• 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.

Information wanted on 1900-O/CC silver dollars
1 1

25 posts in this topic

For over a decade I've been collecting information (and data) about the 1900-O/CC silver dollars. (Those who want details of the varieties can go to VAMworld and search the date/mint listings.) As one might expect, speculation is great and data is scarce.

If members have any thoughts (ignoring Breen's falsehoods), I'd like to hear them - including collector speculation.

Thank You!

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've speculated (on here somewhere?) that it was an 1899 reverse die returned to Philly and "reserved for future use", then repurposed with a different MM and shipped back out. I have nothing to back that up and have never seriously looked at Morgans. But you asked for speculation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nouzillet said:

Roger is it possible that an employee from the Carson City office went to work for the New Orleans Mint and brought with him some reverse CC silver dollar dies? 

Mintmarks were added to dies only at Philadelphia. Dies were carefully accounted for at all mints. Only the Coiner and Coining Room Foreman handled them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speculation with nothing to back it up but:

Once the CC mint closed down in 1893 the equipment was painted and conditioned to prevent its deterioration, but remained at the mint. This I believe is known.  It may be possible that some rev dies were retained just in case the mint were to be reopened as a coining facility as had happened in 1890.  Once the mint reopened for receiving gold and silver, and then was downgraded to just an assay office iin June of 1899 it was realized that it would not be a coiing facility again and the dies were forwarded to Philadelphia.  But why the Philadelphia mint would go tot he trouble of reannealing the dies, punching in the O mintmark and them rehardening them when they had plenty of soft unmintmarked reverses on hand they could just punch with a mintmark.

I'm not sure, but I believe sometimes Philadelphia shipped out the branch mint dies in an unhardened state so that if they were lost or stolen they could not be used.  It was then the responsibility of the receiving mint to harden them.  If they did that with Carson City, the returned dies may not have been already hardened.  If not then it would have been a simple matter to punch the new mintmark and ship them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, kbbpll said:

What were "Breen's falsehoods"?

Walter Breen (possibly known as "Uncle Wally" to the little boys he raped) regularly invented actions, events and "information" in his publications - particularly the latter ones. For example, the story of CC dies being sent back to Philadelphia in 1899 has no supporting evidence at all. Real data and contemporary operating procedures all speak against such an event. However, such was Breen's reputation that many other writers simply accepted his lies and continued to present them as facts. Similar situations involving many US coins and Colonials has so confused things that it is difficult to trust anything that Breen published from the First Coinvesters' period forward. The slow work of examining, evaluating and correcting is uncoordinated and poorly reported.

He also invented names for things that already were identified, partly to satisfy his own ego and partly to cover his poor research. Glaring examples include "Roman" proof gold for the existing "satin" proof, and "Matte proof" for the accepted "sandblast proof."

[If the above sounds angry or frustrated, it's because whenever I research something on which Breen has a published article, I commonly have to take extra time to lay out the facts to both show what really happened and separately treat Breen's accumulated sewage.]

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Roger, I've never read anything written by Breen and didn't realize I might have been repeating his "story" on the O/CC. As you know from private exchanges, I've been trying to figure out where reverse dime dies may have come from for SF to have created transition anomalies 1902-1905, and one of my thoughts was 1900 or 1901 Philly dies "reserved for future use" rebranded with S. So I applied that speculation to the O/CC. It sounds like it's a dumb idea. It would have to be 1893-CC  or earlier anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike medicine, where injecting Lysol into your body is "really dumb" and will kill you, numismatic ideas might be implausible but not "dumb."

[PS: I plan to complete the 1900 correspondence scanning as soon as NARA reopens.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure if you are aware of this from the Encyclopedia of Morgan & Peace Dollars..." Five CC reverse dies left over from the Carson City mint when it was closed in 1893 were modified in 1900 by punching the O mint mark over the CC mint mark"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JoeF said:

not sure if you are aware of this from the Encyclopedia of Morgan & Peace Dollars..." Five CC reverse dies left over from the Carson City mint when it was closed in 1893 were modified in 1900 by punching the O mint mark over the CC mint mark"

Thanks! I was aware of the comment.

Another way of phrasing the quote is: "A minimum of five CC reverse dies left over from the Carson City mint when it was closed in 1893, were modified by punching an O mint mark over the CC mintmark. This accounts for the five known O/CC mintmark varieties; others might exist."

This removes speculation about when the over mintmark was made, and leaves the maximum quantity open ended.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RWB said:

Thanks! I was aware of the comment.

Another way of phrasing the quote is: "A minimum of five CC reverse dies left over from the Carson City mint when it was closed in 1893, were modified by punching an O mint mark over the CC mintmark. This accounts for the five known O/CC mintmark varieties; others might exist."

This removes speculation about when the over mintmark was made, and leaves the maximum quantity open ended.

Although I know you know this already, for the benefit of future readers, I will add:

Vamworld lists six. Bowers says at least seven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2021 at 11:43 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

🐓:  These numismatists talk funny!

Q.A.:  Tell me about it. It's all Greek to me.

...why r u going back n responding to old threads from 2020 n earlier?....very distracting for everyone.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2021 at 10:41 AM, zadok said:

...why r u going back n responding to old threads from 2020 n earlier?....very distracting for everyone.....

Easy. Moderation has carved out an exception for me: "cut him off from timely Notifications and his output will be limited and he will wander from the "next unread text" to another, to time indefinite." Obviously, the strategy has worked and I don't have any problem with Guidelines and policies invoked as of NGC necessity.  I am terribly sorry if it distracts you. Perhaps you have noticed none of my contributions, most tongue-in-cheek, are outfitted with "like" tabs. Yhis is another ingenious ploy to limit validation of my views. I have nothing but the utmost regard for you and others I have or may have offended from time to time but I am wise enough to know participation is a privilege, which can be revoked at any time, for any length of time, without explanation or recourse.  That is the fate, like an a albatross around one's neck, that has been accorded me.

I am ok with it.  🐓 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2021 at 11:43 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

🐓:  These numismatists talk funny!

Q.A.:  Tell me about it. It's all Greek to me.

Do you have a question or numismatic related comment to add to the post?

Just my opinion, but if you want to resurrect an old thread, please include something that you feel adds value.  Opening up an old thread only to see a comment that adds nothing to the discussion, Is a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2021 at 11:01 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

Easy. Moderation has carved out an exception for me: "cut him off from timely Notifications and his output will be limited and he will wander from the "next unread text" to another, to time indefinite." Obviously, the strategy has worked and I don't have any problem with Guidelines and policies invoked as of NGC necessity.  I am terribly sorry if it distracts you. Perhaps you have noticed none of my contributions, most tongue-in-cheek, are outfitted with "like" tabs. Yhis is another ingenious ploy to limit validation of my views. I have nothing but the utmost regard for you and others I have or may have offended from time to time but I am wise enough to know participation is a privilege, which can be revoked at any time, for any length of time, without explanation or recourse.  That is the fate, like an a albatross around one's neck, that has been accorded me.

I am ok with it.  🐓 

 

 

...really have no interest in ur differences with moderators, over exaggerated anyway, resurrecting old threads with nothing relevant is both distracting n annoying....i for one wont read or reply from now on...continuation to use the forum just to be trite n sarcastic is abusing said privilege n most likely will lead to members exercising the ignore function....a little humor here n there is refreshing but the purpose is exchange of worthy numismatic discourse....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

🐓 The gentlemen are right!  What's your Plan B?

Q.A.:  Dispense with the evidently inappropriate use of humor, including malaproprisms and non-numismatic-related verbiage, word-smithing, and the like, and re-immerse myself in corrosive domes, occluded gas bubbles, plating blisters, die dents, defalcations, die subsidence, Blebs (die erosion pits) die chips, interior die breaks and decarburization of die steel, etc.  😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2021 at 12:37 PM, zadok said:

...really have no interest in ur differences with moderators, over exaggerated anyway, resurrecting old threads with nothing relevant is both distracting n annoying....

Sometimes old threads have lots of useful information from posters at that time....imagine a conversation on 1908 No Motto Saints pricing around the time of the Wells Fargo Hoard (23-24 years ago).  Much better than starting anew with a brand new thread.

Look at all the valuable comments in the Burdette Saint-Gaudens Thread since early-2020.  Can't replicate that info if the thread goes unused for a year or so....better to resurrect it than start anew. (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your thoughts About the value of old threads, but this thread wasn't resurrected to add info or ask a question.    The new post was "These numismatists talk funny." 

The criticism is that the post was resurrected without adding anything relevant.  When I open these older threads, my expectation is that there was something new added to the body of knowledge, or at least a relevant question.  In this case it was resurrected to make a feeble attempt at humor.  IMO, that just wastes everyone's time, and apparently, some others agree. But that's life on an anonymous internet chat board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2020 at 9:02 PM, Just Bob said:

Vamworld lists six. Bowers says at least seven.

If it's any help I have a PCGS 'Top 100 VAM 8a 1900 O/CC

Edited by Alex in PA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own one . My dealer had 6, all 63s. I looked carefully at each one, looking for the most impressionable cc, but mostly all looked identical ( weak cc) and there were no additional attributions on the labels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Alex and Dave.

I'm looking for added information on the dies and if these were made to aid in testing NO Mint annealing problems, or were they simply use of older dies that were in good condition. The process was to fill the "CC," smooth, and then repunch with an "O" mintmark. If parts of the fill do not hold up, you get the partial results as on 1900 O/CC. (Same process as 1880/79, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1