RWB

Do you realize that the used book allows you to evaluate only circulated, "used," coins.....? Nice find!

Well....it really means that we did not have the records. They actually existed in 1945 but they were unknown to almost everyone -- and no one during the investigation knew to ask the Coiner or Asst Superintendent. I first came across the letter (and others) in about 2007 or 2008. Bob Julian might have been the discoverer - his digging into the archives predates that of everyone today and his files are voluminous. The continued sequestration of Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine (by Amos Media) is a major research impediment and (my opinion) a personal slap-in-the-face of Mr. J.

It is a hydraulic press used for striking medals and proof coins. Commonly called a "medal press."

They wold differ in detail, metal flow, edge impression and overall surface appearance. A toggle press makes 1 quick blow; a medal press makes slower blows with greater total force. Metal crystals move and deform differently under different conditions.

The are no digital archives for this stuff, and certainly nothing with key words. I found it by following the trail of evidence to a nondescript folder. It helps to have a general idea of what subject you are looking for ("Double eagles" 1933, 1945, USSS, etc.), then you go in and start requesting boxes and volumes that come close to those subjects. Most results are useless on one things but might be good on another, so I copy almost everything.

Member PhillyJoe posted this comment on the other side of the tracks. It will be of interest to those here. Also, there are specific project files relating to the coins PhillyJoe mentions and to foreign coins, medals, and other items. These are often very detailed and include the cost of production, quantities and other information. Only little bits have been digitized at Philadelphia or College Park. Some of my favorite times were spent researching at the Philadelphia Archives. Here's one tidbit I found in my notes from my last visit (I was thinking of submitting an article to the Numismatist). Another suggestion for the coin enthusiast would be examining the correspondence in any year where a coin design changed. You’ll enjoy the dialogue and controversy of the 1916, 1932 and even 1959 records as the Mint chooses a final design for the nickel, dime, half; the quarter and the reverse of the cent, respectively. Some information may only be available in these records, many of which are internal Mint correspondence. For example, as late as November 1958, there were a total of 23 drawings for the new reverse of the 1959 Lincoln cent. Just when the Mint thought they had an acceptable design, the Fine Arts Commission “suggested” that the presence of the thirteen stars and the words “Lincoln Memorial” made the coin “too busy”. The changes was made at the last minute. Great care was also taken, as evidenced by several letters, to insure that all 1958 reverse dies were accounted for and destroyed by December 31, 1958 prior to the new reverse being produced on January 2, 1959. The Mint Director and other senior management witnessed the destruction and signed a document attesting to the fact. This eliminates the possibility of a 1959 cent being stamped with the old style reverse, unless of course, you are the person who owns the 1959-D “Wheatie”.

A biga (2 horses) or quadriga (4 horses) were popular reverse designs for centuries among Attic and Italiate cultures..

Haven't seen it yet. There's a 2nd part next month. RG104 E-235 Vols 65-67 have considerable Columbia Expo and commemorative info. Vols 68-69, which I plan to scan this week are expected to have more. Entries 1, 6, 229 and 17 should also be checked. Here's a letter from Entry 6: Mint of the United States at Philadelphia Superintendent’s Office November 3, 1892 Hon. E. O. Leech, Director of the Mint Sir: Many applications are made here for the new Columbian Half Dollars, and undoubtedly a great many of these pieces could be sold in this place. Do you see any impropriety in the Managers of the World’s Columbian Exposition making the Mint one of the agencies for the sale of these pieces, provided, of course, the same price per piece is charged? Returns would be made direct to the Managers of the Exposition. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant O. C. Bosbyshell, Superintendent

Because that was in their "job description." As long as gold could be brought to a mint for coinage, there had to be someone to accept it.

It might be in the archives but not digitized. I estimate that about 1% of US Mint material has been digitized. The concentration is on material with the greatest potential information content.

But -- only if the standards by which coins are judged are reliable and consistent.

Corrosion caused by minute surface contamination. The offending particle is at the center of the damage and might not be visible. Not repairable. Each time proof or similar special coin is exposed to the air, the chances of this happening increase. Unless there is some compelling reason to remove from the original protective packaging, leave it alone.

Yes --- but the mint building plans did not include an ice house. PS: The Philadelphia Mint actually used ice to chill water used to quench dies. The Melting & Refining Department used it to cool the tub of water into which liquid bullion was poured to granulate/flake metal for refining. Reason: Faster quenching of silver alloy reduced segregation (uneveness) of silver both in coining ingots and for assay samples.

1891-S = Scrubbed EF.

Sort by country or region, then determine which references pertain to those. You seem to have a lot of pieces with labels, so that will cut research time. Once you know what you have, then you can begin to determine what they are worth. The white envelopes look a lot like dealer foreign from 2x2 boxes which often means they are worth $1 or $5 retail. If you bought these, you must have a rough guess about value.

A lot of job titles were changed in the late 1960s and 1970s. Mints no longer pay out over the counter nor accept deposits, so I presume the actual job vanished long ago...at least in the form collectors understand from the 19th century. The Superintendent is now called the Plant Manager, but I'm not conversant with the rest of the titles. The Engraver and Assistant Engraver are now called "Sculptor Engravers" but all their work is on CAD design systems. (There is no "Engraver" which was a Presidential appointment. The title is honorary.) One or two of the older people do die touch-up such as was required on the 5-inch silver drink coasters. Now, I don't know.

With more US Mint Bureau documents becoming available on-line through the Newman Numismatic Portal (NNP), it seems a good time to give those doing numismatic research a little guidance. This will show how various groups of documents are connected and suggest which files to search for letters relating to specific events or persons. The information will help researchers look through thousands of documents without have to spend weeks at NARA locations thumbing through thick volumes and overstuffed file boxes. What you will find: Connections between archive files. Transcriptions of some documents. What you will not find: Transcriptions of everything. Access: All materials are available for free via NNP to read or download. Basic files in Record Group 104 U.S. Mint –– For letters from 1873 to 1900 the overall search flow is: 1. Start with Entry 1. These are in chronological order and many are transcribed. Search by subject or approximate date. 2. Once something of interest is found, go to E-235 and look for the volumes covering the date on your item. Look both before and after this date. There is also an index by author for many of these volumes, but it is useless for subjects. 3. Next look in Entry 6 around the date of your item and see if there are any letters between Mint Departments that relate to your subject. Do the same with Entry 17. 4. Go to Entry 229 and search it in the same manner. These entries have documents that are frequently interconnected, such as a letter sent and its reply, or private comment on a subject by the Coiner or Secretary of Treasury. By searching through the 4 steps, above, users should be able to locate about 80% of extant materials relating to an individual, situation or subject. · Entry 1 General Correspondence, 1792-1899. (Completely digitized. Transcribed from 1885 to 1899.) · Entry 235 Letters sent by the Director to other mint facilities and individuals (1873-1937). Digitized April 1873 to April 1893, more to come. · Entry 6 Letters between Philadelphia Mint departments and also those sent by the Superintendent to the Director. (Digitized from October 1, 1866 to October 1889, more to come.) · Entry 17 Letters received by the Philadelphia Mint Superintendent from the Coiner 1877-1900 Completely digitized. · Entry 229 Letters received by Mint HQ from other mint facilities and individuals. Digitized intermittently 1875 to 1900, more to come. For earlier letters and subjects up to 1873 the overall flow is less well defined. 1. Start with Entry 1. These are in chronological order and a few are transcribed. Search by subject or approximate date. 2. Once something of interest is found, go to Entry 3, 215, 216 and 217 depending on items date. · Entry 1 General Correspondence, 1792-1899. (Completely digitized. Transcribed from 1885 to 1899.) · Entry 3 Journals 1792 to 1835. · Entry 215 Letters sent to Branch Mints 1836-1871. · Entry 216 Letters to and from Secretary of Treasury regarding Branch Mints July 5, 1834 to December 31, 1862. · Entry 217 Scattered letters about Mints 1865 to 1872. For coinage quantities look in Entry 271 for reported quantities and especially for any condemned deliveries. Use Entry 330 for exact delivery dates and quantities from about 1916 forward to 1947. The latter has large gaps, which will gradually be filled as time permits. · Entry 271 Monthly coinage by Mint July 1875 to June 1906. Completely digitized. · Entry 330 Cashier’s Daily Statements. Intermittently digitized from 1916 to 1947. Year 1900 is in E-229 as extracted from correspondence. Coinage, die use and many other subjects are mixed into the entries mentioned. Also the Entry 3 journals include copies of annual reports and letters in their original form that are not available elsewhere. Roger W. Burdette December 20, 2022

Here's what Greenstang suggests:

Got any rolls of home run baseballs? Search 'em -- you might get lucky!

The moment subjective concepts are introduced, valid coin grading vanishes. I.e., "one opinion makes all empirical suspect." This does not reject "eye appeal" or other subjective factors; merely that they are uncontrollable variable and should not be part of describing a coin's condition.... And, that's the point. The TPGs DON'T work because they introduce subjective variables into the process - which ruins the value of grading. Some subjective variable can be controlled. "Proof-like" can be defined within a specific technical system, then objectively measured for every coin submitted for this. Coin condition based on abrasion can be defined as a bin (or 'range') whose deviation from an ideal is knowable, and whose mean is also related to the mean of other bins. (This is what human graders attempt to do, but they have to deal with an unstable and non-linear system. Now that TPGs have destroyed traditional meanings of VF EF and AU, the entire foundation is ready to collapse.)

If you refer to drying planchets, the reasons were convenience, flexibility to absorb moisture from all parts of planchets, and absence of contamination. (Back then, everything was cross contaminated. Making your own basswood sawdust ensured a pure, absorbent, nonabrasive, reusable product suitable for contact with silver and copper.

That's what I thought when ANA began grading....then they sold out and had their backbone removed. Now it's every centipede for itself.

Keep sending it in until you get the grade your want. Do they tell you the differences between 66+ and 67 --- I'll wager "No." It's also likely they can't differentiate between the two better than 50% -- mere coin flipping (pun intended).

The minutiae is a major problem in attracting new variety collectors, at least in my opinion. The various lists are personal favorites of the list compilers, and not aimed at potential new collectors. Also, obvious die varieties caused by clashing are not consistently recognized. I'd like to see them gain more followers and accept new ideas; maybe that will happen now that control has passed from Mr. Van Allen to several members.

Modern era proofs are struck twice in presses designed to keep the coin and dies in alignment....but, shifts can occur.