Anyone have a link to facts about the 1794 "SP-66" dollar to be sold in October? 1 1

[RWB]

Just wondering if there was a bit fact out there, and not just a bunch of allegations.

 

[World Colonial]

There is a thread ATS which you must have seen.  The owner hasn't denied it.

[Conder101]

A link no, facts about it?  It is a genuine 1794 dollar, it is high grade, It is from the earliest die stage known so it is one of the first coins struck.  There is no way to prove it is THE first one struck.  This coin has received a lot of undeserved hype.

Opinion.

The idea it was struck as a presentation piece strikes me as unlikely.  If you were striking a presentation piece you would want it to be a perfect as possible.  You wouldn't chose a planchet that had been holed and plugged, you would pick through the available planchets and find a good unblemished one.  If the die had been polished for a presentation strike it would still have imparted the PL surfaces to at least the next few coins struck.

[MarkFeld]

9 hours ago, RWB said:

Just wondering if there was a bit fact out there, and not just a bunch of allegations.

 

You’re talking about “claims”, not “allegations”. You’re the one making “allegations”.😉

[DWLange]

I remember when that coin came to NGC in 2003. It was Skip Fazzari who first spotted the mint plug, and I confirmed it. Paul Gilkes then wrote an article about the discovery for Coin World.

[Just Bob]

1 hour ago, DWLange said:

I remember when that coin came to NGC in 2003. It was Skip Fazzari who first spotted the mint plug, and I confirmed it. Paul Gilkes then wrote an article about the discovery for Coin World.

What grade did NGC give it?

[RWB]

5 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

You’re talking about “claims”, not “allegations”. You’re the one making “allegations”.😉

Not quite. The perpetrators allege certain things are true, then make unsupported claims as if the allegations are facts. I'm looking for facts. They will support truth - whatever that might be.

Edited June 19, 2020 by RWB

[RWB]

Conder101 - Helpful comments and a lot of cuts through the nonsense. Also, reinforces that observations MUST be objective and unbiased. Analysis and interpretation might vary, but not the data.

Has Robert W. Julian uncovered any material?

[kbbpll]

I notice a few contact marks. Probably from clinking around in Washington's pocket with the 1792 gold pattern. (kidding)

[physics-fan3.14]

Is this the Bruce Morelan specimen that sold for $10 million last time? 

[RonnieR131]

Is this the Bruce Morelan specimen that sold for $10 million last time?  ---  Yes. The Bruce Morelan piece.

 

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

2 hours ago, RWB said:

Not quite. The perpetrators allege certain things are true, then make unsupported claims as if the allegations are facts. I'm looking for facts. They will support truth - whatever that might be.

Not quite. You’re using the term “allege”, in place of “claim“ (or something akin to that) and incorrectly so.
Allege:  “claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case.

 

[RWB]

6 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Not quite. You’re using the term “allege”, in place of “claim“ (or something akin to that) and incorrectly so.
Allege:  “claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case.

 

Presumably, Mr. Feld has neither facts nor a link to facts, and merely enjoys seeing his name on the screen.

[MarkFeld]

15 hours ago, RWB said:

Presumably, Mr. Feld has neither facts nor a link to facts, and merely enjoys seeing his name on the screen.

I never claimed that I did. I was merely trying to show you the difference between “allege” and “claim”, which do not mean the same thing. The people about whom you’ve been speaking, haven’t “alleged” anything, though they have made “claims”.

[kbbpll]

Anybody who pays $10 million for a coin can believe whatever they want. All the evidence is interesting but I think we'll never have anything but "opinion" and not "proof".

[World Colonial]

On 6/19/2020 at 12:11 PM, RWB said:

Conder101 - Helpful comments and a lot of cuts through the nonsense. Also, reinforces that observations MUST be objective and unbiased. Analysis and interpretation might vary, but not the data.

Has Robert W. Julian uncovered any material?

When it comes to the most expensive coins generically (not specifically this coin), those who buy and sell it are a lot more interested in exaggeration to inflate the price level as much as possible.  It's marketing and nothing else.  US "collecting" is the absolute worst in doing this.

[Zebo]

13 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

When it comes to the most expensive coins generically (not specifically this coin), those who buy and sell it are a lot more interested in exaggeration to inflate the price level as much as possible.  It's marketing and nothing else.  US "collecting" is the absolute worst in doing this.

Or the best - depending on what side of the coin you are on. 

[World Colonial]

59 minutes ago, Zebo said:

Or the best - depending on what side of the coin you are on. 

Yes, I agree US collecting is the best at financially promoting the "hobby".  No doubt about that.

[Revenant]

On 6/20/2020 at 3:35 PM, World Colonial said:

When it comes to the most expensive coins generically (not specifically this coin), those who buy and sell it are a lot more interested in exaggeration to inflate the price level as much as possible.  It's marketing and nothing else.  US "collecting" is the absolute worst in doing this.

Yeah, but these people were probably never really collector's and I wouldn't be surprised if in many cases a representative collects the coin, it goes right into a vault for storage and the person who owns it might be in the same room with it once.

[Endgame]

Several years ago ats Nysoto presented what I consider the most logical explanation by describing the SP66 as an experimental or trial piece. It makes sense because we have 1795 silver plug half dollars and 1795 silver plug silver dollars; so silver plugs were a 1795 event, not 1794 or 1796. Additionally take a look at the photo of the MS64 1794 Dollar that sold 3 years ago: looks like a silver plug to me. Maybe we have the situation where B-1 1794 Silver Dollars minted in 1794 and B-2 1794 Silver Dollars minted in 1795.

[DWLange]

On 6/19/2020 at 11:27 AM, Just Bob said:

What grade did NGC give it?

I don't recall the numeric grade, but it was MS, not SP.

[RWB]

Do we have even the most basic physical characteristics of the coin? By that I refer to: weight, diameter(s), thickness(es), measured alloy, density ('specific gravity'), surface deviation from plane.

Also, what is an accepted definition of "Specimen" and how was that determined for this coin?

[Endgame]

RWB, as far as diagnostics, look at the 7 date punch. On the regular strikes the 7 has a slight slope at the top. On the silver plugs the top of the 7 is flat across. You have to wonder because the St. Oswald 1794 Dollars have flat across 7s.

[Conder101]

That would be interesting because as far as I know all of the 1794 dollars came from the same die pair.

[RWB]

Accepting that coins made on a lever press (aka "screw press") can have slight differences in letters and numerals due to pressure and metal flow, where do we find a really complete, factual description - and clear determination of dies used, etc.

Simply put: All basic data on 1794 dollars should be available from a single reliable, objective source. Nysoto's comments are great as are Bowers' and some others - yet no one should have to look under numismatic rocks for fundamental information to America's first silver dollars.

Edited June 23, 2020 by RWB

[RWB]

PS: The alloy of 90% silver 10% copper is likely an assumption. What are the professional XRF results for the field and center plug?

[Moxie15]

 

@RWB,

Are you trying to say something specific here, without coming out and saying it?

45 minutes ago, RWB said:

 

Simply put: All basic data on 1794 dollars should be available from a single reliable, objective source. Nysoto's comments are great as are Bowers' and some others - yet no one should have to look under numismatic rocks for fundamental information to America's first silver dollars.

You have done more original research than most people have read opinions. I would expect you to have a more direct 'link' to facts on this coin than any one of us here. 

Something I learned in college when researching an event from WWII, the first researchers 'may have' easily becomes the next researches 'most likely' and becomes the next researchers 'definitely'

In this context;

first researcher..

"This may have been the first dollar struck'

second researcher;

'This is likely the first dollar struck'

Third researcher;

'This is the first dollar struck'

 

No one means to lie or misinform but without original research it is very easy for this to happen and future scholars get caught in the trap.

That is all the facts I have. 

[Endgame]

Yes its seems unknowable, but we can theorize. I always thought the 135 B-1 survivors was high for a mintage of 1758. It appears that Robert Scot had a second attempt at making 1794 silver dollars due to the St. Oswald visit. Looking through Martin's book there are a number of coins that appear to have a silver plug. The telltale sign is whether a 1794 Dollar has a blundered reverse due to the striking press misfit. The Sp66 and the St. Oswald coins have perfect reverses. 

[kbbpll]

Here is an article from 2004. I assumed all of this was already known but perhaps useful. A lot of history about who looked at what, opinions, etc. Apparently it got the SP66 "later in 2003". https://www.money.org/blog/New-research-on-Neil/Carter-1794-Flowing-Hair-Dollar

I see two people saying "there is no doubt in my mind" and "clues that this is the first". The rest hedge with "may be", "conceivable", "conjecture", "not possible to precisely ascertain", "leads me to believe", "suggests".

[RWB]

I have not researched 1794 dollars specifically, or early silver coin production in general. I do not intend to. There are others focused on that period of US history. Hopefully someone, somewhere, will accept the challenge and put forth the work of assembling truth. (I recall this was done by a member regarding 1850  or `50-O proof dollars?)

One cannot make meaningful speculations or theorize without having an accurate source for basic facts. The facts define parameters of speculation. For 1794 dollars, much guessing seems to center on the alloy - assumed to be 900 fine silver 100 copper. I understand the reasons for this assumption, but with coins of this importance (NOT "monetary value") and modern non-destructive assay technology, it is almost a malpractice not to have two-decimal place measurement for coin bulk and plug.

Edited June 23, 2020 by RWB