MarkFeld

Why do you assume they couldn’t authenticate the coin?

The coin was subsequently reviewed by PCGS and CAC, and in or out of a holder, it would be very easy to match to its images.

There was already a resolution, prior to the previous sale of the coin in 2002. This is from the catalog description of the coin at that time: “On January 25, 2001, just four days before jury selection was to have begun, The United States Government and attorneys for Stephen Fenton reached an out-of-court settlement. It was a singular agreement, and permitted the sale of the 1933 Double Eagle described in this catalogue.The United States Government will officially monetize and issue this single 1933 Double Eagle, making it unique and the only one certified for private ownership.”

You accuse him of being “intentionally ignorant” and then use a wildly off-base analogy. Your only defense to not being a hypocrite would be if your analogy was unintentionally ignorant.😬

Agreed, it seems that he didn’t steal the coins or do anything illegal. At that time, as far as the Mint was concerned, one date was the same value as and interchangeable with another.

The ruling didn’t require the conclusion that the Langbords were thought to be lying. It was based on the belief that the coins never let the Mint legally. And while you can make all the pronouncements you want, none of us know whether that was the case.

I see you’re still not using “you’re” correctly in everyday speech.😉

Tom, I hope you see this message... Whatever the cause(s), I’m very sorry you’re feeling the way you are. I hope you return but in case not, I always enjoyed your posts and our interactions. Wishing you the very best.

I made reference to the copper pattern earlier in the thread. And as I understand it, your memory is correct.

I see. The obviously early die state of the coin is just “fact-less speculation” so “It is also perfectly conceivable that is the was the very last 1794 silver dollar struck.” Heaven forbid that you admit your comment was bologna. I’ve now given up on trying to have reasonable discussions with you - it’s not worth the effort.

“It is also perfectly conceivable that is the was the very last 1794 silver dollar struck.” You still haven’t explained how that could be.

Of course it’s possible. But it doesn’t matter, since we don’t know.

I’m not making any assumptions and I haven’t indicated that I thought the coin was the first one struck or that it’s a “Specimen” strike. So it seems as if you’re either deflecting or stuck on what bothers you regarding what others have said about the coin. I’ve taken issue with your comment “It is also perfectly conceivable that is the was the very last 1794 silver dollar struck.” You still haven’t explained how that could be.

Condition is key to value.

I understand that you dislike hype - so do I. But if you don’t dispute that the copper and silver examples are from the same die state, I don’t understand how you can say “It is also perfectly conceivable that is the was the very last 1794 silver dollar struck.” You must know better than that.

Call it a Die Trial if you prefer.

How so? Are you disputing the observation that the coin is the same die state as the 1794 copper pattern and that the latter would have likely been struck prior to the silver circulation strikes? Thank you, but I'll take the extensive research of Martin Logies and his book on 1794 dollars, over your comment.

I’m not convinced or claiming that the coin was the first example struck. But based on its die state, your dismissal of its chances of being so, is way off base.

I don’t have the Amon Carter catalog to be able to confirm, but I believe that in their description of the coin, Stack’s wrote “It is perfectly conceivable that this coin was the very first Silver Dollar struck!”.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen reeding marks like that/to that extent before. My guess is that it’s some other type of post-production damage.

In case it wasn't already included above, there's an additional processing fee, per invoice.

Because the desire/wish to have something valuable, can easily overcome facts, common sense and logic.

You might be an exception. But even if you’re not, dealers still tend to be much larger submitters than collectors.

Do you really think that would be good business?

I don’t think one needs to be a dealer in order to know that.