RWB

These patterns and the MCMVII circulations coins were all made on a medal press. The high relief allows for better fitting of coin to die for each strike; however, there was always a slight mismatch due to planchet movement and slight changes from the annealing cycle. The patterns were carefully made, but a few show slight doubling in various places. Some MCMVII coins show slight doubling -- but often is not evident without experience examining these coins. Vicken Yegparian with Stacks-Bowers identified several while preparing coins for auction.

I've not located any other correspondence between the two in that volume.

#1 Yes. That was part of it and the thing most "experts" concentrate on. #2 No. Force is applied differently on different mechanical configurations of press. There is also the problem of maintaining alignment.

The only difference was polish. Initial detail (before polishing) was the same. No. Proof coins could only be made on a high pressure medal press. The mechanical differences and force application were not the same. It is usually possible to identify a legitimate proof coin from a similar piece struck on a normal toggle press of that era.

That was the law. The purpose was to maintain public confidence in the gold certificates and other gold-backed securities. The coin vs bullion proportion was intended to meet any public demand for legal tender coin while avoiding the cost of coinage for at least part of the backing.

Nice comments both here and across the railroad tracks! Proof coin dies did not "age" in the same way as production dies. The higher pressure and differences in force application caused accelerated fatigue, and exaggerated surface changes. Proof dies were also readily influenced by the depth of polish given to planchets. Thus, even a small quantity of coin strikes, might have a pronounced effect on coin appearance.

The following telegram relates to the initial appointment of Henry L. Dodge, former Superintendent of the San Francisco Mint, to the Annual Assay Commission for 1892. Dodge was investigated for various changes during his term, but fully exonerated in 1881. I have not learned the cause of Director Leech’s direct language, but it is very unusual. Newhall served on the Commission in 1892. -- TELEGRAM -- January 27, 1892 Henry L. Dodge 114 Market St., San Francisco, Cal. Have asked the President to substitute the name of William Mayo Newhall for yours on the Assay Commission. You are a fraud and I am mad at you. Your friends could have waited a few days. E. O. Leech, Director of the Mint

Dust. Verdigris.

Here's a nice Quarter --- --- Horse.

Very nice! Does this carry forward to the circulating coinage?

How about proving the coin was "special" before calling it a "specimen" or some other Cat-Dog creature?

...or invisible to the untrained eye. The engraver's notebook mentioned many tiny changes being tested or made for quarters and nickels. George Morgan noted a difference in the 1916-1917 McKinley dollars. Dav Bowers and I spent nearly an hour several years ago trying to find the difference(s) --- nada to our eyes.

Grinding refers to the base of the die shank, not the face. The purpose was to get a good fit in the medal press. That one technician succeeded indicates different levels of skill. Polishing always removes material, therefore a polished die can never, in theory, have as much detail as an unpolished die. In a practical sense, there are multiple variables that could affect visible detail and us ordinary folk do not have the discriminatory training to see the differences.

The word "Specimen" is tossed about by TPGs and is one of those "looks like something special" class of undefined and undocumented "things." The word might, at times, have a legitimate meaning as Sandon implies, but just like the "Specimen 1793 cent" and "Specimen 1794 dollar" and "Specimen 1878 dollar" there is NO Independent documentation to support a special designation -- it just "looks like it might, kinda, sorta, could be" a greed-stretched thing. When the US Mint uses the word "specimen" in it's modern sales literature, then it is nothing more than a marketing name. Historically the term was used to indicate an example of a class, such as "I send a specimen of the half dollar as requested." It was also used in context to refer to a sample made specifically for approval such as "I send you a specimen of the new half dollar for your approbation." A further use was again in context relating to pattern or experimental pieces, "Enclosed find a specimen of the proposed five-cent coin." High quality pieces were also sent to branch mints when new designs were introduced. This was supposed to give the branch an example of what a finished coins was supposed to look like.

What does "SP" mean? Does that protect the coin from sunburn? If "SP" is an abbreviation for "Specimen," then it must have a definition. Otherwise, the designation is meaningless and of no value.

"Proof" dies were ordinary ones that were polished. Some lasted longer than others in the hydraulic press and were repolished more times. The average strikes between polishing was about 800 -- but with wide variation. The polishing was done by Adam Pietz and there are a couple of comments in the die book (Sept 28, 1937 - below) about him ruining a die by excess polishing. There are other comments about weak design details. It appears that all proof coins have inferior detail compared to the best normal circulation coins. This is most evident on the dime and half because they have more detail than the quarter and Jeff nickel.

Dedicated collectors drool too much to make gloves effective. Better to wear a surgical mask and tie their hands behind their backs....

Shhhhhhh....Mustn't question the immortal and all-powerful Ooze. (Behind the curtain...over there by the Squirrel Nutkin statue....) Copyright Frederick Warne & Co., 2002.

FlyingAl's investigation is certainly an example of pulling additional information out of the larger data stream. (It's what is done with "big data" where details are analyzed and squeezed for their juices.) I hope others will take a similar approach.

Thank you for the nice comments. The book (and articles), like most I write, is intended to be a long-term resource. As for "exceptional" I merely state facts and observations as objectively as I can. Labels, "expert" comments, seller notions, and so forth are not primary sources -- they are, at best, merely confirmation. As with the DE book, that produces considerable disagreement between my examination results and so-called "revealed wisdom." That also produces the freedom to state observation results without no consideration of "cost" or "rarity" or other extraneous conditions. That is, I respect the collectors' and try to give them the best information - then let them decide the entire "value" subject. (It's the same approach as for grading coins.)

I devote an unusual amount of time to talking with and listening to collectors - they are the owners of most of these things. Nearly all are very private about their collections. Many articles, and almost all my books have protected files containing confidential information and publication approvals. Therefore and book might include a comment such as the one FlyingAl mentioned, but no details. That is intentional to respect the wishes of individuals/dealers and integrity of confidential research sources. (Anyone who as allowed me to mention their coins or photograph them, knows that I go through an information verification and publication process for each detail that might appear in print. This includes attribution in footnotes/bibliography, photo captions, and other information that could suggest an owner or where they live.)

If a coin is in a holder from NGC, PCGS or ANACS and the label says "cleaned" or there's no grade, usually best to run away. 1921 Peace dollars have an unusually wide range of normal appearance, and some find them difficult to evaluate. If you are interested in the series, or details look for a copy of A Guide Book to Peace Dollars - Whitman publishing LLC. PS: Whitman is supposed to be having a "sale" or "special deals" today, Monday, so you might check them out and save on postage, or bagel chips, or whatever they're featuring.

Nothing was meant to suggest you were responsible for polishing the dollar....But, it was deliberate and ruined an otherwise pleasant coin. Greed and innocent ignorance are the primary reasons this happens.

An owner paid a lot of $$ for an "opinion." That does not mean the opinion is in agreement with the owner's view.

'Cause they are the worst of the lot....