RE: 1922 Medium Relief Peace Dollar 0

[CaptHenway]

ttt

[RWB]

See also: http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=923074 on another message board.

[CaptHenway]

The good thread over there went poof.

[RWB]

Now that the other thread has been found, my recollections are no longer useful.

[CaptHenway]

Here is a diagram I prepared that should help folks understand the relationships of early Peace dollar production and experimental pieces. None of the 1922 high relief trial pieces were put into circulation, but some were purchased for $1 by mint officers and used as samples for Sec of the Treasury and others. Jim Fraser had several of each for approval purposes. Others were purchased by Mint HQ staff as souvenirs.

 

The diagram is large so readers can see the differences in lettering. Also medal press proofs and production press strike will look a little different even when from the same dies. This is due to incomplete metal flow.

 

 

Photo sources are Heritage Auctions, ANR (Stack's-Bowers), Goldberg's Auctions, NGC and the author.

 

Thanks for doing this.

TD

[RWB]

That was fun to make....but I probably should have used a typical 1921.

[CaptHenway]

Found the thread ATS. It was never poofed, I just never used the right search word.

 

"D'OH!"

[CaptHenway]

I want to go back to one of the coins Goldbergs sold last month, the "PF64" one. Am I right in thinking it's a 1922 high relief, reverse of 1921. But rather than proof, it's a business strike, but with post-striking "antiquing" processing? Which of course brings up what its designation should be. Again, I don't think it should be called a proof, but calling it just a vanilla business strike would not give the coin justice either. I also rather despise the term "specimen" for describing any US coin which is not a proof but also something different than a business strike, so I'd rather not call it that.

 

Also, for those who saw the coin in person, do you think it got sandblasted or not? The online photos have be uncertain either way, but I know from medals of that era that the sandblasted surfaces often had rather fine facets. (Plus, the "64" coin doesn't look like the "67" coin in the same sale, which was obviously a sandblast proof.)

 

 

How did it happen that two coins ended up with the Goldbergs and the other five with Stack's-Bowers?

Edited August 20, 2014 by CaptHenway

[RWB]

The preferred approach in late 1921 should have been to use the Janvier to reduce the relief of the original design cast. When handled correctly, this could reduce relief without major loss of detail. Unfortunately, Morgan apparently did not know how to do this. The result was a sequence of mistakes and failures that led to de Francisci's excessively flat new models.

 

My opinion is that Morgan's 1922 HR, with a reduction only in relief, combined with his revised 1922 HR reverse, would have produced an exceptionally attractive coin.

[Valeriagh]

Hello from 2021🙂 thank you for all the information I think I have the 1922 medium relief peace dollar./but i m not sure could you please help me to find out this .thanks in advance 

[RWB]

As noted in the other thread, sharp, high resolution photos are needed to be of any assistance. There has been a noticeable increase in claims of this sort. Within the last year, it appears someone posted false, nonsensical 'information' on this subject on one of the popular rumor sites.