FlyingAl

On 7/17/2022 at 6:49 PM, EagleRJO said:

I can see the side of the argument for Technical Grading which may be more of a purist point of view as it would be consistent and absolute from coin to coin, and not be significantly affected by what could be very subjective grading opinions that would be more likely to vary from one grading expert to the next.  However, you could have 2 coins that grade the same, but one coin is worth more because of a more desirable appearance or pedigree.  As a newer collector I find it very useful to have grading that considerers subjective qualities that can affect the value of a coin, instead of having two coins with exactly the same grade varying in price based on how they appear.

This is exactly correct, and this is exactly why the hobby has chosen to adopt the TPG standards. They are more up to date and more correct. In essence, what grading comes down to is assigning a value to a coin, because grade is the main part of that. The old grading standards fell short on some levels, so they were revamped so that the grade more accurately reflects the coin's value by including attributes like colors, luster, strike, etc. 

This is how I see it anyways. 

On 7/16/2022 at 12:26 PM, RWB said:

What a silly and self-serving comment. Change is fine and to be expected. But changes in standards demand input before they are made. That has nto been done, hence the piles of complaints and confusion that are largely unnecessary.

Roger, one could easily argue that since the industry has completely adopted the TPG standards without any second thought that input was given. The industry accepting the standard could easily be that input. Just my opinion. 

On 7/13/2022 at 3:00 PM, The Penny Lady said:

Her name is Penny and she's an adorable sweet (indoor) tuxedo cat and has never harmed any creature. Since her name is Penny and I am The Penny Lady, I have included her picture at the end of every one of my show reports.

I like the cat! I've grown up with cats my whole life and they just bring something new to enjoy and laugh at every day. I think perhaps dog people are a bit touchy when they realize what they missed out on 

Plain and simple for this coin I think: 

The owner and buyer thought it was a 66+, for which the price would be in the ballpark.

On 7/8/2022 at 8:59 AM, Melior Invenidiste said:

Those darned NGC numismatists just have to disagree with you. 

At least NGC admits what they really are on their coin explorer... NGC calls the "SMS" coins new strikes and state them as essentially nothing special. 

On 7/8/2022 at 9:55 AM, VKurtB said:

So now you can start a loose leaf notebook of things that RWB disagrees with the bulk of the numismatic hobby. Better get one with a spine of at least a couple of inches. You’ll need it, maybe just for the ones that RWB disagrees with the American Numismatic Association. It’s NOT a rare state of affairs. Not even a little bit. (Sorry, couldn’t resist. RWB just might be correct about this one.)

I think we both know Roger is probably right about this one .

On 7/8/2022 at 9:42 AM, Melior Invenidiste said:

Look at the detail on the hairline

 

I'll fix it for you:

Look at the lack of detail on the hairline!

I look at Carr's work through a different lens:

I'm a unexperienced 16 year old working at the cash register in a busy supermarket. You hand me a piece of Carr's work as payment.

If I accept it - the line has been crossed.

If not - carry on. 
 

On 7/3/2022 at 3:16 PM, VKurtB said:

I see that even the “Red Book” calls them Matte Proofs. 

Interesting. I still maintain that they should change that. Who knows why they chose that description, except perhaps ignorance of the correct term and neglect in using old terms.

On 7/3/2022 at 9:45 AM, VKurtB said:

Al, I’ve never seen a 1912 proof gold coin NOT described as “matte proof” by a seller. 

Yeah, that's the unfortunate part. To me, it's almost like calling a proof a circulation strike, because the coins are entirely different in production processes. Of course, it's not the same, but it's mildly annoying that sellers don't take the time to learn the correct terminology. Sandblast just fits the look of the coins too. Who knows !

On 7/2/2022 at 9:19 PM, RWB said:

Yep. ALL coinage is the Mint's "business." Circulation coinage is distinct from commemorative coins, collectors' proof coins, etc ...don't forget mint spoons !

I use this distinction at every opportunity, but the whole field of numismatics seems a bit behind on the terminology. 

Just yesterday I saw a well known coin dealer that commonly sells $100k plus coins list a 1912 proof quarter-eagle as "matte proof" DOH! 

I've had coins pop up in the census before I can see the grades on the Submission Tracking (they were varieties with very few known).

On 6/29/2022 at 3:28 PM, CaptHenway said:

If I might toss out two-thirds of a quibble here, what do you mean by "a circulation pair of dies?" There are certain Proof issues where dies were made specifically for the Proof coinage from slightly modified artwork. These do occasionally turn up on a business strike coin, to the delight of cherrypickers everywhere.

TD

What I was getting at was that the dies used for proofs and the ones for circulation coinage were the same in production methods up to that point (hubbing and hardening was the same for proof and circulation dies). I neglected to think of those examples where the hubs for proof coinage were slightly different (Washington quarters and Lincoln cents now come readily to mind). In general, the statement I was trying to make is that there's no difference in production of a proof die until the last step of polishing or sandblasting the die for proof coinage. 

I hope this answered your question?

On 6/28/2022 at 12:56 PM, RWB said:

The work would have been performed by the Medal Dept., who were the same ones who used a medal press to strike the coins.

This makes sense, the coins were struck in the same process as the sandblast gold, and they weren't made with sandblasted dies. Thanks for the clarification!

On 6/28/2022 at 1:01 PM, RWB said:

cerium oxide was the polishing agent.

I know this was true for the 1936-42 proofs, but did this carry over into the 1950-64 era? I got the diamond dust compound statement from a book that was specifically focused on the 1950-64 proofs, so I wonder if perhaps the book was wrong or the agent did change?

On 6/28/2022 at 12:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And today's MIRROR PROOFS which have been around for decades....which of the 3 methods are they closest to ?

Found this post I made ATS for the 1950-64 era, 1936-42 is very similar, albeit without retouching the die to make sure that the frost was there. 1936-42 proof CAMs were entirely unintentional.

For the true numismatists here, here's a description of proof die production in this era (50-64)

A normal die was taken and inspected for flaws, then acid dipped or pickled in 95% alcohol and 5% nitric acid.

A worker would check the die to make sure there was not weakness in frost, if there was a spot with frost weakness then there would be an additional step of taking a swap of the aforementioned solution, and applying it to the die to strengthen the frost and ensure there was no area missing frost. Some 1959 halves show this on the reverse of the bell in the lower right, it's rather interesting to see. I'm not sure if CoinFacts has an example to show, but you could look in both the CAM and DCAM sections to try and find one. I'll check and edit my post here if I see one. Edit: I found one, note the difference in texture and color on the lower right of the bell:

The above step would have created a die with a uniformly frosted surface, so the worker would need to polish the fields with a diamond dust compound. This would be done with a wooden mandril and then a felt tipped mandril. The polishing would not reach the devices, and as such they maintained their cameo appearance.

The dies were inspected to ensure everything looked right and they went into production. There were no test strikes. If there were any in the design process, they would be patterns and they would appear deep cameo and are unknown today, I doubt they ever existed.

During the 1970s, the acid was switched for a sandblasting of the die, which made the DCAM or CAM appearance last for hundreds of thousands of strikes. The frost also appeared different.

On 6/28/2022 at 12:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And today's MIRROR PROOFS which have been around for decades....which of the 3 methods are they closest to ?

None. Those proofs are made by taking a normal pair of dies, acid dipping them to etch the surface, and then polishing the fields. Of course there are nuances to what I've said, but that's the general idea. I also took the liberty of not using the modern method of sandblasting the dies, which in my opinion ruins the finished coin. I've developed a general distaste to the modern proofs after I discovered 1936-64 CAM and DCAM proofs, which have a frost that just looks natural. 

On 6/28/2022 at 11:25 AM, RWB said:

Matte refers ONLY to early Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels.

The other two are correct.

Referring to the 1921/1922 sandblast proof dollars as "matte" was a pile of horse droppings that someone (Breen ?) started just after WW-II. I blame Breen because he was prone to invent things when he didn't bother to do the research to learn the truth. From the first coin-use of sandblasting in 1908, the coins were always called "sandblast" or "sand blasted" which was also the Medal Dept.'s normal means of finishing most medals. (The work was done in the same department bu the same people.)

About 20 years ago Dave Bowers and I began reverting to the original descriptive names for such pieces. "Matte" returned to "sandblast;" "Roman proof" returned to "satin." I was the one who did the research and discovered what was actually done. Kevin Flynn added more about sandblasting from a document he located. Since then, usage has slowly moved back to the original description approach for these and several other terms that have been misused for a long time. I also recommended reserving "matte" for the Lincoln and Buffalo proofs because that was a suitable descriptive term, and there could no longer be confusion about what "matte" meant.

I have no clue about what the US Mint means with their surface descriptions. They refuse to fully explain and are not consistent -- hence I ignore them.

Alright, sounds good. Just one last question: 

Were the proofs of the 1921 dollars that are sandblast made in the same process of the sandblast 1911-1916 gold? Or is the process of their production unclear? 

I was over at ATS when I was reading a thread about an exceptionally well struck circulation strike 1921 Peace dollar, so I made the comparison that the strike rivals a proof. Then I discovered that PCGS labels all proofs as "matte" while the proof shown was clearly (in my opinion) a satin proof. There were no exceptions to this rule, I need to ask why, but first I need to get a few things straight: 

Just a brief definition segment so we're all on the right track with the different proof finished discussed (all dies are identical to circulation strike dies before these treatments, and all planchets are polished):

Matte: dies get a sandblasting before they are used in striking coins.

Satin: Dies have no special treatment, the proofs look unique due to a polishing of the planchets and special handling as well as extra pressure and a slow strike from a medal press.

Sandblast: A satin proof is taken and individually sandblasted.

The reason I wanted to post this over here is that in the course of my research, I discovered Roger's old comments about these proofs ATS and he stated that satin and sandblast proofs were struck of the dollars of 1921. I agree fully with the satin proofs, but what Roger termed as sandblast proofs appear more like matte proofs to me based on the images I saw. Which is true? Are there any mint documents supporting the striking of any proof 1921 dollar?

The satin proof:

Yikes, that is really bad. I'm surprised you got that to a semblance of proper color. The bad image (unedited) are expense warrants for 1795 right?

Personally, I don't have a need for an index as a reader. If I want to go back and find something, I'll find that section in the table of contents and then read the entire section, because often that yields better results (I often forget some minor details that rereading the section allows me to remember) than performing a search based solely off of memory and an index. Just my opinion however.

This is very neat - a 28 pound nugget! The letter seems to be the second of those sent to the mint department, but it doesn't appear to be the first. The mention of another piece would disprove that. It may be the first surviving letter however. Either way, that's a really cool piece of correspondence!

On 6/24/2022 at 10:37 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

For instance, when Heritage auctioned off that bag that once contained 1928 Double Eagles, the speculation was that the bag MIGHT have once held the 250 Saints that were swiped from the Philly Mint. 

See, but that one word "might" changes the whole thing. The coin in this example has been stated to be an absolute, no questions asked specimen. It would be like that bag in your example being cataloged as "absolutely guaranteed to be the bag that held the stolen coins, even though we have no proof." The story is also based on truth - at least I assume a bag of Saints were actually stolen. There's no proof that the SF mint ever struck specimens, there's actually pretty good evidence against it. Therefore the whole thing has been made up. 

I do get your point, it's true for a lot of cases. Just not this one . 

On 6/23/2022 at 11:49 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I don't want false advertising but the stories that accompany some of these coins -- "urban legends" or the like -- are just part of the mythology of the hobby.

Like Babe Ruth's "Called Shot." 

Yes, Roger is absolutely right. What created those stories? Greed. At least for the coins, I don't know much about Babe Ruth's called shot.

On 6/23/2022 at 7:39 PM, MarkFeld said:

On the other hand, I think the coin looks attractive in both sets of pictures.

And that is precisely why color premiums differ for each coin… it’s all opinion and that’s what makes each case special. I can entirely respect your view, even if mine differs because color is entirely subjective. It’s rather interesting to think about!

On 6/23/2022 at 3:40 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Not familiar with Mercs, but I would think you'd be more interested after seeing the True View pics, no ?

Erm, maybe not. That coin could (my opinion) be used as a plate for "unattractive toning". The first pics make it look somewhat attractive, the second not at all.

On 6/23/2022 at 3:51 PM, RWB said:

This abuse has been growing over the past 2 decades. It is partially money-driven, and partly corporate ego-driven. EVERY claim of something unusual must, in my view, be subject to open discussion among a much wider body of expertise than any TPG has available. There MUST be a chain of custody or provenance, and/or documentation to support extraordinary claims, and that evidence MUST be publicly available for examination and discussion before the authenticator presents a decision. Such an open investigation and process benefits everyone involved, and collector knowledge in general.

The TPGS will never allow this, as the coins with these huge claims give them major publicity. They get to revel in what is an "amazing discovery" and make a ton of money after the fact. Don't forget the time and effort used to create such a system, which the TPGS would never devote the resources to. It's a great idea that is almost immediately dead in the water because of greed. Such is the problem nowadays with coins like this.