Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

100% at last

18 posts in this topic

Holy SMOKES TDN!!! 893whatthe.gif That's an amazing accomplishment - way to go! 893applaud-thumb.gif May the set live into notability and may your beard grow long! grin.gif

 

Hoot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a sucky set that is. What did it take for you to put THAT together? A whole three months searching Ebay? grin.gif

 

jom

 

PS: Great job, man! Looks like a terrific set. 893whatthe.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFD, T/SDN. Why don't you show us what you've learned about the series from the time and effort spent putting this together?

 

Answer these questions:

 

1. After whose rendition was Gobrecht's Liberty Seated design based?

2. Who was Gobrecht's nemesis in this endeavor?

3. Which date(s) goes from very common in all grades up to MS64, then becomes unknown in true GEM?

4. Describe a LDS for the MS 1842 dollar.

5. The MS 1856 dollar typically comes struck in a certain way. Describe this. If you find one not struck like this, what is a conclusive way to tell if the coin is a true MS piece?

6. The MS 1857 dollar comes typically in one of two striking aspects. What are the two?

7. Walter Breen notes that the 1859S dollar comes in two varieties: perfect date and RPD. What, if any, is the relationship with the RPD variety to the normal date variety?

8. What is the only date that is proof-only?

9. What is the only P-mint date that is widely believed never to have had a regular-issue proof striking?

10. If someone showed you a well-struck, never circulated 1845 dollar, what would you look for to distinguish it from a PF specimen?

11. Of the dates 1859O, 1860 and 1860O, which is scarce in MS63 and very rare in MS64+?

12. Name two dates that are underappreciated in circulated grades, and state the reason for your selections.

13. Same as (12), but for UNC grades.

14. Same as (13), but for MS63+.

15. Identify all major schools of thought regarding the original vs restrike issue for early Seated Dollar proofs.

 

EVP

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% complete doesn't mean 100% knowledgable!

 

BTW - current thinking is that there were no original proofs for 1851, 52 and 53 - not just one year. You might want to correct the error in your inquisition.... grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - current thinking is that there were no original proofs for 1851, 52 and 53 - not just one year. You might want to correct the error in your inquisition....

 

Oops. Ok, so you've shown you're at least 1% knowledgeable. Care to try to up that number? C'mon, tough guy! Show us what kind of cahones you got! (I'm speaking metaphorically, of course! And, that includes calling you a "tough guy"!!!)

 

EVP

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going off of memory:

 

1) Peale

2) Sully

3) 1842, 1843

4) dunno - should I care?

5) softly struck on the head

6) weak struck stars/prooflike; well struck/frosty

7) never cared about varieties - even in trade dollars

8) 1858

9) 51, 52, 53

10) dunno - are you thinking 1844?

11) 59-O

12) circulated? what's circulated? wink.gif

13) 50, 55

14) 40, 50, 55, 56, 59-O, etc

15) hmmm. that's a little nebulous don't you think? Did you ever read the Starr catalog preface on the matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Nice set!

 

I just can't believe that NGC only gives the 1870-S 3 points for Registry purposes!

 

Only 9 known examples, yours being an Eliasberg example, and a lousy 3 points. I know it's not for competition purposes, but it does seemed rather unfair!

 

Congrats!

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth fixing a hot, open face roastbeef sandwhich, grabbing an ice cold A&W rootbeer, settling back, relaxing and gazing at your Registry. Beautiful coins! Thanks for taking the time to share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites