• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

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

Legend Press Release

Started by Tradedollarnut,

51 posts in this topic

MJ

MJ

Posted
Posted
Two questions -

 

Would Laura have bought it if it were in an NGC holder? :roflmao:

 

Did it get the green bean as SP66 or was it not an A or B coin for the grade? :insane:

 

It was stickered.

 

MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WoodenJefferson

WoodenJefferson

Posted
Posted

Question: It's designation is SP which stands for 'Specimen' correct? In this case, dose that mean is was never meant for circulation and held by the Mint or one of the Directors for assay or display?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJ

MJ

Posted
Posted
Question: It's designation is SP which stands for 'Specimen' correct? In this case, dose that mean is was never meant for circulation and held by the Mint or one of the Directors for assay or display?

 

 

WJ

 

This is what Marin wrote in a thread ATS when he bought the coin. MJ

 

 

Like many coin stories, much has been said about this coin, some true, some false, and some pure speculation, and it can be difficult to sort fact from fiction:

 

The coin is from the earliest known state of the dies, the only die state showing no die wear or damage....fact.

The coin is currently the only known specimen in existence from the earliest die state....fact.

The coin is in a superb state of preservation....fact.

The coin does not possess the handling marks common to most 18th century coinage....fact.

The coin does not possess the weakness of strike common to virtually all other 1794 dollars....fact.

The coin possesses fully mirrored prooflike surfaces...fact.

The coin possesses sharply squared off rims....fact.

The coin possesses prooflike surfaces, free from handling marks, on the edges of the coin....fact.

The coin was struck on a specially-prepared planchet....fact.

 

The coin was struck with a special purpose in mind....unproven, but circumstantial evidence suggests this likelihood.

The coin was held in the U.S. Mint collection until sometime in the 1800s....undocumented speculation

The coin was traded from the Mint collection to a private collector....undocumented speculation based on documented cases of such trades.

 

The truth is, there is no known documentary evidence of any coins being struck by the U.S. Mint in the late 18th century specifically for presentation purposes or specifically for collectors. However, it is self-evident from the coin itself that it was not a normal striking like so many other coins produced at the time. It is on that basis that PCGS certified it as a "Special Striking." It has not been labeled a proof, nor a "presentation piece," just labeled as a "special" strike. Anyone who disagrees with that assessment has not examined the coin closely outside its holder.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AnkurJ

AnkurJ

Posted
Posted

An amazing coin! It shocks me that this remained in pristine condition for so many years. Thank GOD people had the foresight to take care of this piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Question: It's designation is SP which stands for 'Specimen' correct? In this case, dose that mean is was never meant for circulation and held by the Mint or one of the Directors for assay or display?

 

 

WJ

 

This is what Marin wrote in a thread ATS when he bought the coin. MJ

 

 

Like many coin stories, much has been said about this coin, some true, some false, and some pure speculation, and it can be difficult to sort fact from fiction:

 

The coin is from the earliest known state of the dies, the only die state showing no die wear or damage....fact.

The coin is currently the only known specimen in existence from the earliest die state....fact.

The coin is in a superb state of preservation....fact.

The coin does not possess the handling marks common to most 18th century coinage....fact.

The coin does not possess the weakness of strike common to virtually all other 1794 dollars....fact.

The coin possesses fully mirrored prooflike surfaces...fact.

The coin possesses sharply squared off rims....fact.

The coin possesses prooflike surfaces, free from handling marks, on the edges of the coin....fact.

The coin was struck on a specially-prepared planchet....fact.

 

The coin was struck with a special purpose in mind....unproven, but circumstantial evidence suggests this likelihood.

The coin was held in the U.S. Mint collection until sometime in the 1800s....undocumented speculation

The coin was traded from the Mint collection to a private collector....undocumented speculation based on documented cases of such trades.

 

The truth is, there is no known documentary evidence of any coins being struck by the U.S. Mint in the late 18th century specifically for presentation purposes or specifically for collectors. However, it is self-evident from the coin itself that it was not a normal striking like so many other coins produced at the time. It is on that basis that PCGS certified it as a "Special Striking." It has not been labeled a proof, nor a "presentation piece," just labeled as a "special" strike. Anyone who disagrees with that assessment has not examined the coin closely outside its holder.

 

 

What is the difference, if any, between a "Specimen" and a "Presentation piece"? Isn't the former produced in order that it be given/presented as the latter?

 

My point is that I think the "SP" designation implies that the coin was struck as a presentation piece. Hopefully Martin will see this and respond. I always greatly enjoy reading his posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PerryHall

PerryHall

Posted
Posted

Why did the mint select a planchet with adjustment marks if they intended to create a specimen strike? I think this was just a very well struck coin that was lucky enough to be set aside and preserved for future generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EVillageProwler

EVillageProwler

Posted
Posted

Perry,

 

I suggest you read that 2010 thread ATS (since resurrected) about the purchase of this coin by the Cardinal Foundation.

 

There is good info in there as to the texture of this coin. In any case, I think you'll find it a good read.

 

Enjoy!

 

EVP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Perry,

 

I suggest you read that 2010 thread ATS (since resurrected) about the purchase of this coin by the Cardinal Foundation.

 

There is good info in there as to the texture of this coin. In any case, I think you'll find it a good read.

 

Enjoy!

 

EVP

 

Steve, I read the thread and think it makes for a fascinating read, with excellent information. But, while the coin certainly has a special look to it, I still have a problem with it as a "Specimen".

 

I can understand why the Mint would strive for the coin to be of the proper weight - hence the plug. But if the coin was truly intended to be a "Specimen" or for presentation purposes, why not produce another example without the plug and adjustment marks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EVillageProwler

EVillageProwler

Posted
Posted
Perry,

 

I suggest you read that 2010 thread ATS (since resurrected) about the purchase of this coin by the Cardinal Foundation.

 

There is good info in there as to the texture of this coin. In any case, I think you'll find it a good read.

 

Enjoy!

 

EVP

 

Steve, I read the thread and think it makes for a fascinating read, with excellent information. But, while the coin certainly has a special look to it, I still have a problem with it as a "Specimen".

 

I can understand why the Mint would strive for the coin to be of the proper weight - hence the plug. But if the coin was truly intended to be a "Specimen" or for presentation purposes, why not produce another example without the plug and adjustment marks?

 

Mark - the idea of 'specimen' or 'presentation' is just speculation. The grade 'specimen' is just a clerical notion. One other speculation is that the Carter/Cardinal/Legend 1794 piece is just a very well struck early (first or nearly first) piece that was selected to be presented to someone from a batch of early regular strikes.

 

I know of no evidence to conclude that the piece was struck with special intent.

 

EVP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Perry,

 

I suggest you read that 2010 thread ATS (since resurrected) about the purchase of this coin by the Cardinal Foundation.

 

There is good info in there as to the texture of this coin. In any case, I think you'll find it a good read.

 

Enjoy!

 

EVP

 

Steve, I read the thread and think it makes for a fascinating read, with excellent information. But, while the coin certainly has a special look to it, I still have a problem with it as a "Specimen".

 

I can understand why the Mint would strive for the coin to be of the proper weight - hence the plug. But if the coin was truly intended to be a "Specimen" or for presentation purposes, why not produce another example without the plug and adjustment marks?

 

Mark - the idea of 'specimen' or 'presentation' is just speculation. The grade 'specimen' is just a clerical notion. One other speculation is that the Carter/Cardinal/Legend 1794 piece is just a very well struck early (first or nearly first) piece that was selected to be presented to someone from a batch of early regular strikes.

 

I know of no evidence to conclude that the piece was struck with special intent.

 

EVP

 

Steve, it sounds as if we are in agreement. And based on that lack of evidence, I don't feel that the coin should have received the "SP" designation. Still, I can at least understand why it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PerryHall

PerryHall

Posted
Posted
Perry,

 

I suggest you read that 2010 thread ATS (since resurrected) about the purchase of this coin by the Cardinal Foundation.

 

There is good info in there as to the texture of this coin. In any case, I think you'll find it a good read.

 

Enjoy!

 

EVP

 

Steve, I read the thread and think it makes for a fascinating read, with excellent information. But, while the coin certainly has a special look to it, I still have a problem with it as a "Specimen".

 

I can understand why the Mint would strive for the coin to be of the proper weight - hence the plug. But if the coin was truly intended to be a "Specimen" or for presentation purposes, why not produce another example without the plug and adjustment marks?

 

Bingo! My point exactly. Nice coin in any event but without documentation it's just wishful thinking calling this coin a specimen. I consider it to be a very well struck coin that was preserved by an early collector who appreciated it for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
e1cnr

e1cnr

Posted
Posted

That is a great press release

 

 

 

 

I had to read it a couple times to even notice it looks like an attempt at free advertising as more words are spent on the purchasers than the coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJ

MJ

Posted
Posted
Perry,

 

I suggest you read that 2010 thread ATS (since resurrected) about the purchase of this coin by the Cardinal Foundation.

 

There is good info in there as to the texture of this coin. In any case, I think you'll find it a good read.

 

Enjoy!

 

EVP

 

Steve, I read the thread and think it makes for a fascinating read, with excellent information. But, while the coin certainly has a special look to it, I still have a problem with it as a "Specimen".

 

I can understand why the Mint would strive for the coin to be of the proper weight - hence the plug. But if the coin was truly intended to be a "Specimen" or for presentation purposes, why not produce another example without the plug and adjustment marks?

 

Bingo! My point exactly. Nice coin in any event but without documentation it's just wishful thinking calling this coin a specimen. I consider it to be a very well struck coin that was preserved by an early collector who appreciated it for what it is.

 

Forget about how Stacks/Bowers's marketed the piece as it really does not matter.

 

With all due respect to all the posters in this thread I will defer to what Martin wrote. It is the most logical of all the responses. How many of us have seen the coin outside of it's holder? Believe what you want, so many will regardless.

 

Martin/Cardinal

 

"However, it is self-evident from the coin itself that it was not a normal striking like so many other coins produced at the time. It is on that basis that PCGS certified it as a "Special Striking." It has not been labeled a proof, nor a "presentation piece," just labeled as a "special" strike. Anyone who disagrees with that assessment has not examined the coin closely outside its holder."

 

SPecial

 

MJ

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Perry,

 

I suggest you read that 2010 thread ATS (since resurrected) about the purchase of this coin by the Cardinal Foundation.

 

There is good info in there as to the texture of this coin. In any case, I think you'll find it a good read.

 

Enjoy!

 

EVP

 

Steve, I read the thread and think it makes for a fascinating read, with excellent information. But, while the coin certainly has a special look to it, I still have a problem with it as a "Specimen".

 

I can understand why the Mint would strive for the coin to be of the proper weight - hence the plug. But if the coin was truly intended to be a "Specimen" or for presentation purposes, why not produce another example without the plug and adjustment marks?

 

Bingo! My point exactly. Nice coin in any event but without documentation it's just wishful thinking calling this coin a specimen. I consider it to be a very well struck coin that was preserved by an early collector who appreciated it for what it is.

 

Forget about how Stacks/Bowers's marketed the piece as it really does not matter.

 

With all due respect to all the posters in this thread I will defer to what Martin wrote. It is the most logical of all the responses. How many of us have seen the coin outside of it's holder? Believe what you want, so many will regardless.

 

Martin/Cardinal

 

"However, it is self-evident from the coin itself that it was not a normal striking like so many other coins produced at the time. It is on that basis that PCGS certified it as a "Special Striking." It has not been labeled a proof, nor a "presentation piece," just labeled as a "special" strike. Anyone who disagrees with that assessment has not examined the coin closely outside its holder."

 

SPecial

 

MJ

 

Mark, Martin wrote that the coin was not designated as a "presentation piece". But I think labeling it "SP" for "Specimen" did amount to designating it as a presentation piece.

 

As I posted earlier, I don't know what difference there is, if any, between a "Specimen" and a "Presentation piece". I would certainly like to hear Martin's thoughts on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing