So Apparently A 1964 Morgan Dollar Exist. This is not a drill folks!

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The difference is they did not do so because there was not approval. They followed the law. See how that works?

 

Your thought process is too limited. There are legal ways for them to make the coins without Congressional approval.

 

 

Of course there is. The lack of imagination in general in this hobby is limitless. This is just part of the reason your business thrives. Collectors are starving for a reason to be excited. This discovery will be another lost opportunity to spark the hobby. Instead we will be treated to looking at crappy dies. Yippie.

 

A bunch of sticks in the mud

 

mark

 

Describe the methods. That may give collectors a way to be a bit more excited and petition the sticks in the mud to do so. The sticks in the mud might even become excited.

 

Sure. Prepare working dies off of the new discovery and strike them on existing Morgan host coins. Seems like this is a very successful recipe. Don't have to get congress involved.

 

mark

 

I would be very interested in any U.S. law that would allow the process under discussion, without the approval of Congress.

 

Well, if privately done, this would call the Hobby Protection Act into play, requiring the pieces to be marked with the word "COPY."

 

That makes sense to me. Re. your earlier question, I do not have a method to link as my account and as far as I know my posts are not there, and even if they were, I would be required to sign back up and something tells me that will not occur.

 

Well there is precedence to the contrary but let's not go down that rabbit hole.

 

I was taking about the Mint striking these up themselves on host Morgan's. It would be amazing for the hobby

 

mark

 

The question to me that exists and not answered is if existing law allows the Mint to do so.

 

As to the precedent, if it is or was legally done in compliance with U.S. law and has been adjudicated as such, then it is not in my opinion a rabbit hole. if you are referring to the pieces by Mr. Carr, I would not describe that as a rabbit hole either. It just has not been adjudicated and determined as to compliance or not, as the case may be.

[dcarr]

The difference is they did not do so because there was not approval. They followed the law. See how that works?

 

Your thought process is too limited. There are legal ways for them to make the coins without Congressional approval.

 

 

As is your thought process of finding methods to address with the US. Government via your Attorney whether or not you are in compliance with existing laws. However, you thought process of not finding methods for doing so is limitless.

 

You apparently didn't read my post which outlined one potential method.

It was directly above your post that stated "The difference is they did not do so because there was not approval. They followed the law. See how that works?"

 

My post directly above that stated:

 

The US Mint should hire me to make some from those galvanos/hubs/dies.

 

If they were struck over genuine coins, that might allow the Mint to make them without requiring Congressional approval (since they would only be altering coins that were already issued with the same design, and not issuing entirely new coins which requires an act of Congress).

 

Also note that the US Mint found a way to make some actual gold Sacagawea dollars. They could find a way to make some 1964 dollars if they wanted to. Making some for release to the public would require a little more legal wrangling. Perhaps President Johnson's request to mint 1964 silver dollars could finally be honored.

 

[dcarr]

The difference is they did not do so because there was not approval. They followed the law. See how that works?

 

Your thought process is too limited. There are legal ways for them to make the coins without Congressional approval.

 

 

Of course there is. The lack of imagination in general in this hobby is limitless. This is just part of the reason your business thrives. Collectors are starving for a reason to be excited. This discovery will be another lost opportunity to spark the hobby. Instead we will be treated to looking at crappy dies. Yippie.

 

A bunch of sticks in the mud

 

mark

 

Describe the methods. That may give collectors a way to be a bit more excited and petition the sticks in the mud to do so. The sticks in the mud might even become excited.

 

Sure. Prepare working dies off of the new discovery and strike them on existing Morgan host coins. Seems like this is a very successful recipe. Don't have to get congress involved.

 

mark

 

I would be very interested in any U.S. law that would allow the process under discussion, without the approval of Congress.

 

Well, if privately done, this would call the Hobby Protection Act into play, requiring the pieces to be marked with the word "COPY."

 

My statement that the US Mint should hire me to make some did not intend to mean that I would do so "privately". Instead, I would assist the Mint in doing it at their facility if necessary. Or at my facility under their supervision.

 

[dcarr]

A die, whether a master die or a working die, is incused and backwards. A hub, whether a master hub or a working hub, is raised and has the design appearing like that of the finished coin. If this image is raised and normal, it is of a hub of some sort. TD

 

I definitely concur.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The difference is they did not do so because there was not approval. They followed the law. See how that works?

 

Your thought process is too limited. There are legal ways for them to make the coins without Congressional approval.

 

 

As is your thought process of finding methods to address with the US. Government via your Attorney whether or not you are in compliance with existing laws. However, you thought process of not finding methods for doing so is limitless.

 

You apparently didn't read my post which outlined one potential method.

It was directly above your post that stated "The difference is they did not do so because there was not approval. They followed the law. See how that works?"

 

My post directly above that stated:

 

The US Mint should hire me to make some from those galvanos/hubs/dies.

 

If they were struck over genuine coins, that might allow the Mint to make them without requiring Congressional approval (since they would only be altering coins that were already issued with the same design, and not issuing entirely new coins which requires an act of Congress).

 

Also note that the US Mint found a way to make some actual gold Sacagawea dollars. They could find a way to make some 1964 dollars if they wanted to. Making some for release to the public would require a little more legal wrangling. Perhaps President Johnson's request to mint 1964 silver dollars could finally be honored.

 

I did read it, contrary to your incorrect assumption assumption. The fact is stating and qualifying legality by using the word "might" is unfortunately ,not a declaration of legality or adjudication that the process is or would be in compliance with existing law. You then add strength to your statement of non-legality by stating "without requiring Congressional approval", which clearly denotes it is not known if it is legal to do so in accordance with existing laws. Remember, your statement in your post was" "THERE ARE LEGAL WAYS FOR THEM TO MAKE THE COINS WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL". "There are..." is a declaration of existing legality. then stating" THAT MIGHT ALLOW....WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL" as the methodology is not a declaration of legality. It is a declaration of krap, I am not sure, but here is an idea.

 

I appreciate your never ending ability to obfuscate, but the subject and commentary is about legality and a process within existing law. Trying to state there might be a way is not clarity. It is a krap shoot. That is why I always urge the person to seek the advice of an Attorney. Words mean something. I do admire your ability to insert just enough confusing language to make it an interesting challenge to decipher exactly what you are stating on any occasion. I enjoy the mental exercise.

 

Might you be able to state definitively a method that would not require Congressional approval and is in accordance with existing laws? That way we can eliminate the might and the are from the conversation and deal strictly with is.

 

I am trying not to limit my thought process to much, and just keep it focused on legality.

 

Maybe you can find a way to do so.

[CaptHenway]

The difference is they did not do so because there was not approval. They followed the law. See how that works?

 

Your thought process is too limited. There are legal ways for them to make the coins without Congressional approval.

 

 

As is your thought process of finding methods to address with the US. Government via your Attorney whether or not you are in compliance with existing laws. However, you thought process of not finding methods for doing so is limitless.

 

You apparently didn't read my post which outlined one potential method.

It was directly above your post that stated "The difference is they did not do so because there was not approval. They followed the law. See how that works?"

 

My post directly above that stated:

 

The US Mint should hire me to make some from those galvanos/hubs/dies.

 

If they were struck over genuine coins, that might allow the Mint to make them without requiring Congressional approval (since they would only be altering coins that were already issued with the same design, and not issuing entirely new coins which requires an act of Congress).

 

Also note that the US Mint found a way to make some actual gold Sacagawea dollars. They could find a way to make some 1964 dollars if they wanted to. Making some for release to the public would require a little more legal wrangling. Perhaps President Johnson's request to mint 1964 silver dollars could finally be honored.

 

As I recall, the gold Sacagawea dollars were struck by order of Mint Director Philip Diehl, reportedly because he envisioned the Mint selling them at a profit. I have seen an image of a Sacagawea $5 denominated reverse that was reportedly considered for the issue.

 

Of course that would have required Congressional approval, which from what I have heard was never requested or granted. The legality of the gold strikings (which show a reverse design variation either similar to or the same as the Cheerios pattern dollars) is unclear. Today it would be legal under the law used to strike the gold Kennedy halves, Mercury Dimes and etc., but I am not sure if that law was in effect in 1999 when the gold Sackies were struck.

 

TD

[RWB]

The legislation authorizing 45 million silver dollars and funding for the initial work was approved by Congress and signed by President Kennedy.

 

A design was not stipulated and the Mint Bureau explored commissioning a new design, or reusing the Morgan or Peace designs. DeFrancisci's design was selected because it was the most recent one in use - 1935 (with 1936 hubs made). The artist was living at the time of the selection, but it is unlikely the Mint had any contact with him.

[coinman_23885]

Of course that would have required Congressional approval, which from what I have heard was never requested or granted. The legality of the gold strikings (which show a reverse design variation either similar to or the same as the Cheerios pattern dollars) is unclear.

TD

 

You mean that the Mint couldn't just strike the pieces anyway and claim that it didn't mean to violate the law? No harm, no foul, right? Everybody else seems to be doing it (and there appear to be multiple). Why should a government instrumentality be held to a higher standard?

[MJ]

Of course that would have required Congressional approval, which from what I have heard was never requested or granted. The legality of the gold strikings (which show a reverse design variation either similar to or the same as the Cheerios pattern dollars) is unclear.

TD

 

You mean that the Mint couldn't just strike the pieces anyway and claim that it didn't mean to violate the law? No harm, no foul, right? Everybody else seems to be doing it (and there appear to be multiple). Why should a government instrumentality be held to a higher standard?

 

Actually the government usually marches to a lower standard. This would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

Would anyone be worried about someone being duped by a 1964 Morgan struck at the Mint on a host Morgan coin? That seems to be the biggest angst on the Carr pieces.

 

mark

[CascadeChris]

Oooh, nice burn MJ

[coinman_23885]

 

Would anyone be worried about someone being duped by a 1964 Morgan struck at the Mint on a host Morgan coin? That seems to be the biggest against on the Carr pieces.

 

mark

 

It would be a very interesting legal question as the fact that the pieces were struck by a government instrumentality absolutely could affect the calculus. Moreover, would the coins be subject to confiscation (or at least would the government make that argument)? There are so many variables.

[MJ]

Oooh, nice burn MJ

 

I just finished The Night Of. John Stone is channeling through me

 

M

[dcarr]

Reportedly, Hillary Clinton helped her friend Glenna Goodacre get paid in 5,000 special Sacagawea dollars that were different from all others produced.

 

If elected, I think Hillary could certainly get some 1964 dollars made for her "friends".

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Reportedly, Hillary Clinton helped her friend Glenna Goodacre get paid in 5,000 special Sacagawea dollars that were different from all others produced.

 

If elected, I think Hillary could certainly get some 1964 dollars made for her "friends".

 

 

I think you may have crossed the politics line, but that is your choice.

[dcarr]

Reportedly, Hillary Clinton helped her friend Glenna Goodacre get paid in 5,000 special Sacagawea dollars that were different from all others produced.

 

If elected, I think Hillary could certainly get some 1964 dollars made for her "friends".

 

 

I think you may have crossed the politics line, but that is your choice.

 

Well, it is a short post and not very important to this discussion.

So if it is deleted, no big deal.

 

[coinman_23885]

Reportedly, Hillary Clinton helped her friend Glenna Goodacre get paid in 5,000 special Sacagawea dollars that were different from all others produced.

 

If elected, I think Hillary could certainly get some 1964 dollars made for her "friends".

 

 

It sounds like you are a bit envious. How can you criticize her for doing legally what you want to do or have done with the Peace Dollar (except yours are private issue)?

[CascadeChris]

Reportedly, Hillary Clinton helped her friend Glenna Goodacre get paid in 5,000 special Sacagawea dollars that were different from all others produced.

 

If elected, I think Hillary could certainly get some 1964 dollars made for her "friends".

 

 

It sounds like you are a bit envious. How can you criticize her for doing what you want to do or have done with the Peace Dollar (except yours are private issue)?

 

Huh? Can you elaborate on the connection you are seeing there

[dcarr]

Reportedly, Hillary Clinton helped her friend Glenna Goodacre get paid in 5,000 special Sacagawea dollars that were different from all others produced.

 

If elected, I think Hillary could certainly get some 1964 dollars made for her "friends".

 

 

It sounds like you are a bit envious. How can you criticize her for doing legally what you want to do or have done with the Peace Dollar (except yours are private issue)?

 

Well, Glenna Goodacre got a sweet deal. She was paid for the Sacagawea obverse design with great fanfare and 5,000 special coins that she was able to sell for several hundred dollars each. I never said that was illegal, just out-of-the-ordinary.

 

When I won the design competition for the New York and Rhode Island state quarters, I received a Treasury Department check in the mail for $5,000 ($2,500 each) with no letter or explanation what it was for. I never was acknowledged as the designer of those two coins by the US Mint. I wasn't invited to any striking ceremony and I was not presented with any of the coins. I had to buy some rolls for myself off the US Mint web page.

 

My experience was actually somewhat normal for modern US Mint coin designers. Glenna Goodacre's experience was extraordinary. I certainly am not complaining, however. Very few people get the honor of designing a US Mint coin, and I am thankful for that. It was quite a boon to my career in this arena. I would hope to someday design another coin for the US Mint.

 

[RWB]

How about returning the discussion to the Morgan design 1964 galvanos and hubs?

 

In addition to the Peace dollar 1921 casts for both sides - including the broken sword reverse - are the 1964 galvanos and hubs there?

 

Also, we know from Allan Schein's fine book on Bela Pratt's $5 and $2.50 gold designs, that the Philadelphia Mint collection also includes original plasters of these. What other interesting things might be present?

[CaptHenway]

Well, Glenna Goodacre got a sweet deal. She was paid for the Sacagawea obverse design with great fanfare and 5,000 special coins that she was able to sell for several hundred dollars each. I never said that was illegal, just out-of-the-ordinary.

 

When I won the design competition for the New York and Rhode Island state quarters, I received a Treasury Department check in the mail for $5,000 ($2,500 each) with no letter or explanation what it was for. I never was acknowledged as the designer of those two coins by the US Mint. I wasn't invited to any striking ceremony and I was not presented with any of the coins. I had to buy some rolls for myself off the US Mint web page.

 

My experience was actually somewhat normal for modern US Mint coin designers. Glenna Goodacre's experience was extraordinary. I certainly am not complaining, however. Very few people get the honor of designing a US Mint coin, and I am thankful for that. It was quite a boon to my career in this arena. I would hope to someday design another coin for the US Mint.

 

It is absurd that you were not invited to either release ceremony, even if you had to come at your expense. And there should have been nice certificates suitable for framing congratulating you for your designs being selected.

 

I went to the press conference in Chicago where the Illinois statehood quarter design was released to the press, and it was quite surreal in that the Governor was there and it was just before he was indicted for taking bribes while Secretary of State. The first several questions from the press were all asking the Governor about the charges, completely ignoring the coin, and when I got called on I said "I'm Tom DeLorey of Coinage Magazine..." and I asked the designer about why he only used part of the Chicago skyline, and he explained how the Mint had modified it from the original design for reasons of scale, and all the reporters are muttering "Who gives a flying flip about some stupid coin??? We have a Governor to kill!" That was the only numismatic question asked that day.

 

TD

[CaptHenway]

How about returning the discussion to the Morgan design 1964 galvanos and hubs?

 

In addition to the Peace dollar 1921 casts for both sides - including the broken sword reverse - are the 1964 galvanos and hubs there?

 

Also, we know from Allan Schein's fine book on Bela Pratt's $5 and $2.50 gold designs, that the Philadelphia Mint collection also includes original plasters of these. What other interesting things might be present?

 

Indeed.

[Afterword]

"Also, we know from Allan Schein's fine book on Bela Pratt's $5 and $2.50 gold designs, that the Philadelphia Mint collection also includes original plasters of these. What other interesting things might be present?"

 

 

 

Why is it we do not know what other interesting things might be present? Do the mints not cooperate with numismatic historians?

[RWB]

It is only in recent years that the Mint Bureau hired a curator to locate, examine, classify and document all of the coin production materials located at the Philadelphia Mint. This work has uncovered several times the quantity of material expected. The Mint is planning to publish its results, but I am not aware of a schedule to do this.

 

(The curator is not a numismatist, so he might not have the same perceptions about an item as would someone in that field of expertise. The Mint calls these materials "assets" as a generic descriptor rather than by specific categories such as "casts," "galvanos," etc.)

[CaptHenway]

"Also, we know from Allan Schein's fine book on Bela Pratt's $5 and $2.50 gold designs, that the Philadelphia Mint collection also includes original plasters of these. What other interesting things might be present?"

 

 

 

Why is it we do not know what other interesting things might be present? Do the mints not cooperate with numismatic historians?

 

The Mint's cooperativeness varies over the years. For example, a few years ago I asked the Mint a very non-controversial question about when did it first start selling mint-sealed rolls directly to collectors. Despite two polite reminders they have still not answered my question.

 

TD

[coinman_23885]

When I won the design competition for the New York and Rhode Island state quarters, I received a Treasury Department check in the mail for $5,000 ($2,500 each) with no letter or explanation what it was for. I never was acknowledged as the designer of those two coins by the US Mint. I wasn't invited to any striking ceremony and I was not presented with any of the coins. I had to buy some rolls for myself off the US Mint web page.

 

I can see why you would be upset; you are justified. You should absolutely have been invited to any striking ceremony (at the very least). I also owe you an apology for the reply to your Sacagawea post. I am sorry.

 

I won't divert any more attention away from the newly discovered 1964 pieces.

 

[nk1nk]

How exactly did the people involved with this discovery get this kind of access? What was the reason or the access in the first place? YMaybe I'm nieve but it doesn't seem logical that a few numismatists would be given access to just rummage around and look at things. For whatever reason I have an image of an American pickers episode, with frank and mike climbing thru a dusty barely lit corner of the mint wheeling and dealing for relics of the past.

 

Nick

[MJ]

For whatever reason I have an image of an American pickers episode, with frank and mike climbing thru a dusty barely lit corner of the mint wheeling and dealing for relics of the past.

 

Nick

 

No doubt looking for a bundle price as well. These pieces would have made great coasters for their Nashville store.

 

Coinman- good on you!

 

mark

 

 

[Afterword]

"How exactly did the people involved with this discovery get this kind of access?"

 

 

 

I would like to know the answer to this question as well. Conversely, I would also like to know why numismatic historians were not given access long before this. I can understand mint staff being reluctant to spend time and effort researching archives for dated information like in CaptHenway's scenario, but why would historians be prevented from examining the contents of the mints' inventories of obsolete dies and hubs, etc - or have such expeditions happened over the years and historians are just slow to reveal what they found?

[Conder101]

In addition to the Peace dollar 1921 casts for both sides - including the broken sword reverse - are the 1964 galvanos and hubs there?

 

From the updated Coin World article.

 

Was anything else interesting found?

 

How about obverse and reverse models for the 1964 Peace dollar (really!), plus hubs and master dies for that coin as well, which we know were struck.

 

So yes they found the galvanos and master hub for the 64 peace dollar as well.

[dcarr]

When I won the design competition for the New York and Rhode Island state quarters, I received a Treasury Department check in the mail for $5,000 ($2,500 each) with no letter or explanation what it was for. I never was acknowledged as the designer of those two coins by the US Mint. I wasn't invited to any striking ceremony and I was not presented with any of the coins. I had to buy some rolls for myself off the US Mint web page.

 

I can see why you would be upset; you are justified. You should absolutely have been invited to any striking ceremony (at the very least). I also owe you an apology for the reply to your Sacagawea post. I am sorry.

 

I won't divert any more attention away from the newly discovered 1964 pieces.

 

No problem.

I wouldn't say that I was "upset", just a little disappointed that I didn't get "early release" examples or something.