FlyingAl

VKurt, I'm understanding this a little better now. I see why you want the opinions separate, and perhaps I will agree with that. I do think that Roger perhaps never thought to separate his opinions, instead leaving that job to the reader to figure out. Obviously, this raises problems later on, which you are clearly pointing out. I suppose that it is quite possible that Roger did this in error, but I think he may have intentionally left those opinions in there for the reader to decipher and decide if they want to agree or not, like I said before. As such, some people will take those as facts, which would be incorrect, even if the conclusions (opinions) he draws are logically true, and can be perhaps accepted as true. I agree with your point on this. I certainly learned a lot about opinions vs facts today!

Zadok, I respect your opinion, but I would like to see one such opinion that cannot be presented as a fact, particularly from the 36-42 proofs book.

Perhaps NGC would let you start a pinned thread with PDF indexes contained in the first post. The books would then have link to the thread. Those who want to use the index just have to type in the URL and download. I think this solves all of your issues? The tricky part is getting NGC to agree. I honestly doubt the viability of this option.

VKurt, I respect both you and Roger's opinions greatly. I had lurked here for years before joining and I'm glad I did, it taught me most of what I now know. I know that both of you provide valuable insight and services to the ANA, you with your volunteer work with shows and Roger listed as an editor of The Numismatist. I can respect both of you with your differing opinions, and have things that I disagree with for both. This would be what I disagree with you about, and for Roger its the whole thing about 65-67 SMS coins not being identifiable after they are removed from mint packaging. I never understood his point on that. A little backstory: I'm young, and don't have anywhere near the wisdom that many of you on the forums have gained in multiples of my time in the hobby. But one thing that I learned and drilled into my head early on in my ten years in the hobby was to read. Read everything that you can. I read the redbook cover to cover five times early on, and I still reference it every now and then for mintage figures. I managed to stay away from bad purchases and getting burned on my small budget by reading and knowing more than the person selling the coin. It was always my goal to know the most about that given coin that I was thinking of purchasing. What made that ONE coin the special one out of the mintage of say 40,000? I also realized early on that many of the threads on the forums provided better input than most books, but a lot of what was in them was opinions. I've also noticed that the further I get into a specialty, the harder it is to find new info on a coin or series. You eventually get to a point where there is just no more knowledge to find in text and you have to find it yourself by experience, especially in a smaller area of collecting. You have clearly met this point with many coins. At that point, the reading grows old and there is no need to read it again, it provides no use. That's why I don't read the redbook anymore, its use has faded. A lot of what runs in The Numismatist is good, particularly David Lange's articles and the humor section. There has only been one cover story, however, that I truly learned something from, and the online versions are just plain hard to navigate in my experience. I need to find a better system. Roger's books are so grossly in depth that there is always something to be gained from them, but a lot of what I take is his opinions, because the facts are in many places, in things I've already read. It seems to me that this is your main beef with Roger, his opinions. It may have gone back to the Longboard case or further, I don't know for sure since I have just started reading on that subject. So I guess the question to ask is this, based on the 36-42 proofs book. Roger clearly fills some gaps in with opinion (I maintain that those are logical conclusions), but do you agree with the opinions he puts out? At some point, all of numismatics has to fall to opinion, especially when someone wants to find new information related to a topic. Just my opinion. I suppose that one can say that Roger has no need to mark his opinions because they could very well be true, and many are. If the numismatic hobby in general agrees with his opinions, can they then be accepted as fact? Using the same book, if you say no to the questions, I would want to see an example. I think a critical part of arguing a point would be having evidence, which I would assume you have if you don't agree with Roger's opinions. Everyone has a right to argue their point, but they've got to have something to back it with.

The coin does appear to be fake. There are many areas of weak details where other areas are very strong, particularly on the reverse lettering. Also not the inconsistent width and thickness of the date numerals. Everything Oldhoopster said I agree with. These become very obvious when compared to a genuine example, just like what Oldhoopster said,

It's interesting San Francisco decided to harden the entire die, I would think that they would realize that having some soft steel at the base would allow for the die to compress a little bit and not be as susceptible to cracking. Does the entry have any reasoning for why San Fran decided to do so? Philadelphia seems to get my view and seems to be just as confused as I am!

Roger, I get what you are saying, but since the different time periods of proofs had different processes to create the dies, and therefore slightly different surfaces on the finished coins, would this affect the result? You mention in your book of 1936-42 proofs areas of brilliance on the cameos, which was apparent in the pictures. However, with Bill's proof Morgan, there are not the same degree of brilliant areas. Are you suggesting that the TPGs take readings for each era of proofs and then apply the standard?

The grading companies are especially tough with these when designating CAM. If there's any weakness, it's not a CAM, and many of these proofs have to be more CAM than other eras as a result. A coin that might be a high level cameo or borderline UCAM for one proof era doesn't end up in a CAM holder for this era. With that note, Bill's dime is in my mind no doubt a cameo. It has no frost weakness to my eyes, has deep liquid mirrors, and great eye appeal. The only problem is that the dimes are number two in number of cameos because of the year 1939. It was likely that one collector got a run of the cameos and saved them to where they are in collector hands today. It is probable that the coin was not designated because it is not quite as deep in its frost as the other designated CAMs. Either way, it may get the destination upon resubmission. It should in my eyes anyways. That is my main beef with the TPGs for this era. If the gold dollar Bill posted had the frost and mirrors like his dime did, it would likely be an Ultra Cameo candidate. So why doesn't his dime get the designation? I hate to say it, but I wonder if the TPGs don't really understand that the proofs of this era won't be as deep in CAM as other eras and that very few die pairings would ever strike CAMs. Only new dies, and when they had just come out of die hubbing and cleanup without excess polishing to the devices, could produce cameos. It is critical that the satin surface created by the hubbing process was not removed, because there was no extra step to add a frosted surface to the dies. It is likely that the mint actually polished the recessed areas of the die too, just like is seen in the Brilliant proof Buffalos and how they have a weaker coat detail by far than the Satin coins. Of course, that is not the only reason. So since the mint wanted the entire coin to be brilliant when it was struck, especially in 1936, one can tell with a high degree of certainty that these cameo proofs are unintentional. Think of the other proof eras and you will realize that the Mint never took steps to remove the frost of the dies, except for the fields. In the earlier eras, the flat fields made this easy. In the later eras, the mint added an acid dip to make it possible to retain the frost with excess polishing, but tried not to over polished the dies. Even later, the laser frosting was adopted. So is that why this era has, by far, the least CAMs in relation to coins struck? Yes. It is the only time in mint history where proofs were sold to collectors where the mint at times polished the whole die, and intentionally at times. They likely did this because that is what collectors wanted at a time when they had not idea that CAMs existed, or didn't recognize them. It is my opinion that if the collectors weren't in such an uproar over the "dull" proofs in 1936, and the mint did not polish the dies excessively, we may have either fully Satin proof sets or many more cameo coins. The cameos are more likely, assuming the mint learned form its failure in 1916.

GoldFinger, it was over why the Trade dollar was suspended. I agree with Dave in his point that the metal content was worth well below the value of one dollar, so smart people (technically scammers) would have their silver coined into the Trade dollars and then spend them at one dollar in the United States markets rather than the foreign markets, thereby making money in the process. Lange argued that it was a standalone problem not related in any way to the Bland-Allison act. I agree with this due to the obvious reasons Lange provided. Brothers argued the point that since Trade Dollars were in circulation after the suspension of their legal tender status, the Bland-Allison act must be responsible for the cause of the suspension of coinage. (At least that is how I understand it, his response doesn't really make any sense to me). He also argues that since there is no evidence to support Lange's statements except the fact that the intrinsic value of the Trade dollar was lower, it must not be true, as well as that the Trade dollar was suspended because it was a threat to the resumption of coinage of a standard dollar. He asks why the Trade dollar was discontinued if it was a success in the export market. The answer, of course, is that it was a way to make money from the gov't for free. Hope this helps, it was run in the March 2022 issue of The Numismatist.

The more I read RWB's works or opinions, and the more I learn by my own experiences in the hobby, the more I realize that Roger works are more fact and quality than anything else. What I have read from RWB's books has yet to be disproven in any of my personal experiences, and those facts that I went to go check, thinking they were false, have only proven to be true. Even if you don't believe what he may say in his books, look at what the mint records say. All of the records I've seen form the mint only back up Roger's work. For example, let's take the 1936-42 proof coins book. I would like to have someone pull up a better or more factual reference on these proofs. I have done some research myself, as well as a lot of time studying these proofs, and I can say that everything Roger wrote is in line with the research that I have done and the coins I have looked at. I think someone would have a hard time finding something in that book that is completely false. The die tables back up a lot of the work, and if there is anything better than having mint documents and the coins themselves back up research, I would definitely like to hear it. As with anyone, we will all have certain things that we will disagree with over certain points. The factual content and ability to learn from Roger's works is not something I will disagree with, at least not yet. Very few other references in the hobby can stack up to Roger's work, because they are just lacking the depth of work that Roger produces. There's a reason he's so well respected IMO.

Woods, there will never be any Satin CAMs, due to the fact that the dies were never polished. They were exactly the same as the dies used for circulation strikes, the only difference was that the coins were struck at higher pressure on a medal press if memory serves right. As a result, they will never have the contrast needed for CAM. Roger is exactly right that the CAMs of this era were accidental, one could even go as far to say that they were not desired and the Mint didn't want to produce them because the collectors wanted fully brilliant coins, and a CAM didn't fit that description. I would imagine that the mint would have gotten some angry letters if the cameos weren't so rare. However, there are some nice 1937 CAM Buffs, one is below, I got this form Michael Kittle's website, I couldn't find it on CU's forums but an internet search turned it up:

The Satin proofs for this era will always offer the best detail with the exception of perhaps some cameo coins. Especially with 1936 when the mint learned that the collectors were opposed to the satin finish like they were in 1916, they polished the heck out of the dies going forward so the Brilliant buffalo nickels in general have really deep mirrors but lacking details like RWB pointed out. The 1936 coins in general have some of the deepest mirrors out of this era in my opinion, and the buffalo BillJones posted shows this. It is rare to find any proof of this era with that deep of mirrors in my experience, even amongst CAMs, and that is all a result of the Mint really making sure those dies shined going into the medal room, no matter how much detail was gone. This lacking detail continues through all six years of this proof era, and good detail is part of the reason why advanced collectors prefer the Satins and CAMs. I personally prefer the Satin proofs as well, but the market loves the Brilliant coins as BillJones pointed out.

The SMS dies were consistently over polished, removing detail and that is why there are large premiums for DCAM coins where they haven’t been over polished and the coins have full details and frosted devices and black mirrors. Coins struck by slightly over polished die pairs are common. Some die pairs had the FG designer’s initials removed and they also have large premiums, but your coin is not anywhere near that and still clearly has the FG.

This was my first thought when I saw the thread over at the other forum. The manganese in the alloy must cause some minor attraction to a magnet that is varying based on the slightly different alloy in each coin from the different batches of metal. This helps explain why some are slightly magnetic and some aren’t. Manganese in elemental form is also paramagnetic, so this explains the results.

This is an interesting coin, but a more interesting result. I don't know how I feel about the 69 grade, and I really doubt that the new owner would be able to tell the $90,000 difference between the coin they bought and a 68+ if it didn't say so right on the label. Very few numismatists could. So they probably bought it for a registry set and are perfectly content with it. That's great, if that's the plan. I personally don't think that there is any noticeable difference between this one and any nice 68+, and therefore don't think it deserves any premium. At a minimum, this coin saw a few years of less than optimal storage, and could have seen up to 86 years of less than optimal storage, and it really makes one wonder how any of these coins survived in a 69 grade, if at all. Is there really any difference between the 1936 Brilliant coin and this Satin (excepting the finish) or the 68+ Satin posted in state of preservation? I personally think no. So why does this one deserve the $90,000 premium?

DWLange, were the die caps used for circulation dies as well or just proofs? I assume both since the die was destined for Denver, but if these caps weren't used for circulation dies, then it must be something else, right?