1907 Wire rim High Relief Saint

[RWB]

"Thanks for the information. I own your book, though based on your smug arrogance I'm quite tempted to put it in the kindling pile."

 

I'd like to say "You're Welcome," but I do not comprehend your nasty remark....You asked for corrections. They were provided promptly and without any insinuation about you or your motives. There is nothing "smug" or "arrogant" about the responses; merely factual statements. There is no way to know who owns a copy of the 1905-1908 book - I keep no tracking lists. (I consider buyers' names and addresses confidential and delete them once a book has been delivered.)

 

Rather than burning a book, PM me and I will see that your purchase price and postage are refunded on return of the book in undamaged condition. All three “Renaissance” books are in short supply and others could make use of something you evidently do not care to read.

 

[RWB]

No "proofs" were made. All of the pieces were prepared the same way, with the same equipment and the same pairs of dies. There was no post-striking alteration as was later done in making sandblast proofs.

 

The authentication services try very hard to be accurate, but sometimes errors are made or mistakes (usually from lack of information) become ingrained. To tell the fellow who paid $100,000 for a "proof" HR $20 that "No, it's not really special - it just looks nicer than many," is to beg for legal action.

 

I believe I said that none of the HR coins were proofs though NGC has designated some as proofs, was that the part where I was "incorrect"?

 

As for the UHR coins, Akers asserts that all specimens were struck as proofs, and that they were all better classified as patterns.

 

Again, just trying to find out from you where I am in error, thus justifying my posts being ignored.

 

I don't closely follow the authentication and grading companies, or exactly what they designate some coins. If you "said that none of the HR coins were proofs though NGC has designated some as proofs..." and that is NGC's policy, there there's no misunderstanding.

 

As for Mr. Akers' comments, it is only logical to call them all one thing or another, but not both. Additionally, newer research post-dates Mr. Akers writing.

 

[jtryka]

"Thanks for the information. I own your book, though based on your smug arrogance I'm quite tempted to put it in the kindling pile."

 

I'd like to say "You're Welcome," but I do not comprehend your nasty remark....You asked for corrections. They were provided promptly and without any insinuation about you or your motives. There is nothing "smug" or "arrogant" about the responses; merely factual statements. There is no way to know who owns a copy of the 1905-1908 book - I keep no tracking lists. (I consider buyers' names and addresses confidential and delete them once a book has been delivered.)

 

Rather than burning a book, PM me and I will see that your purchase price and postage are refunded on return of the book in undamaged condition. All three “Renaissance” books are in short supply and others could make use of something you evidently do not care to read.

 

No, your smug arrogance came in your condescending post noting that I should just be ignored, among other posts of yours I've noticed. Then again, I'm probably just an ignoramus that should be completely ignored since I am only capable of posting incorrect and ill informed conjecture.

[RWB]

"No, your smug arrogance came in your condescending post noting that I should just be ignored..."

 

The suggestion that your erroneous information should be ignored was neither smug nor arrogant - it was a statement of rational fact. You appear to have assumed a personal motive, of which there was none.

 

Factually incorrect information benefits no one.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

Changing the subject a bit.

 

Can I ask what might be a stupid question..... I have been wondering how both 100 years ago and even today how a coin can be struck multiple times and yet there is no 'shifting' of even a few microns that would be noticeable to the naked eye.

 

How did they manage to keep the press and coin perfectly aligned 100+ years ago when a coin needed to struck more than 1 time ? Were we able to fabricate (heavy) machinery that didn't move a fraction of a micron and so made repeat striking of the coin perfectly lined up ?

 

 

[RWB]

They didn't.

 

If you look carefully at the MCMVII $20, almost all show multiple outlines from the three strike and two annealing steps. Proofs made for collectors were struck once, so there are no multiple outlines.

 

Modern multi-strike presses are designed to hold the planchet in position and the blows occur within about 0.2 seconds. Still, some coins, esp the large 5 oz silver drink coasters, often have multiple outlines.

[GoldFinger1969]

If you look carefully at the MCMVII $20, almost all show multiple outlines from the three strike and two annealing steps.

 

Here's a pic from the web, where can I see the multiple outlines

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Gaudens_double_eagle#mediaviewer/File:1908_Saint-Gaudens_double_eagle_no_motto_obverse.jpg

 

Proofs made for collectors were struck once, so there are no multiple outlines.

 

Strange that a single strike produced a higher-quality (gloss) coin, no ? Usually multiple strikes increase quality, or at least that's what I was led to believe.

 

Maybe the strikes vs. quality was different in 1907 than today ? Are current proofs struck more times than regular coins ?

 

Modern multi-strike presses are designed to hold the planchet in position and the blows occur within about 0.2 seconds. Still, some coins, esp the large 5 oz silver drink coasters, often have multiple outlines.

 

Yes, I have a few of those 5 ounce coins and I see the rating agencies have far fewer rated MS70 or MS69 when they grade 'em.

[coinman_23885]

Again, just trying to find out from you where I am in error, thus justifying my posts being ignored.

 

I don't want to become involved in a disagreement between members, and I am in no way passing judgment on either party. With that said, please consider the possibility that statements posted on the internet can easily be misinterpreted. With internet prose, you cannot examine any body language and the tone/intonation, etc., that you would have in a face to face conversation is missing. I was actually upset with a member here for a couple months believing the entire time that I was absolutely justified and correct. I couldn't fathom at the time how the other poster could not have had a negative intent. Guess what? It turns out, there was a rational explanation and the post was innocent/innocuous. I felt really badly thereafter. Thankfully he was understanding and I apologized.

[jpcienkus]

 

Proofs made for collectors were struck once, so there are no multiple outlines.

 

Strange that a single strike produced a higher-quality (gloss) coin, no ? Usually multiple strikes increase quality, or at least that's what I was led to believe.

 

Maybe the strikes vs. quality was different in 1907 than today ? Are current proofs struck more times than regular coins ?

 

Don't forget the planchet was also prepared differently: proof vs. business strike.

[RWB]

Proofs were made on a medal press. This permitted higher pressure and a somewhat slower striking process which resulted in better detail over all parts of the coin.

 

Mirror proofs used carefully polished dies and polished or semi-polished planchets. Satin and sandblast proofs used new dies without further alteration.

 

As a new die was used two things occurred. First, the die developed tiny deformities from mechanical stress; this produced what we now call "luster." Second, the face of a die tended to conform to the average surface of the planchets in use. The most recent and obvious example of the second occurred with the small diameter UHR $20 bullion imitations made a few years ago. The planchets were polished but the dies were not. As a die was used it gradually conformed more closely to the polished planchet surface. This gave rise to the mis-named "proof-like" UHR and groundless speculation about some special coins being made, etc.