-date FE cents. Incidentally, this same research clearly tells us that no legitimate proof Columbian halves or Isabella quarters were struck; the same applies to 1894-S dimes. They all came from a toggle press with dies having received varying degrees of deliberate polish.

I've never seen anything remotely contemporary that mentions how the 1804 dollars and 1804 proof Eagles were made. I agree that they probably did not know. However, the research exercise gave them something to point to when asked. That, and a confused shrug, became the standard answer.

Exaggerated weather systems and patterns are an outcome of overall planetary warming.

Those tokens have a modern equivalent in traffic counting strips and automatic tag readers for toll charges. The "National Pike" was a very big deal way back then. It was much like the jump transportation made with inception of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (aka Interstate Highway System).

Well, that's a very nice bonus. The overdate is not rare, but it is still a very small part of a large mintage. Also, the 6 is difficult for many to see. Good of NGC to identify it for you.

There is likely little or no added value unless a lot of identical pieces are located, and then if the variety were accepted in something like the Cherrypicker's Guide. If you have rolls of the Utah quarters, it might be worth checking.

More like $60-65 in VF. Did you send it in as the Philadelphia overdate?

Neat to find in circulation, but little numismatic value. Very common date, low condition and obverse damage.