FlyingAl

I feel the problem is quite worse, it's based on assumptions of scribbles. I see no end to this in sight. It's quite unfortunate. You're right, no one seems to care.

Yes, that thread just makes the facts even more murky. I've read your replies three times now, here's what I got. 1. The coin isn't a specimen, it's within normal tolerance and the TPGS made the SP claim up, 2. The engraved pieces are only special because they were engraved, and are also in tolerance. 3. The coin is exactly in the same realm as the supposed 1964 "SMS" coins- namely that it is only special in looks because of special handling, care, and new dies. 4. This is akin to the "branch mint proof" claims, whereas true proofs from mint marked dies did indeed come from Philadelphia. The other mints could not produce proofs. 5. My statements above were correct that Linderman never did request special coins and got perfectly normal ones. 6. My statements above that the only special coins were the ones struck by a manually turned flywheel were correct. (only one as I take the Examiner article literally. 7. My statements about the multiple die pairs was correct. I think this is as far as I can go with the info given. I don't necessarily see any reason to continue, as the coin has been debunked effectively.

I'll take one. I'll PM you.

Roger, what's the full answer to this in your opinion?

Somehow I missed this, sorry about that. But yes, I agree with you. They are essentially the same. However, we distinguish them because of the circumstances regarding their creation, and that makes them entirely different. The same should be said for the patterns.

Sorry, I meant to say Philadelphia. It’s fixed now .

Alright, here we go. Facts (Roger, your book was a godsend): 1. The mint sent San Francisco 8 reverse (7/8TF) and an unknown amount of obverse dies (at least 7) were sent on (Late March?) but they arrived April 17th. 2. The mint sent an additional fifteen pairs of dies on April 17th (this would be critical). 3. The first strike ceremony in San Francisco was on April 17th, with one coin being struck by a manual turn of the press. A specimen would be described in mint reports of the era as what we now call "proof" (all patterns are referred to as "specimen". The modern term as we know it is not mentioned in mint reports and therefore it is up for debate if the mint ever internally struck them. This is critical as for a coin to be a "Specimen", as how PCGS defines it is that a coin would have been a proof if it had been struck on the same planchet, with the same dies, just in a medal press.) There is no clarity as to why the mint in San Francisco would polish a pair of dies and a planchet, especially when they had to condemn eight dies because the mint couldn't harden them, let alone polish. Only this first planchet (hand turn of the flywheel), with the possible extra pressure, could be a specimen, as the rest of the coinage would be identical. This is unlikely. 4. 8 reverse and 3 obverse dies were condemned on April 20th, Dodge later mentions 7 pairs were condemned. 48,000 coins had been produced at this point, most with die cracks in the surfaces (VAMS). 5. Linderman requests five standard silver dollars on April 29th. (I have a great theory here that perhaps Roger can help me out with, see assertion #7). 6. Dodge complies, sends the five coins on April 30th, less than one day later. Is there time to polish a die in there? I doubt it. 7. Linderman responds, saying the coins are satisfactory in execution and finish. 8. Normal coins would have sufficed. 9. Dodge had bigger things to worry about than ordering a die to be polished and a press taken up for a few hours to strike five specimens from an old die pair. He had huge quotas of dollars to produce and stopping a press for any amount of time for such a frivolous action would have been noticed. Assertions (Some False): 1. (Mine) No one on the San Francisco Mint staff was skilled enough to perform the difficult process of polishing a die to meet the standards needed for proofs. This can be seen in DMPL coins, the polish is rough and missing in spots. 2. (Mine) The mint at Philadelphia would not have the time to polish a die for San Francisco because the engravers were practically losing their minds just trying to produce dies they could use. Seriously. The first batch of dies was a bust, and they had to redesign the master die. (7/8TF and 7TF dies) 3. 3 or 4 additional specimens (false) 4. The coins could have only been from two die pairs, VAM-58 and 60. (False) 5. All five of the coins shipped to Philadelphia must have been specimens. (false) 6. Dodge wanted to impress Linderman, so he sent specimens. (can't be proven false or true) 7. (Mine) Linderman wanted the five coins from the second package of dies sent to San Francisco (sent April 17th) (7TF) to see how they did compared to the failed 7/8TF dies. 8. The mention of finish could be interpreted either way, it could mean that the coins were looking good for commerce, or that they were a special finish,. I think Linderman would have been rather concerned if the coins showed up looking like proofs, and he would have asked why San Francisco was wasting their time polishing dies. Falsehoods: marked above My conclusions: 1. From my own research, only using the mint ledger is a huge mistake. You need the general correspondence files. That's where the good stuff is, and that why the condemning of 8 reverse dies was missed. This alone blows up the whole thing. 2. The coin has some interesting characteristics. It's better than any DMPL I've seen, and it could just be a fluke to create that. I need to look, and if there's another or few more similar, I'd suggest that a die was severely polished to try and remove cracks and keep it in the press as more dies failed. They had to mint tens of thousands of these coins each day (2.2 Million per month across all mints). The extra pressure could be attributed to inexperience in the amount of pressure needed to strike the new coins. This makes a little more sense.

Oh boy, this is an interesting one. I was considering posting it over there, but decided against it. It seems I got one “lol” ATS for the one question I asked. There’s a lot to break down. My big thing is that there’s no way to prove that the San Fran mint EVER struck specimens of any type, and the mention of finish in one letter could easily refer to a normal coin that just looks acceptable. I did this all off of memory, but tomorrow I will go through it in depth and put my full analysis here. I do hope in a few days RWB will reveal his thoughts! Edit: just remembered that San Fran had eight failed reverse dies. Where is the mention of coinage from those? Those coins could have been easily sent, and Linderman could have been requesting samples from that coinage to ensure die ability. Roger, do you have the general correspondence files that would prove that the five coins sent could have been from eight different die pairings at a minimum?

This was ingenious. Keep track of the weight and you know if something is missing. I do remember, however, hearing during a tour at the Denver mint that a worker got away with stealing gold bars in a prosthetic leg. Is there a record of this, and if so, what went wrong?

I assume you mean this one: And the Barber, I couldn't find an image as they are in the Smithsonian, l but they are very similar to the 1892 adopted design that we all know, with just a few stars in different spots. I don't see any similarity at all to a Barber reverse. Perhaps you meant to say they cannot reasonably argue they are the same design?

There’s a post ATS with pics. It’s a damaged proof AGE with nothing worth noting, probably worth melt at best.

It was fantastic! I am currently about 3/4 through, but I skimmed to see what was left. I wanted to get my initial thoughts down on the 1876 patterns before I missed something, but what I got through was a great read. It certainly explained why the 1876 patterns exist and it really solidified my thought that the patterns of 1875 were separate in creation.

This is essentially what I ended up saying, that it looked close but there's no way to say for sure, so make up your mind based on the possibility. I never said it was hard evidence, just a good possibility. I did notice, Roger, that you had a sub note in your Girl on the Silver Dollar about the mint never using Powers' work, I thought this was interesting as I came across it, and the similarities here.

I have made a discovery while writing a paragraph on the possible inspiration of the patterns, and I think this may be solid evidence: Potential Inspiration William Barber appears to have drawn on many sculptures of the period for possible inspiration. As such, there is no way to tell which sculpture or artist he exactly drew on for inspiration. However, there are distinct similarities in sculptures done by Powers and Barber’s work. Hiram Powers was one of, if not the most, famous sculptor in the nineteenth century. His works were able to encourage the public to overcome a general distaste toward nudity in sculpture and those works were seen across the country. Barber would have almost certainly have seen and been familiar with Powers' works, and it is quite possible, even likely, that he drew inspiration from them. Of course, it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if the similarities are enough to accept whether or not Barber used Power’s works as a model for the “Sailor Head” patterns. The patterns of 1876 and 1877 also seem to draw on a separate sculpture by Powers, his sculptures of Ginevra. There are two, one unfinished, and one finished, that model the two types of coronet used on the 1876 and 1877 patterns almost exactly, with one having no ornamentation and one having ornamentation. This further illustrates the difference in origin between the two sets of patterns, as they are almost certainly from different model types. Above was my paragraph, Roger of course may disagree with this conclusion as there is no way to tell for sure what Barber used as a model. However, I find the similarities rather shocking, especially the coronet on the sculpture of Ginevra.

This can be true for design, but I tried to go deeper. I think I have found, based on solid conjecture, that the origination of the 1875 patterns is entirely different than those of 1876, thus changing how we as numismatists think of them. I have been trying to obtain mint documents to prove this, and all I need is something mentioning Barber creating the "Sailor Head" design for a 20-cent piece of 1875. This would prove it, but of course the information may not exist so for now it remains (in my opinion) strong conjecture. The reasoning that I think these patterns need to be distinguished from each other is really threefold: 1. The neckerchief is gone. Without that the bust bears no resemblance to a sailor, I'd liken this to calling the "Schoolgirl" patterns the same as Morgan's coiled hair goloid dollar pattern (J-1631 to J-1634) just because the hair changed slightly. The designs are essentially the same with the difference being the hair is up rather than down, but the coiled hair patterns have no resemblance of a schoolgirl. As such, they aren't called "Schoolgirl" patterns. I think the same needs to be done with the 1876-77 patterns. Yes, the design is similar, but if the nickname makes no sense, why should we keep it? 2. Since so little is known about patterns, nicknames mean a lot to the average numismatist. They would, in general, group together these patterns in origination and design based on the nickname. This makes a lot of what is thought about the patterns of 1876-77 false, as they have their own unique story. To essentially make that disappear is really somewhat of a tragedy. Who heard of Barber's attempt to produce a dollar design? The answer would be very few, because that attempt has been largely grouped in with the 1875 patterns that have nothing to do with that process, and as such the history to go along with the dollars of 1876-77 (which is unique form that of 1875) disappears. Perhaps the removal of the nickname could change that. 3. It clears up a lot of what is known about the 1875 patterns as well. It seems that all but a very small group of descriptions of these coins consists of nothing more than a mention of design, and nothing about the creation of it. We know the story of the 1876-77 patterns. Now with some information, I think I can reasonably conclude that I have found the origin of the 1875 patterns, and it is special. It shows some history of the twenty-cent piece and it shows some information about William Barber. This story also gets confused when it gets looped in with the patterns of 1876-77, because then you have conflicting stories. Of course, collectors may just not care, which would make the point of my article moot. In any way, I feel that perhaps it may help someone understand the history. I didn't quite follow this, the designs are entirely different as one eagle is perched and one is a heraldic eagle. The inscriptions are different as well, and if you were arguing they were the same I don't think you'd be making a rational argument. Was there a typo here somewhere? I agree with the half union point, however. The key there is that they were all created with the same purpose and reasoning behind them.

A quick bump here - I was on a week hiatus so I was not working on this. However, I have been reading Roger's work and I can say that it will help me with my distinction. I was pleased to see that the 1876 dollars appear to have nothing to do with the 1875 "Sailor Heads" based not only on mint correspondence but design and purpose, just as I had inferred and hoped. This was a fantastic revelation and I am very happy with it, it should effectively put the nail in the coffin for calling 1876 and 1877 patterns "Sailor Heads".

Book is on its way, I’ll read the section as soon as possible.

Indeed, but how similar were they really? How I read what Roger posted is that there were two dollars produced- one for a centennial celebration and one to be used for general commerce after the celebration. Both were very similar in design, likely somewhat close to one another in design, with some apparently different text and star placement. I believe the patterns described as J-1457--J-1466 are likely the latter - designs for a commercial use dollar. The lack of stars on the reverse of these designs when the reverse stars are mentioned numerous times in the letters is very notable. Roger, are the drawings of the coins for the centennial included with what you posted? It would definitively tell what is true. It's interesting that no patterns of the centennial dollars exist in the Judd book. Tom, do you remember the hub trial that was posted over at PCGS? What are the chances that was a hub trial for centennial dollars? It's unlikely, but should the possibility be considered? It could make sense, and explain its existence. Here it is:

Ah... I hadn't considered users with the necessity to view that, I suppose mint workers may use the same UI.

I might've went for a few patterns or rarer proofs. Lord knows they were cheaper before I was born... which was not long ago at all when I really think about it.

Thank you.

I've told myself for years that one of the worst things that can happen to me is to win the lottery. What happens to your life after you win such a large amount of money... I'd be surprised if anyone could remain the same and continue with their life. If I want a lifestyle that a lottery can provide me with, well I'd better get out there and earn it. That way I have a life I chose, and that is unlikely to change from what I want it to be. Perhaps I overthink these things. But if something like this were to befall me, I'd buy a nice Satin proof Saint and $10 Indian and donate the rest. Get rid of it somehow to where I can never get it back, no matter how hard I try. I'd make sure it's gone. Now, how many of you think I'm crazy?

Rust coloring is never attractive on any coin... just my opinion.

Yes, from what I've seen it appears that this info resides in the HTML code of the site. I'm not quite sure why there would be a need for it as it's not ever displayed.

This is very interesting! I can’t help but wonder why it doesn’t pop up again for quite some time, especially in noted pattern sales of the 1960s. I’ll have to change my info. Is there a link for this?