FlyingAl

On 3/20/2022 at 3:38 PM, RWB said:

We have no reliable information about the quantity of proof quarters (1936-42)  that have not been evaluated for cameo contrast.

While this is true, if we could rule out the dies themselves rather than the coins - i.e if we could find coins from each new die pair that can show us wether or not the dies had the capability to strike a CAM. For example, this 1942 I saw earlier on GC. 

It has good contrast both obverse and reverse, but it is clear that the dies would have never struck a CAM due to the frost center wing being polished off at the mint before the dies were put into service. It is therefore fair to say in my opinion that we can rule out this one die pair, with fresh obverse and reverse die, from striking cameos. If we could repeat that with all new die pairs for 1942 and other years, we could perhaps achieve what I was mentioning. 

With all of the technology and information that we have now, it it possible to say that there will never be a cameo 1936-42 Washington Quarter? I think we might be able to, and here's why, but first we have to define a cameo. Here is my personal definition that I use : a coin struck by dies that have not had the frosted texture of hubbing and die cleanup removed while having and maintaining deeply polished and mirrored fields. There are other definitions, but for this era this definition seems to ring true in my opinion.

1. CoinFacts and online auction databases. We can see literally thousands of coins that were struck during this time period, and quickly and easily find the very best of these coins. We can tell which coins have the most cameo contrast and what die pair they were struck from based on tells like die polish and die scratches, and in many cases, recutting.

2. Die tables. We also are armed with the information of how many dies the Philadelphia Mint used. We can therefore match the coins to dies until we can, with certainty, say that the most contrasted coins did not stack up to meet the definition of cameo, and therefore there cannot be any for this year because we have run out of possible die combinations. This is also simpler than one might think, because only NEW die pairs, both obverse and reverse, can meet the definition of a cameo. It makes it easy to rule out a few die pairs right from the get go.

Both of these factors seem to make it possible to tell in today's time with the technology able to us, that we can theoretically rule out any cameo quarters for this era. I just went through GC's entire database of 1942 proof quarters and found one with a claim to cameo, but it still did not meet the definition of a CAM, based on mirrored wings in areas of the reverse. This was out of hundreds, maybe thousands, of coins. So that is one die pair down, out of 4 new die pairs according to RWB's die tables in his book. That of course, leaves out the possibility that some brand new die pairs were already too polished when they were put in service to produce CAMs. 

I do think that with a lot of time and effort, we could tell for certain that there could be no CAM 1936-1942 Washington quarters. It could very well be possible to stop theorizing that there are no CAMs and in essence prove it. What do you think? 

On 3/18/2022 at 8:41 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The factually incorrect information does NOT detract from the rest of the analysis of the 1929 Saints -- it pretty much stands alone -- but anybody repeating that there was a hoard of 1929 Saints found in England in 1984 is saying something that we know now is 100% false.

And this is essentially the essence of this argument. No one wants their facts mixed in with the opinions. I don't collect Saints and therefore have no idea which particular hoards are true or false, but I do think that I would have taken the mention of 40 coins as true, because we've seen it before in the hobby.

This is the kind of misinformation that VKurt is talking about, where it can hurt even those who have been in the hobby for a time, and certainly those who are brand new. It is also why leaving opinions indistinguishable from fact very dangerous and raises many problems. 

To VKurt, I replied to your example above, but now as I think about it I don't ever recall Roger going that far away from what the hobby says as true in his written works. While it certainly hurts his credibility with the forums, does he make any statements like that in his written works? Such a move would not be good for Roger and as such, I don't think he'd try it. While I agree with your stance on his statements about Carr and how he conducted those arguments here on the forums, but since the thread is technically about his written works, perhaps you have an example from his published works that could change my opinion about those works. 

I do also doubt that you have many of his written works, so if you don't that is your decision and I won't change that. If that is true, I will take your Carr statements as an excellent example of what we are mentioning.

On 3/17/2022 at 2:53 PM, VKurtB said:

Here is an example, Al and “Finger”. Roger has repeatedly written that Daniel Carr is a counterfeiter. What would be CORRECT is to write that in his OPINION what Daniel Carr does SHOULD BE CONSIDERED counterfeiting. But no, Roger never writes that way. It’s ALWAYS in the language of absolutism, and that’s intellectually dishonest. 

This I would agree with, a major opinion that should be separated, no questions asked. 

Goldfinger, 

Glad I could help!

On 3/17/2022 at 1:55 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Not sure what is special about the 1936-42 Proofs but clearly there's enough interest in them to justify a book. 

The 1936-42 proofs are a very interesting chapter to U.S. proof production, and in my opinion, one of the best series of proofs to collect. Roger's book is a must read before really getting into these, and if you have any interest I would highly recommend it. Of course, I would love to collect proof gold from 1909-1916, but I also don't have millions to throw around. 

Since I don't have the Saints book I can't tell for sure if there is anything in that book that is like the minor opinions stated in the 36-42 book. I somehow doubt it based in what you've said. 

On 3/17/2022 at 1:55 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Facts, logical conclusions, and nebuoulsly-supported opinions are 3 different levels of confidence.  At various times, you need to decide if something is major or minor and the level of proof needed to make a statement and if that statement is one of fact, conclusion, or opinion.  Roger's numerical math on Saint survivors is one good example of this and the presence of hoards and hidden bags being found, plus a continued drip-drip-drip from the retail public, can lead an individual to make EITHER of the positions on more coins being found for a particular Saint mintage. 

 

I think that Roger's opinions on surviving coins is one of the things he has taken the time to separate from fact. In the 1936-42 proofs book he always states estimated mintage, which is a clear cut way to convey to the reader that "hey, this may or may not be true". I don't think anyone can argue this.

On 3/17/2022 at 1:55 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

All I know is I read a 640-page book that Roger wrote/edited and I found it chock-full-of-facts and well-supported conclusions/opinions.  I don't think it would have helped me if facts, opinions, and conclusions were all color-coded.

I do think that anything Roger doesn't separate is either too minor to matter or so logic and fact based that there is essentially irrefutable evidence to support it, at least with the 36-42 proofs book. I do also believe that this is why VKurt can appreciate the work that Roger did on the subject. As for other works, maybe VKurt can provide us with evidence that we don't have. This is also why I am taking Roger's side on this matter. This is also the reason I brought up the points of why Roger likely didn't separate everything .

On 3/17/2022 at 1:55 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Other sources besides books might be the commentaries in auction catalogs and auction sites like HA, forums like this, and other various sources on the web.  I recently found some new information on the 1983 MTB Saint/Gold Hoard from the Stack's website archives.

The problem with this is that it takes quite a major coin or hoard to bring up a well written and researched auction description. Even for coins like 1937 CAM proofs, the best I've ever seen was a basic description of the coin. No backstory, no rarity statement. It's useless to the reader at that point, and I imagine that many serious bidders looked at that, chuckled, and then bid $10,000-$20,000. Another reason why Roger's works are a rarity compared to other places, they actually find what makes each coin special and why someone is willing to pay $10,000-$20,000 for it, not just a brief description of the coin and a small mention in passing that goes along with "oh yeah by the way, its a CAM, one of around 10". I've seen all of the auction houses do this too, so I'm not just picking on one in particular.

Of course, the forums are a great source, and I've found them to be almost equal to Roger's work at times. I will have to resurrect the 1936-42 proofs book to ask Roger why he took the stance on original sets .

Goldfinger, I am with you 100% here, I was really just trying to get where VKurt was coming from. I always try to hear both sides of the story before I take a side. 

I'll try and explain where we went in a few posts, it did go really fast. The first thing that got us to where we decided that Roger does not sometimes distinguish his opinions and fact was where it was established that opinions (conclusions) cannot be facts. I had no idea this was true, but the definitions make it clear, and I was wrong. Opinions and conclusions are by definition, very close to the same. The only difference is that conclusions are generally logic and fact based, but are not in themselves fact and cannot be. I think this is where you got lost, and it was where I did before I researched it too. I encourage you to look it up, I'm sure there are sites that can give a much better answer than I can. 

I'm sorry I can't come onto your home base with the Saint's book, I'm afraid I don't have it. I will choose something that is familiar to a lot of numismatists, but this is by luck that Roger chose to have an opinion here. I will note that there were only two things in the 36-42 proofs book that were opinions that were very layered in with facts where they got very blurry and it was easy to take the opinions as fact unless you really red between the lines. They were Roger's statements on original proof sets and the number of cameo coins a die pair could have struck. I agree with his stance on the former, and disagree with the latter.

I'll choose the original proof set statement to begin with. Roger states that since all proofs were ordered individually and that they were randomly assembled at the mint (fact) they were therefore never in original sets to begin with (opinion). He does, however, correctly state that the so called "original sets" are only coins that were received in the original package from the mint. He goes on to state that there is no difference between a set in the original package and a set in five certification holders and says they are the same (opinion).

While many would agree with this, if the coins from the original set and box where also graded, I do think (opinion) that a major premium would be paid for a set never removed from the mint cellophane, which has never come to market but I know that I certainly would. This would say that the market DOES distinguish between a certified set where the coins came from all over and a truly original set just as it came from the mint. As such, the opinion that is so layered between facts is therefore taken as a fact by a reader who does not truly know the market. 

All being said, Roger has written an excellent work and is right on almost everything, there is no possible way to write a perfect book. His is as close to perfect as you can get, and I'm really having to dissect the work here. I also agree with Roger on his stance about original sets, any premium I would pay is based off of having novelty of a set surviving for so many years straight from the mint. I do suspect others would want the originality of it. However, Roger is 100% correct in saying that there is no difference between a set of five coins in one set of holders and five others in a set of a different TPG's holders. You also raise a good point about finding other good books. There are few for niche markets, especially the 36-42 proofs book, and VKurt's statement proves this when he says: 

On 3/16/2022 at 4:27 PM, VKurtB said:

The 36-42 proofs book was important enough for me to overlook my more “personal” problems with Roger

There aren't many books out there and it is unfortunate, but you may be able to find one on the Saints. I do, however, know that if there is a better or more researched book out there about the 36-42 proofs, I haven't found it. I view Roger's book as the authoritative reference on these coins. 

I, however, agree with Roger and Goldfinger on this one. Roger's conclusions are so logically driven that there is not necessarily a need to separate them every time, for many reasons. One is that it would take too much time. Two is that it would lengthen the work. Three is that it is redundant. Four is that there is no easy way to write "in the author's opinion" (I found this out when writing my ANA YN literary submission, and it was a pain). I also suspect that there are many other reasons. I do, however, think that VKurt has a valid point for major opinions, where the opinion covers something so big that it could change the market. That should be stated as an opinion. 

Of note, I'm really not trying to burn any bridges here. I'm new to the forums but do hope that I can take what I've learned in my time in numismatics and hopefully apply it here. That's also why I took the time to (hopefully) understand both sides and where they were coming from with their arguments. I haven't really gotten to know either Roger or VKurt at all, but I do know that they have made major contributions to the hobby. I do hope that at some point, you two will be able to put your differences aside and work for the hobby together. What you could do would make a difference that would last for years, and YN's like me would thank you when we're older for how you made the hobby better. 

It does seem we've had a long argument over something that seems rather minor in my eyes now .

On 3/16/2022 at 4:27 PM, VKurtB said:

The 36-42 proofs book was important enough for me to overlook my more “personal” problems with Roger. Frankly, I’d like to see it augmented with material on the Lincoln Matte Proofs and early Buffalo Matte Proofs

I loved the 36-42 proofs book, as you can probably tell by now. These proofs are my main collecting interest and Roger's book is I think without a doubt the most informative and well done reference for these proofs. However, the best way to learn about these based on my experience is just to look at a lot of them and apply what Roger says to your own knowledge based on the coins themselves, and images found on sites like CoinFacts. 

As to the topic of Matte proofs, I do think that there is not much out there, but I haven't really looked to be honest. I do also think that there is a lot of misinformation on them, and a lot of "get rich quick" information going around. The idea of cherrypicking these is a major contributor to their popularity today IMO. I don't think that there are as many collectors willing to build a full set of these, Lincoln or Buffalo, as the market lets on. Such a shame too, if they were cheaper I'd be all over them . It would be nice to see Roger put out a book similar in style to the 36-42 book for these Matte proofs, I think it may contribute to a larger collector base rather than a "get rich quick" base. It takes a special collector to truly understand those proofs and go after the best ones. I do also think having a published list of the diagnostics would be helpful. Many of the sites for diagnostics that the forums list are either too old and therefore no longer hosted on the internet, or incomplete (particularly the Buffalo series). Of course, the books you mentioned may already provide this information in spades, but since I don't have them to reference I cannot speak to that.

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?