1921 Peace Dollar - good strike
1 1

62 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, RWB said:

Yes, I own the coin. Found it about 10+ years ago. I feel it is a circulation strike due to some visible reed marks among the eagle's feathers. Detail is actually better than some of the medal press proofs for 1921. The satin field is typical of very early strikes from a new die pair.... metal deformation (luster) has not had time to develop. As to "grade," I'll leave that to the viewer.

the nicest 1921 i have is a 65+ and it is a beauty (will need to dig it out now to compare) but from what i remember versus yours, i would say yours is 68??ish  is there even any 68 1921 peace?   67 absolutely but i think higher.  RWB  im tearing up over here.....is it a raw specimen??  please tell me:idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dollarfan said:

the nicest 1921 i have is a 65+ and it is a beauty (will need to dig it out now to compare) but from what i remember versus yours, i would say yours is 68??ish  is there even any 68 1921 peace?   67 absolutely but i think higher.  RWB  im tearing up over here.....is it a raw specimen??  please tell me:idea:

I remember seeing pictures of the coin several years ago. The strike is amazing. However - and I imagine that Roger has heard this opinion from me and/or others, previously - the coin gives the appearance of having been cleaned. The sheen/luster looks off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I remember seeing pictures of the coin several years ago. The strike is amazing. However - and I imagine that Roger has heard this opinion from me and/or others, previously - the coin gives the appearance of having been cleaned. The sheen/luster looks off.

I understand the comment and agree that the coin has almost no luster anywhere, which is not what we're accustomed to seeing on coins. But, compared to other coins known to have come from new dies the surfaces are consistent. (The final step after hardening/tempering was a dip in acid to remove any remaining scale. This gave new dies a light satin surface that quickly vanished on use.)

The surface is similar to satin proofs because the dies were virtually new. (A satin proof is merely a new die struck with a medal press at high pressure.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RWB said:

Condition ("grade") and detail are separate for 1921s. Of course, it'

RWB. Isnt this the case for this entire series....  It took me 10 years to build mine and 90% of the peace dollars have very soft strikes.....  oh by the way she is lovely.  still dont know if i am going to warm up that quickly to ya though   i think that you keep me lookijng for a 17 - D buffalo because you wrote somewhere that they woere made from left over proof dies and it took me 2 years to find a good 6 5 ... j/k good advice is never orgotten

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JT2 said:

RWB. Isnt this the case for this entire series....  It took me 10 years to build mine and 90% of the peace dollars have very soft strikes.....  oh by the way she is lovely.  still dont know if i am going to warm up that quickly to ya though   i think that you keep me lookijng for a 17 - D buffalo because you wrote somewhere that they woere made from left over proof dies and it took me 2 years to find a good 6 5 ... j/k good advice is never orgotten

Don't confuse soft strike with detail not present on the die.  The reason many Peace dollars are mushy is because the dies are mushy, so that even if the coin is fully struck, you get fully struck mush.  1921-S Morgans work the same way, in that you almost never see one that is sharply detailed.  The 1921 high relief is a different beast.  The reason they don't have good detail is because the strike isn't sufficient to bring it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Messydesk is correct. The normal low relief dies used 1922-1928 have not only low relief, but a low camber angle - that is, the slope along the side of the letter from field to top surface of letter is excessively shallow. This makes the letters fade into the field and reduces visual contrast. This is independent of the technical relief of height of features above the field.

The easiest way to see this difference is to compare the reverse lettering on a 1921 with a typical 1922 or 23. [Technical note - there were several hundred thousand 1922 trial pieces made from the initial hubs with a more acute camber angle.These are usually found paired with the reverse having a small separation between olive branch and eagle. This was replaced with a new pair of hubs in May 1922. The hubs were remade in 1934.]

23 minutes ago, JT2 said:

i think that you keep me lookijng for a 17 - D buffalo because you wrote somewhere that they woere made from left over proof dies

Not my comment. There were no 1917 proof nickel dies made, so none could have been reused.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, messydesk said:

Don't confuse soft strike with detail not present on the die. 

no i am not.. the early 21 strikes required such great pressure for the strike to bring out the high relief that it often broke the dies and  made the subsequent strikes crappy for lack of a better word.  and for some reason they could not get this series struck well enough either not enough pressure to strike the coin or the dies did not come completely together or just wore out dies.  this left most of the series mushy and greasy..  It was difficult to find good specimens for each coin in the series.  and trust me i have toss  6 5's aside in favor of a lessor grade because they were of superior strike.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RWB said:

Not my comment. There were no 1917 proof nickel dies made, so none could have been reused.

oops my bad it must have been the 16 - S i was looking for but if it wasn't our comment then i am sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JT2 said:

no i am not.. the early 21 strikes required such great pressure for the strike to bring out the high relief that it often broke the dies and  made the subsequent strikes crappy for lack of a better word.  and for some reason they could not get this series struck well enough either not enough pressure to strike the coin or the dies did not come completely together or just wore out dies.  this left most of the series mushy and greasy..  It was difficult to find good specimens for each coin in the series.  and trust me i have toss  6 5's aside in favor of a lessor grade because they were of superior strike.  

Please read the Guide Book for Peace Dollars or Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921. Your comment above is a little confused and misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JT2 said:

oops my bad it must have been the 16 - S i was looking for but if it wasn't our comment then i am sorry

Dies for matte proof nickels are not known to have ever been reused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JT2 said:

this left most of the series mushy and greasy

No. The dies had low relief, were often struck at insufficient pressure, and nobody really cared at the time (1922-1928). Sec. Treasury Mellon simply wanted to retire the Pittman bonds as fast as possible. There was no excess grease and most dies were retired before they developed starburst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RWB said:

I understand the comment and agree that the coin has almost no luster anywhere, which is not what we're accustomed to seeing on coins. But, compared to other coins known to have come from new dies the surfaces are consistent. (The final step after hardening/tempering was a dip in acid to remove any remaining scale. This gave new dies a light satin surface that quickly vanished on use.)

The surface is similar to satin proofs because the dies were virtually new. (A satin proof is merely a new die struck with a medal press at high pressure.)

While I haven't seen the coin in hand, based on the images, it doesn't look like any satin proofs or satiny business strikes I have seen. If it does look like the images, I'd have to vote cleaned - that is, if I get a vote..  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RWB said:

Not my comment. There were no 1917 proof nickel dies made, so none could have been reused.

OH DUDE please except my sincerest appology.  I had no intenstions of stiking words in your mouth..... No you did not say that it was David Lange.  and it was about the 15 s....  you know why you buy the three at the same time i kinda got confussed ..........anyway Page 91 of my red book a guide to buffalo and jefferson nickles. 

 

5 hours ago, RWB said:

here was no excess grease and most dies were retired before they developed starburs

Also pleas excuse my word smithing.  i am not as an eloquent q writer as some.  when i ment gresey i ment they looked soft and slick and mushy across the design not that they had Grease so sorry for the confussion :(  I guess i need to write better or remeber better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

While I haven't seen the coin in hand, based on the images, it doesn't look like any satin proofs or satiny business strikes I have seen. If it does look like the images, I'd have to vote cleaned - that is, if I get a vote..  

Sure, everyone gets an equal vote -- this is not Mississippi. The coin is consistent with pieces direct from new dies - a few of those still exist. Sadly, the situation is much like sandblast gold proofs - nearly all have been dipped multiple times, so very few actually can recognize an fully original piece. The antiqued ('pickled Peace pieces") 1921 and 1922 proof and trial strikes were so altered by their medal treatment that they are useless for assessing unaltered coins. I agree that the axial lighting might also contribute. Maybe some day I'll consign it to a TPG and then to Heritage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RWB said:

Sure, everyone gets an equal vote -- this is not Mississippi. The coin is consistent with pieces direct from new dies - a few of those still exist. Sadly, the situation is much like sandblast gold proofs - nearly all have been dipped multiple times, so very few actually can recognize an fully original piece. The antiqued ('pickled Peace pieces") 1921 and 1922 proof and trial strikes were so altered by their medal treatment that they are useless for assessing unaltered coins. I agree that the axial lighting might also contribute. Maybe some day I'll consign it to a TPG and then to Heritage.

Agreed about the sandblast gold Proofs. Before so many of them were altered, because each date had its own unique color/finish, I could tell the date, just from viewing the reverse. Not so, very often, these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Agreed about the sandblast gold Proofs. Before so many of them were altered, because each date had its own unique color/finish, I could tell the date, just from viewing the reverse. Not so, very often, these days.

Sandblasting was a manual operation and thus unique to each coin. Understandably, there was much less variation with small gold than DE. There could also be grit differences between batches. Also, from looking at these, I feel they occasionally tried using different (finer) grit for HE and QE than on E and DE -- But I've seen no documentary reference to this, and it might simply be an artifact of astigmatism and coin dipping.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2021 at 8:03 PM, RWB said:

The earlier post with little blue and red arrows was an attempt to help members identify well-struck (detailed) examples when buying. However, a couple of folks have asked to see the coin with out distractions, so here it is. Also, a recent thread ATS features a nicely struck 1921, and members are encouraged to compare the two coins.

1921-pair sm.jpg

Whattaguy! Whattaguy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RWB said:

Sure, everyone gets an equal vote -- this is not Mississippi.

Maybe some day I'll consign it to a TPG and then to Heritage.

As to the opening comment, that is a cold shot. Guidelines prohibit me from elaborating further. Maybe Just Bob will break with tradition and chime in with a simple, I don't know what you're talking about, or, That may have been true at one time but no longer is. Who doesn't trust Just Bob?

As to the final comment, two things... a). we, the collector community will be very curious as to whom you entrust your treasures to, and b). no one reading this will feel confident either some form of nepotism or favoritism will not be involved.  To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I would look elsewhere.  I wonder where our VKurtB, personalities aside, stands on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

As to the opening comment, that is a cold shot. Guidelines prohibit me from elaborating further. Maybe Just Bob will break with tradition and chime in with a simple, I don't know what you're talking about, or, That may have been true at one time but no longer is. Who doesn't trust Just Bob?

This comment block effectively supersedes the entry which precedes is as non-applicable as I am quoting the wrong member. My apologies...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

As to the opening comment, that is a cold shot. Guidelines prohibit me from elaborating further. Maybe Just Bob will break with tradition and chime in with a simple, I don't know what you're talking about, or, That may have been true at one time but no longer is. Who doesn't trust Just Bob?

***

I have deleted this; see above. Now that the giant "express scroll to the top arrow ha been restored (with a member who evidently has juice) I am prepared to make a very attractive offer to anyone who can provide the underlying rationale and supporting legislative history for the elimination of the EDIT button.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go to the three little dots at upper right. When you click them, a small drop down menu will appear including "Edit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, RWB said:

Go to the three little dots at upper right. When you click them, a small drop down menu will appear including "Edit."

Well, I'll be...

Who'd've thunk?

I didn't know because I'd been emasculated.  All I could do up until fairly recently was sit and watch helplessly while duplicate comments were spawned in attempting to clear, i.e., edit earlier ones. Sometimes it's hard determining who is responding to what.

Ever since that disable cookies incident thrust me into the Twilight Zone, I've been afraid to touch anything. (Now Google is informing me an email address I abandoned years ago has been compromised in a series of security alerts -- all day long.) Mystery cleared. Thanks much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2021 at 7:51 PM, RWB said:

Sure, everyone gets an equal vote -- this is not Mississippi. 

What is that supposed to mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

What is that supposed to mean?

Everyone gets to vote.

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