• 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.

64 dollar?
0

59 posts in this topic

On 2/23/2022 at 7:32 PM, VKurtB said:

No fair. My expected lifetime ain’t that much. Another surgery just last week. 

...i dont envy u that...mine is inoperable, so i dont even have to deal with that aspect....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 7:29 PM, VKurtB said:

Yes, I do. Three of the probable four. 

Good to know the FBI can find tiny coins less than 2" in diatmer, but has trouble finding serial killers, terrorists, and foreign nationals. (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 6:34 PM, zadok said:

...i dont envy u that...mine is inoperable, so i dont even have to deal with that aspect....

My poopy attitude is inoperable. But we all contribute what we have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 6:38 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Good to know the FBI can find tiny coins less than 2" in diatmer, but has trouble finding serial killers, terrorists, and foreign nationals. (thumbsu

1933DE’s are very hard to disguise. Besides, there are no shortages of “narcs” for the DE’s. There are present day dealers who have lied to the FBI, and they have those guys over a barrel. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 7:39 PM, VKurtB said:

My poopy attitude is inoperable. But we all contribute what we have. 

...good thing its that end that the poopy is inoperable....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 6:40 PM, zadok said:

...good thing its that end that the poopy is inoperable....

Having the correct end go that way is what finally got me discharged. :bigsmile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 6:38 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Good to know the FBI can find tiny coins less than 2" in diatmer, but has trouble finding serial killers, terrorists, and foreign nationals. (thumbsu

Defendants have rights. Coins, even important rarities, do not. If you think these are “cold cases”, think again. There are agents whose entire jobs are tracking down illegal coins and other collectibles. But oddly enough, NO ONE specializes in stopping Chinese fakes. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 7:59 PM, VKurtB said:

Defendants have rights. Coins, even important rarities, do not. If you think these are “cold cases”, think again. There are agents whose entire jobs are tracking down illegal coins and other collectibles. 

Please give them China's address.  I hear they produce a counterfeit or two every now and then. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 7:00 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Please give them China's address.  I hear they produce a counterfeit or two every now and then. :)

They literally don’t seem to care ENOUGH about Chinese fakes to even learn more about them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2022 at 5:44 AM, Conder101 said:

That was a 1974 D aluminum cent, a coin that never should have existed in the first place.  They do experiments like that aluminum cent in Philadelphia, and the 1974 plain aluminum cents were most likely part of the test run of something like 1.5 million pieces they did to make sure they would scale up to regular production.  There would never have been any good reason to have a few (or one) struck at Denver.  I would find it difficult to believe there was ever any official order to have that coin struck.  I think it was something the Denver Mint official did on his own.

And the six figure sum was what they expected it to bring at auction, the proceeds of which were to be donated to charity.  When it was publicly announced the government claimed if was their property and the auction company withdrew it and returned it tot he consignor.  The government kept claiming it was theirs and that it should be surrendered, but in that case they also never actually made any attempt to physically recover it.  The owner finally turned it over to them to make them go away and leave him alone.  I believe he had to get it to them as well, they didn't come to get it.

The amazing thing to me is how an aluminum planchet got to Denver at all. Given that it’s Denver, maybe it was a fantasy date overstrike of a plain 1974 aluminum? Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe it was even struck on the same press Dan Carr now owns. How cool is that?! Tongue in cheek. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 2:07 AM, VKurtB said:

The amazing thing to me is how an aluminum planchet got to Denver at all. Given that it’s Denver, maybe it was a fantasy date overstrike of a plain 1974 aluminum? Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe it was even struck on the same press Dan Carr now owns. How cool is that?! Tongue in cheek. 

Who is Dan Carr ?  I've seen that name a bit last week or so.....

And if a die was made....how does that explain any coins being struck ?  How does any regular-level employee have access to the die....have planchets....get to turn the machines on....and strike a few coins ?  

I mean, did he do it when everyone was at lunch or did he sneak in at 3 AM ?  xD

Would seem that higher-ups must have been involved, or been given the OK, to strike a few for whatever reasons from the top people at the Denver Mint or Washington, DC.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 1:22 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Who is Dan Carr ?  I've seen that name a bit last week or so.....

And if a die was made....how does that explain any coins being struck ?  How does any regular-level employee have access to the die....have planchets....get to turn the machines on....and strike a few coins ?  

I mean, did he do it when everyone was at lunch or did he sneak in at 3 AM ?

Would seem that higher-ups must have been involved, or been given the OK, to strike a few for whatever reasons from the top people at the Denver Mint or Washington, DC.

1) the guy who had it WAS the Denver Mint Superintendent, not some shlub. 
2) Dan Carr is a controversial (Roger Burdette hates his guts) fellow who owns a discarded and refurbished Denver Mint press, with which he strikes many categories of medals and fantasy coins. His “fantasy date overstrikes” are the most controversial. He uses fully normal common date coins as his planchets, and strikes “dates that don’t exist” over them. Like what? 1933 Buffalo nickels, 1964-D Morgan dollars, 1932 Mercury dimes, etc. You get the idea. He also designed the New York and Rhode Island quarters, not the ATB’s, the first ones. My home club uses Carr exclusively as the producer of their club medals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A planchet did not have to go to Denver to get a "D" mintmark. All the dies at that time were made in Philadelphia and the aluminum piece were likely struck there. Reasonable internal communications would have permitted samples to be sent west for review and opinion.

A similar approach applies to so-called "branch mint proofs."

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 9:58 AM, RWB said:

A planchet did not have to go to Denver to get a "D" mintmark. All the dies at that time were made in Philadelphia and the aluminum piece were likely struck there. Reasonable internal communications would have permitted samples to be sent west for review and opinion.

A similar approach applies to so-called "branch mint proofs."

...the latter comment...simply untrue n not documented by anyone or anything....purely conjecture, speculation n personal bias....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 7:25 PM, VKurtB said:

How much do you want to bet that if the holder of the one they think they know where it is shows up on an airline manifest for overseas, so does the FBI?

And while they are busy shaking him down someone else on a different flight carries it out of the country for him.  Then when they can't find it they have to let him go and he flies out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 10:03 AM, zadok said:

...the latter comment...simply untrue n not documented by anyone or anything....purely conjecture, speculation n personal bias....

The practice of sending sample coins to branch mints is documented from the late 1830s forward. Their purpose was to give the branches "best quality" samples made from their own dies so the branches had examples for comparison. Further, only Philadelphia had a medal press capable of making true proof coins. The speculation is about any real proof coin being made at a branch mint and that has never been demonstrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 10:10 AM, RWB said:

The practice of sending sample coins to branch mints is documented from the late 1830s forward. Their purpose was to give the branches "best quality" samples made from their own dies so the branches had examples for comparison. Further, only Philadelphia had a medal press capable of making true proof coins. The speculation is about any real proof coin being made at a branch mint and that has never been demonstrated.

...just more personal bs as always....your "true proof coins" r just that...."your determination" not supported by the numismatic community at large.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 2:07 AM, VKurtB said:

The amazing thing to me is how an aluminum planchet got to Denver at all.

If it was just created by a denver employee/officer, the planchet didn't have to come from Philadelphia, it could have been brought in from outside.  Could the Superintendenthave gotten a Nepal 2 Pice planchet from someone at the San Francisco mint?  They were striking pure aluminum 2 Pice coins that were just about the right size, 18.5 mm .9 grams

 

On 2/24/2022 at 9:58 AM, RWB said:

A planchet did not have to go to Denver to get a "D" mintmark. All the dies at that time were made in Philadelphia and the aluminum piece were likely struck there.

But why strike a D mint aluminum cent when you are already striking 1.5 million plain ones  What would the D coin tell you that the plain ones didn't?  And if you wanted to send Denver an aluminum cent to show them what it looked like, one of the plain ones would have sufficed.  No need to strike a D just to send them one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 10:14 AM, zadok said:

...just more personal bs as always....your "true proof coins" r just that...."your determination" not supported by the numismatic community at large.....

And just more BS non-thinking, there. "The numismatic community at large" is so imbued with sloppy thinking, "looks-like" guesses, and false assumptions, ignorance and lies from long ago, that only a little of the "received wisdom" is actually useful. As a small example, compare the knowledge about our 1905-1921 coins and design from before the Renaissance of American Coinage series and after. One can also examine every other publication to see that the material is fact-based and documented, not isolated guesses.

A "true proof" is one that meets the identical physical and appearance standards of proofs or Master coins made by the Philadelphia Mint in the 19th century.

A proof must, therefore, be produced on the same type of equipment. No branch mint ever had a large screw press. Philadelphia had one used for medals and proof coins.

There are letters mentioning shipment of sample coins to New Orleans in 1838 and 1839 as denominations were brought on-line there. The same procedure was followed with new seated Liberty designs. Multiple Trade dollar samples and dies went back and forth between SF, CC and Philadelphia because of persistent striking problems. (These were clearly ordinary mintmarked dies struck at Philadelphia by the Engraver as he tried to solve problems.) The last documented instance was in 1908 when sample DE were sent to Denver and San Francisco accompanied by engineering drawings for adapting their toggle presses to the new edge collars.

Zadok is correct to state that little of the branch mint proof material has been published. I am only one person and must set priorities; so-called branch mint proofs are a trivial item that wil have to wait.

[FYI Bob Julian and I are the only numismatic researchers with extensive hands-on work with original US Mint documents and volumes.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 10:34 AM, Conder101 said:

But why strike a D mint aluminum cent when you are already striking 1.5 million plain ones  What would the D coin tell you that the plain ones didn't?  And if you wanted to send Denver an aluminum cent to show them what it looked like, one of the plain ones would have sufficed.  No need to strike a D just to send them one.

It is an option. When beginning a new design or metal, the resulting coin is affected by all parts of the die. We see this in Barber's tinkering with Buffalo nickels and Lincoln cents, followed by Morgan's changes and then Sinnock's. The few notebook pages we have from Sinnock show very detailed adjustments and their consequences. C Barber stated that 1916 and 1917 McKinley hubs were different and the 1917s were going to be an improvement.....but so far we can't see what Barber saw.

While certainly not necessary to strike early samples with a D mintmark, it is also reasonable that larger scale testing was planned or done using a mintmarked die to be certain the coins were correct. Our visual examinations have often proved inadequate when compared to the details important to a die engraver. But those folks are dying out and the skills lost - so we might never know for sure.

(It is possible that documents from 1974 exist that will answer the questions....but I don't know of anyone who has checked.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 10:39 AM, RWB said:

And just more BS non-thinking, there. "The numismatic community at large" is so imbued with sloppy thinking, "looks-like" guesses, and false assumptions, ignorance and lies from long ago, that only a little of the "received wisdom" is actually useful. As a small example, compare the knowledge about our 1905-1921 coins and design from before the Renaissance of American Coinage series and after. One can also examine every other publication to see that the material is fact-based and documented, not isolated guesses.

A "true proof" is one that meets the identical physical and appearance standards of proofs or Master coins made by the Philadelphia Mint in the 19th century.

A proof must, therefore, be produced on the same type of equipment. No branch mint ever had a large screw press. Philadelphia had one used for medals and proof coins.

There are letters mentioning shipment of sample coins to New Orleans in 1838 and 1839 as denominations were brought on-line there. The same procedure was followed with new seated Liberty designs. Multiple Trade dollar samples and dies went back and forth between SF, CC and Philadelphia because of persistent striking problems. (These were clearly ordinary mintmarked dies struck at Philadelphia by the Engraver as he tried to solve problems.) The last documented instance was in 1908 when sample DE were sent to Denver and San Francisco accompanied by engineering drawings for adapting their toggle presses to the new edge collars.

Zadok is correct to state that little of the branch mint proof material has been published. I am only one person and must set priorities; so-called branch mint proofs are a trivial item that wil have to wait.

[FYI Bob Julian and I are the only numismatic researchers with extensive hands-on work with original US Mint documents and volumes.]

....there is only one word to summarize ur opinions on this matter n some others.....obtrude.....

 

(fyi...robert julian has my respect as a researcher...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an opportunity to recount one of my universal truths of life:

Some things (many) are true even when there is absolutely no evidence, documentary or otherwise. Other things are false even in the presence of considerable evidence of truth. Maybe you have to have worked for a legislature to hold those as self-evident. And I do. 
 

Am I suggesting that truth and evidence are nearly independent concepts? As long as you keep the “nearly” in there, and people routinely fabricate and destroy evidence as fearlessly as lawmakers do, I’m not suggesting it at all, I’m stating it outright. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 1:02 PM, zadok said:

....there is only one word to summarize ur opinions on this matter n some others.....obtrude.....

 

(fyi...robert julian has my respect as a researcher...)

I have a new favorite word to throw about for a while. Obtrude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 2:18 PM, VKurtB said:

I have a new favorite word to throw about for a while. Obtrude. 

....its fits like a glove in this instance....even QA never used it...feel free to purloin....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 1:20 PM, zadok said:

....its fits like a glove in this instance....even QA never used it...feel free to purloin....

The fit here is overwhelming. “I don’t own coins, but I’m an archive dumpster diver.” Pfffft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 6:45 PM, Derek bentley said:

Because any first would be authenicated with the die. And as far as government records they never exist.

And those that do exist are frequently not accurate, due to error and intentional malfeasance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 7:45 PM, Derek bentley said:

Because any first would be authenicated with the die. And as far as government records they never exist.

There is nonpublic information that would be used to authenticate any alleged 1964-D dollar. The US Mint at Philadelphia holds some, I have other pieces gathered from research.

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
0