• 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.

Can you separate fact from fiction?
3 3

35 posts in this topic

In my case, zero cognitive skills, major impairment. I am unfamiliar with this issue, but can definitely see why it would catch your eye. I'll check back later when lurkers check in.  🐓 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, this is an interesting one. I was considering posting it over there, but decided against it. It seems I got one “lol” ATS for the one question I asked. There’s a lot to break down. My big thing is that there’s no way to prove that the San Fran mint EVER struck specimens of any type, and the mention of finish in one letter could easily refer to a normal coin that just looks acceptable. 
 

I did this all off of memory, but tomorrow I will go through it in depth and put my full analysis here. I do hope in a few days RWB will reveal his thoughts! 
 

Edit: just remembered that San Fran had eight failed reverse dies. Where is the mention of coinage from those? Those coins could have been easily sent, and Linderman could have been requesting samples from that coinage to ensure die ability. Roger, do you have the general correspondence files that would prove that the five coins sent could have been from eight different die pairings at a minimum? 

Edited by FlyingAl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should be fun, thanks for posting it. It will have to wait until. Have a bit of time later, however. Too much work to do right now.

Using just the information provided in the post - no other sources. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a VERY LONG STORY and unless the story includes a totally made-up BS thing -- like Douglas MacArthur using the coin to buy essential supplies in WW I and then buying it back xD -- stories (factual and semi-factual) are what makes this hobby interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 12:00 PM, FlyingAl said:

Alright, here we go.

Facts (Roger, your book was a godsend):

1. The mint sent San Francisco 8 reverse (7/8TF) and an unknown amount of obverse dies (at least 7) were sent on (Late March?) but they arrived April 17th.

2. The mint sent an additional fifteen pairs of dies on April 17th (this would be critical).

3. The first strike ceremony in San Francisco was on April 17th, with one coin being struck by a manual turn of the press. A specimen would be described in mint reports of the era as what we now call "proof" (all patterns are referred to as "specimen". The modern term as we know it is not mentioned in mint reports and therefore it is up for debate if the mint ever internally struck them. This is critical as for a coin to be a "Specimen", as how PCGS defines it is that a coin would have been a proof if it had been struck on the same planchet, with the same dies, just in a medal press.) There is no clarity as to why the mint in San Francisco would polish a pair of dies and a planchet, especially when they had to condemn eight dies because the mint couldn't harden them, let alone polish. Only this first planchet (hand turn of the flywheel), with the possible extra pressure, could be a specimen, as the rest of the coinage would be identical. This is unlikely. 

4. 8 reverse and 3 obverse dies were condemned on April 20th, Dodge later mentions 7 pairs were condemned. 48,000 coins had been produced at this point, most with die cracks in the surfaces (VAMS).

5. Linderman requests five standard silver dollars on April 29th. (I have a great theory here that perhaps Roger can help me out with, see assertion #7).

6. Dodge complies, sends the five coins on April 30th, less than one day later. Is there time to polish a die in there? I doubt it.

7. Linderman responds, saying the coins are satisfactory in execution and finish. 

8. Normal coins would have sufficed.

9. Dodge had bigger things to worry about than ordering a die to be polished and a press taken up for a few hours to strike five specimens from an old die pair. He had huge quotas of dollars to produce and stopping a press for any amount of time for such a frivolous action would have been noticed. 

 

Assertions (Some False):

1. (Mine) No one on the San Francisco Mint staff was skilled enough to perform the difficult process of polishing a die to meet the standards needed for proofs. This can be seen in DMPL coins, the polish is rough and missing in spots. 

2. (Mine) The mint at Philadelphia would not have the time to polish a die for San Francisco because the engravers were practically losing their minds just trying to produce dies they could use. Seriously. The first batch of dies was a bust, and they had to redesign the master die. (7/8TF and 7TF dies)

3. 3 or 4 additional specimens (false)

4. The coins could have only been from two die pairs, VAM-58 and 60. (False)

5. All five of the coins shipped to Philadelphia must have been specimens. (false) 

6. Dodge wanted to impress Linderman, so he sent specimens. (can't be proven false or true)

7. (Mine) Linderman wanted the five coins from the second package of dies sent to San Francisco (sent April 17th) (7TF) to see how they did compared to the failed 7/8TF dies. 

8. The mention of finish could be interpreted either way, it could mean that the coins were looking good for commerce, or that they were a special finish,. I think Linderman would have been rather concerned if the coins showed up looking like proofs, and he would have asked why San Francisco was wasting their time polishing dies.

 

Falsehoods: marked above

 

My conclusions:

1. From my own research, only using the mint ledger is a huge mistake. You need the general correspondence files. That's where the good stuff is, and that why the condemning of 8 reverse dies was missed. This alone blows up the whole thing. 

2. The coin has some interesting characteristics. It's better than any DMPL I've seen, and it could just be a fluke to create that. I need to look, and if there's another or few more similar, I'd suggest that a die was severely polished to try and remove cracks and keep it in the press as more dies failed. They had to mint tens of thousands of these coins each day (2.2 Million per month across all mints). The extra pressure could be attributed to inexperience in the amount of pressure needed to strike the new coins. This makes a little more sense.

Mine is a really deep obverse die that almost looks like a proof at first glance. Reverse is just short of prooflike. Don't know if the variety can be idebtified but it's a cool coin.

 

 

1118790-1 (1).jpg

1118790-2 (1).jpg

Edited by numisport
imagry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2022 at 12:34 PM, numisport said:

Mine is a really deep obverse die that almost looks like a proof at first glance. Reverse is just short of prooflike. Don't know if the variety can be idebtified but it's a cool coin.

 

 

Sorry here are different images

 

 

1118790-3 (1).jpg

1118790-4 (1).jpg

Edited by numisport
imagry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Dean F. Howe in his 1992 study '78-S dies struck an average of over 100,000 coins each. For that very reason I can see how the finer coins can be thought of as Specimen strikes although I assume mine is nothing more than a fresh die or pair.

Edited by numisport
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll let members think a little more before going through the analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 11:42 AM, RWB said:

Yes, that thread just makes the facts even more murky. I've read your replies three times now, here's what I got. 

1. The coin isn't a specimen, it's within normal tolerance and the TPGS made the SP claim up, 

2. The engraved pieces are only special because they were engraved, and are also in tolerance.

3. The coin is exactly in the same realm as the supposed 1964 "SMS" coins- namely that it is only special in looks because of special handling, care, and new dies. 

4. This is akin to the "branch mint proof" claims, whereas true proofs from mint marked dies did indeed come from Philadelphia. The other mints could not produce proofs. 

5. My statements above were correct that Linderman never did request special coins and got perfectly normal ones.

6. My statements above that the only special coins were the ones struck by a manually turned flywheel were correct. (only one as I take the Examiner article literally.

7. My statements about the multiple die pairs was correct.

I think this is as far as I can go with the info given. I don't necessarily see any reason to continue, as the coin has been debunked effectively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental problem remains -- a reputable TPG has called a coin something it is not: it has issued a false attribution and has not rescinded it. Based on the scribbles on a slip of paper - unsubstantiated - people are spending lots of money for a falsely described item. Of what value is that to the business or hobby? Just ignore it? Will it "go away?" "Evaporate?
 Or, will it hang around for decades screwing people out of money?

 

I happen to care about truth and honesty, yet from the non-interest among silver dollar collectors, here, and elsewhere there is little interest.

:(

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 3:36 PM, RWB said:

Based on the scribbles on a slip of paper - unsubstantiated

I feel the problem is quite worse, it's based on assumptions of scribbles. I see no end to this in sight. It's quite unfortunate. You're right, no one seems to care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 5:43 PM, FlyingAl said:

I feel the problem is quite worse, it's based on assumptions of scribbles. I see no end to this in sight. It's quite unfortunate. You're right, no one seems to care.

This abuse has been growing over the past 2 decades. It is partially money-driven, and partly corporate ego-driven. EVERY claim of something unusual must, in my view, be subject to open discussion among a much wider body of expertise than any TPG has available. There MUST be a chain of custody or provenance, and/or documentation to support extraordinary claims, and that evidence MUST be publicly available for examination and discussion before the authenticator presents a decision. Such an open investigation and process benefits everyone involved, and collector knowledge in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 3:51 PM, RWB said:

This abuse has been growing over the past 2 decades. It is partially money-driven, and partly corporate ego-driven. EVERY claim of something unusual must, in my view, be subject to open discussion among a much wider body of expertise than any TPG has available. There MUST be a chain of custody or provenance, and/or documentation to support extraordinary claims, and that evidence MUST be publicly available for examination and discussion before the authenticator presents a decision. Such an open investigation and process benefits everyone involved, and collector knowledge in general.

The TPGS will never allow this, as the coins with these huge claims give them major publicity. They get to revel in what is an "amazing discovery" and make a ton of money after the fact. Don't forget the time and effort used to create such a system, which the TPGS would never devote the resources to. It's a great idea that is almost immediately dead in the water because of greed. Such is the problem nowadays with coins like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want false advertising but the stories that accompany some of these coins -- "urban legends" or the like -- are just part of the mythology of the hobby.

Like Babe Ruth's "Called Shot." (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 1:49 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

just part of the mythology of the hobby

Babe Ruth's called HR costs nothing. "Just part of the mythology costs $$$$ and falsifies history."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 11:49 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I don't want false advertising but the stories that accompany some of these coins -- "urban legends" or the like -- are just part of the mythology of the hobby.

Like Babe Ruth's "Called Shot." (thumbsu

Yes, Roger is absolutely right. What created those stories? Greed. At least for the coins, I don't know much about Babe Ruth's called shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 12:24 PM, FlyingAl said:

Yes, Roger is absolutely right. What created those stories? Greed. At least for the coins, I don't know much about Babe Ruth's called shot.

I'm not talking about clearly false stories or facts that don't pan out, like on Pawn Stars xD.  Just "flesh on the bones" so to speak.

For instance, when Heritage auctioned off that bag that once contained 1928 Double Eagles, the speculation was that the bag MIGHT have once held the 250 Saints that were swiped from the Philly Mint.  The commentary (which Roger worked on) told the story of the theft.....Dressel the Super......etc.  I loved the story -- I learned alot even if not 100% of the information/commentary was absolute fact.

Now, maybe it's really just a bag that had NOTHING to do with the 250 Saint theft.  But I certainly appreciated the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 10:37 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

For instance, when Heritage auctioned off that bag that once contained 1928 Double Eagles, the speculation was that the bag MIGHT have once held the 250 Saints that were swiped from the Philly Mint. 

See, but that one word "might" changes the whole thing. The coin in this example has been stated to be an absolute, no questions asked specimen. It would be like that bag in your example being cataloged as "absolutely guaranteed to be the bag that held the stolen coins, even though we have no proof." The story is also based on truth - at least I assume a bag of Saints were actually stolen. There's no proof that the SF mint ever struck specimens, there's actually pretty good evidence against it. Therefore the whole thing has been made up. 

I do get your point, it's true for a lot of cases. Just not this one (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 12:42 PM, FlyingAl said:

See, but that one word "might" changes the whole thing. The coin in this example has been stated to be an absolute, no questions asked specimen. It would be like that bag in your example being cataloged as "absolutely guaranteed to be the bag that held the stolen coins, even though we have no proof." The story is also based on truth - at least I assume a bag of Saints were actually stolen. There's no proof that the SF mint ever struck specimens, there's actually pretty good evidence against it. Therefore the whole thing has been made up. I do get your point, it's true for a lot of cases. Just not this one (shrug)

I think we're in agreement.  Stories are OK so long as they are NOT presented as fact.  And some stories or information that is not 100% verifiable is definitely being used with some coins.

I remember that 1921 Saint Specimen sold earlier this year had some questions raised about it.  However, I assume whoever bought the coin (7-figures) was aware of that.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
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
3 3