• 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.

Link to: Koessl Collection of Sandblast Proof Gold on Display at Great Collections' ANA Table
3 3

53 posts in this topic

If some members with to perpetuate ignorance that is their option - as foolish and degrading as it might be.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2022 at 7:27 PM, RWB said:

If some members with to perpetuate ignorance that is their option - as foolish and degrading as it might be.

:)

 

     On 7/27/2022 at 2:44 PM,  RWB said: 

It is completely false and misleading. Better to get back on better and historically accurate terminology than to encourage continued confusion.

“The terminology seems to give an indication of what the coins look like. How is it false, misleading, inaccurate and confusing?”


I guess you didn’t care to answer my above question regarding your disdain for the term “Roman”.
On top of that, throwing out insults like “foolish” and “degrading” certainly doesn’t do much to invite or further a conversation. I tried to do that from my end, with an open mind.But you have reminded me why I’d given up on trying to engage with you, previously. Lesson learned (again).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member: Seasoned Veteran

To the best of my knowledge and through having examined all of the various coins under discussion I believe Roger's explanation of the proof processes used is the correct one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2022 at 8:48 PM, MarkFeld said:

“The terminology seems to give an indication of what the coins look like. How is it false, misleading, inaccurate and confusing?”


I guess you didn’t care to answer my above question regarding your disdain for the term “Roman”.
On top of that, throwing out insults like “foolish” and “degrading” certainly doesn’t do much to invite or further a conversation. I tried to do that from my end, with an open mind.But you have reminded me why I’d given up on trying to engage with you, previously. Lesson learned (again).

1st. "Looks Like" is highly deceptive and biased. Lots of things "look like" one thing and turn out to be another. "There's a UFO...!" "No, George. It's a flock of geese." In US coin collection how many "looks like" proof bust halves and quarters have floated around; how many "looks like" branch mint proofs evaporate on clear-minded examination; how many Trade dollar proofs "look like" coins but were made under Medal Dept. rules and accounting...one could go on indefinitely. "Looking like" is only the first very small step in authentication and attribution - yet we find copious "expert writings" built on nothing but that kind of hot air!

"Looks like" is patently false, misleading, inaccurate and confusing because it conveys NOTHING except the viewer's momentary opinion - claims require objective data. Got any Wally Breen authentication letters sitting around....?

2nd. RE: "On top of that, throwing out insults like “foolish” and “degrading” certainly doesn’t do much to invite or further a conversation." These are not insults. They are clear statements about the approach of many in numismatics who treat collectors as gullible insufficiently_thoughtful_persons and John Ford's "boobs."

3rd. Clear communications depends on clear descriptions using the most accurate descriptors available and avoiding term duplication. Untill Wally Breen poked his ignorant keister in to proof Saint-Gaudens/Pratt gold proofs were called "sand blast" and "satin" - accurate brief descriptions of process AND appearance. "Roman" was and is bologna invented by Ford's bought-boy because he was too lazy to actually hit the archives and dig for contemporary data. This becomes increasingly important as dealers and TPG casually toss about invented or misused terms to describe ordinary, but nice looking, coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2022 at 8:08 PM, RWB said:

Primarily because the authors of the article are ignorant about what the Philadelphia Mint did in both coin and medal making, and the use of analogous processes for each. They are merely repeating discredited assumptions. This type of ingrained fossilization is only another reason why numismatics - as approached in the US  - is not an academic area and there are no degrees by quality institutions on the subject. Rather than explore, investigate, correlate and change, they cling to the old false-familiar, thus promoting yet another generation of mindless copying.

Although they do have graduate courses in Oprah and hair styles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I'll admit that Roger's view makes the most logical sense. However, I'd like to see what Mark has to say about the coins in hand. If they are distinctly different, then the article is wrong. If not, perhaps we have to re-evaluate.

Saying that you are right without proving it can lead to just the thing that we are trying to avoid - incorrect information being passed on for decades, until it becomes almost unstoppable. After all, all numismatic propositions must have time to be refuted, right? 

Edited by FlyingAl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we at least agree that whatever you call these proofs from 80-100 years or more ago.....they differ in appearance and how they were struck from today's Mirror Proofs ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who aren’t real familiar with 1908-1915 Proof gold coins - in addition to their beauty, original examples of each year offer their own distinct color/appearance/texture. My personal favorite is 1911, which typically displays - as I have seen it described - “crystalline, nearly diamond-like facets”.

Numismatists who have examined enough original survivors of each year can determine the date of the coin, just by looking at the reverse. Sadly, so many of these coins have been messed with over the years, that a lot of them have lost their distinctive appearance. That makes Mr. Koessl’s set all the more special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 7:31 AM, MarkFeld said:

For those of you who aren’t real familiar with 1908-1915 Proof gold coins - in addition to their beauty, original examples of each year offer their own distinct color/appearance/texture. My personal favorite is 1911, which typically displays - as I have seen it described - “crystalline, nearly diamond-like facets”.

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm going to look for some HD pics of a 1911 Proof Saint to see this appearance. (thumbsu

On 7/28/2022 at 7:31 AM, MarkFeld said:

Numismatists who have examined enough original survivors of each year can determine the date of the coin, just by looking at the reverse. Sadly, so many of these coins have been messed with over the years, that a lot of them have lost their distinctive appearance. That makes Mr. Koessl’s set all the more special.

What do you mean by "messed with", Mark ?  You mean handled or not properly stored ?  I would think these coins went exclusively to hard-core coin collectors who would have properly cared for them, unlike MCMVII HRs where you had lots of ordinary folks mishandle them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 9:10 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm going to look for some HD pics of a 1911 Proof Saint to see this appearance. (thumbsu

What do you mean by "messed with", Mark ?  You mean handled or not properly stored ?  I would think these coins went exclusively to hard-core coin collectors who would have properly cared for them, unlike MCMVII HRs where you had lots of ordinary folks mishandle them.

You might not be able to see the effect I mentioned if you’re viewing images and not the coins.

”Messed with” = doctored, dipped, etc.

Edited by MarkFeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 5:31 AM, MarkFeld said:

For those of you who aren’t real familiar with 1908-1915 Proof gold coins - in addition to their beauty, original examples of each year offer their own distinct color/appearance/texture. My personal favorite is 1911, which typically displays - as I have seen it described - “crystalline, nearly diamond-like facets”.

Numismatists who have examined enough original survivors of each year can determine the date of the coin, just by looking at the reverse. Sadly, so many of these coins have been messed with over the years, that a lot of them have lost their distinctive appearance. That makes Mr. Koessl’s set all the more special.

If I may add to this - I believe the set is even more special than almost any other set because the coins are all undipped - and since dipping changes the surfaces of these proofs to not display the original surfaces (the texture appears different on a dipped sandblast proof), it seems these are becoming exceedingly scarce from what I've heard. @GoldFinger1969 I believe this is what @MarkFeld meant when he stated "messed with", although as he mentioned above it could be other forms of doctoring. 

I'd love to see a piece of undipped sandblast gold one day, but this show will not be the place unfortunately. Hopefully the set is preserved in its original state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2022 at 4:59 PM, FlyingAl said:

What I really want to know is if in hand the proof gold (Satin) looks different from the Matte proof cents and nickels. I'm trying to find a basis for why the authors of the article mentioned would state that they were made in the exact same way if they look entirely different. 

Is it possible, just possible, that because we are talking about at least three different metals, of varying fineness, and industrial strength usage utilized by different people at different times, 100% uniformity in results is perhaps expecting too much? Maybe with the advances that have since been made, a more precise definition can be arrived at. The technology, I assume, is available and, with so many variables to consider, a departure however minute, would be ascertainable and acceptable to everyone's exacting standards.

Edited by Quintus Arrius
Die polishing: attempt to appear more erudite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 2:05 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Is it possible, just possible, that because we are talking about at least three different metals, of varying fineness, and industrial strength usage utilized by different people at different times, 100% uniformity in results is perhaps expecting too much? Maybe with the advances that have since been made, a more precise definition can be arrived at. The technology, I assume, is available and, with so many variables to consider, a departure however minute, would be ascertainable and acceptable to everyone's exacting standards.

I'm not expecting 100% uniformity, far from it. I expect distinct and undeniable variation in the results, and I expect that the Matte proof cents and nickels (1909-1916) will look nothing like the Satin proof gold (1909-1910). That is why I believe the author's claims are false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 4:22 PM, FlyingAl said:

I'm not expecting 100% uniformity, far from it. I expect distinct and undeniable variation in the results, and I expect that the Matte proof cents and nickels (1909-1916) will look nothing like the Satin proof gold (1909-1910). That is why I believe the author's claims are false. 

Sandblasted coins are each unique - the abrasion pattern cannot be duplicated. Matte cents and nickels will be almost identical subject to slight changes in the dies imparted by metal fatigue/stress. But matte proof nickels will never have the same kind of surface as a sandblasted coin -- die hardening and tempering always moderate the die surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 3:26 PM, RWB said:

Sandblasted coins are each unique - the abrasion pattern cannot be duplicated. Matte cents and nickels will be almost identical subject to slight changes in the dies imparted by metal fatigue/stress. But matte proof nickels will never have the same kind of surface as a sandblasted coin -- die hardening and tempering always moderate the die surface.

Of course. 

Let me clarify what I'm asking here - I read an article that I believe has a false statement - it said that Satin proof gold dies were sandblasted. This has never before been said - usually the statement is that the Satin gold proof dies received no pre-striking treatment. This second statement I agree with. 

To prove the article correct, the Matte proof cents and nickels (1909-1916) - the ones that had their dies sandblasted, must look exactly like the proof gold that correlates to those years (09-10). If not, the article is incorrect. 

Basically, my comments regarding my question have nothing to do with Sandblast gold. Those are clearly created by an entirely different process, which we know is a post strike sandblasting of the coin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 5:55 PM, FlyingAl said:

I read an article that I believe has a false statement - it said that Satin proof gold dies were sandblasted. This has never before been said - usually the statement is that the Satin gold proof dies received no pre-striking treatment. This second statement I agree with. 

To prove the article correct, the Matte proof cents and nickels (1909-1916) - the ones that had their dies sandblasted, must look exactly like the proof gold that correlates to those years (09-10). If not, the article is incorrect. 

The article was and is false.The supposition in the first case merely reinforces the authors' ignorance about standard US Mint practices. The authors' presume an extensive fantasy of their own making, combined with abject stupidity of Mint employees and collectors of that era. Now about the flat earth thing....

:)

However, the thread is about a fantastic group of gold proof coins, and that's where it should remain.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[It's late, maybe I can get away with these takeaways...

For the sake of argument, it is always safest to assume @RWB is absolutely, positively RIGHT unless proven otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.

Two, this may come as a surprise to some but @VKurtB's claim he'd rather be right than be nice, is superfluous as more often than not he is both. (I personally like his bluster and assertiveness which is sorely lacking at times on the Forum).

The gentleman another member prohibits me from referring to as the Great @zadok may appear to be a man of few words, and often is, but when a subject tickles his fancy, not even the Yellowstone geyser can spew forth the body of knowledge he imparts, as though it were an inconsequential personal recollection.

Kudos to @FlyingAl; a true master of diplomacy and a credit to the Forum.

Last but not least, @MarkFeld who has the rare luxury of resting on his laurels and pouncing only after he has given the unsuspecting and undeserving enough web to make disentanglement, gracefully, all but impossible.

To those fortunate enough to have seen this post, I thank the moderator on duty, and bid you all a good nite!]  🐓 

Edited by Quintus Arrius
Non-abrasive die polishing + addition of closing bracket.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 7:14 PM, RWB said:

abject stupidity of Mint employees and collectors of that era.

Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that state of affairs has not remained to this very day? I’m not sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2022 at 10:00 AM, VKurtB said:

Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that state of affairs has not remained to this very day? I’m not sure. 

To be fair, what exactly are the requirements to do what is essentially assembly-line work?  I've heard the expression "going postal," but has there ever been a case of "going mintal?"   (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2022 at 4:15 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

To be fair, what exactly are the requirements to do what is essentially assembly-line work?  I've heard the expression "going postal," but has there ever been a case of "going mintal?"   (shrug)

I was referring to management, which under the federal employment system, are never allowed to develop expertise and are rotated out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2022 at 5:41 PM, VKurtB said:

I was referring to management, which under the federal employment system, are never allowed to develop expertise and are rotated out. 

I see a massive bureaucracy mired in inertia.  Institutional knowledge is apparently lacking but I wonder if it would make an appreciable difference. It seems as though the ranks of the few notable sculptors and engravers have been lost through attrition.

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