Another confirmation of 1894-S dimes 1 1

[RWB]

Inquiries about 1894-S dimes were among the most common questions received by the Mint Bureau from 1896-about 1920.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/14/2023 at 5:15 PM, RWB said:

Inquiries about 1894-S dimes were among the most common questions received by the Mint Bureau from 1896-about 1920.

Why ?  Limited mintage ?  Rare ?  1st year ?

That was a Barber coin, right ?

[RWB]

On 8/20/2023 at 8:25 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Why ?  Limited mintage ?  Rare ?  1st year ?

That was a Barber coin, right ?

Newspaper articles about rare coins, including 1894-S dimes, and the ice cream cone story, etc.

[Sandon]

On 8/20/2023 at 8:25 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Why ?  Limited mintage ?  Rare ?  1st year ?

That was a Barber coin, right ?

   The 1894-S Barber dime is one of the most famous rare U.S. coins, with approximately nine pieces known to exist today out of a reported mintage of twenty-four as indicated in the 1909 letter.  It is on par with the 1913 Liberty nickel, "1804" novodel dollar, and 1907 Ultra High Relief St. Gaudens double eagle.  (It is perhaps more worthwhile to own than the first two, as it is neither a clandestine issue nor a backdated presentation piece but was coined in the year of its date and reported in the Mint's records.)  The last piece offered at auction, NGC graded PF 65 and sold in December 2020, realized $1,440,000. For the story(ies?) of this coin, see 1894-S 10C, BM (Proof) Barber Dime - PCGS CoinFacts.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/20/2023 at 11:00 PM, Sandon said:

   The 1894-S Barber dime is one of the most famous rare U.S. coins, with approximately nine pieces known to exist today out of a reported mintage of twenty-four as indicated in the 1909 letter. 

Thanks Sandon, I was unaware of that....might I ask why they only struck 24 dimes for a coin intended for general circulation ?  

[RWB]

On 8/20/2023 at 11:00 PM, Sandon said:

   The 1894-S Barber dime is one of the most famous rare U.S. coins, with approximately nine pieces known to exist today out of a reported mintage of twenty-four as indicated in the 1909 letter.  It is on par with the 1913 Liberty nickel, "1804" novodel dollar, and 1907 Ultra High Relief St. Gaudens double eagle.  (It is perhaps more worthwhile to own than the first two, as it is neither a clandestine issue nor a backdated presentation piece but was coined in the year of its date and reported in the Mint's records.)  The last piece offered at auction, NGC graded PF 65 and sold in December 2020, realized $1,440,000. For the story(ies?) of this coin, see 1894-S 10C, BM (Proof) Barber Dime - PCGS CoinFacts.

Kevin Flynn prepared a factual and organized book about this coin and I recommend it to anyone who wants reality and not "fluff."

[Sandon]

On 8/21/2023 at 11:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Thanks Sandon, I was unaware of that....might I ask why they only struck 24 dimes for a coin intended for general circulation ?  

  For those who don't want to acquire Mr. Flynn's book, the PCGS Coinfacts page to which I provided a link includes an accounting from a 2005 auction catalog of the main theories regarding the production of these coins, (1) now mostly discredited, that they were minted to balance the San Francisco mint's books, and (2) that they were minted for presentation to VIPs, with or without the expectation that more would be coined later in the year.  

Edited August 21, 2023 by Sandon

[RWB]

I agree with Sandon. The idea of "balancing the books" is pure bunk. The Coiner routinely carried silver - struck or not - across June 30 settlement. It was up to the Coiner to decide when something became a coin, and the Superintendent then had to accept the legal tender.

On the VIP suggestion - there weren't any running around the SF Mint and no reason for anyone to be celebration of commemorating or any-other-'ating'.

 

[zadok]

On 8/21/2023 at 4:06 PM, RWB said:

I agree with Sandon. The idea of "balancing the books" is pure bunk. The Coiner routinely carried silver - struck or not - across June 30 settlement. It was up to the Coiner to decide when something became a coin, and the Superintendent then had to accept the legal tender.

On the VIP suggestion - there weren't any running around the SF Mint and no reason for anyone to be celebration of commemorating or any-other-'ating'.

 

...maybe, maybe not....the "balancing of the books" so to speak actually enters into the question as well as any other plausible explanation for the production of the not so spurious dimes, i have no doubt that the Coiner routinely exercised his authority to coin "excess" silver into a more accountable form n add to coinage already being made or in this case of dimes to be made, if the excess was divisible by 25 into quarters if divisible by 10 into dimes...more current information on this subject, i believe if memory serves, was researched by Oliver & Kelly, two of the most professional researchers published in the Numismatist if not the most, where information much more current to the production date rather than that of Earl Parker several decades after the fact, presents a much more believable account of the dimes production n release into circulation, it is even probable that Daggett's daughter never possessed any of the dimes...true, we may never know without questions the entirety of the circumstances leading up to the distribution of these dimes, but not everything that happened at the various mints is recorded in the official reports or archives...additionally, why these dimes r continually referenced as proofs is not easily substantiated either, i have personally observed 5 of the 9 mentioned n none closely approximate proof coinage....

[GoldFinger1969]

They must have struck tens of millions in coins, maybe hundreds of millions.....$2.40 was that important ?  

[zadok]

On 8/22/2023 at 1:18 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

They must have struck tens of millions in coins, maybe hundreds of millions.....$2.40 was that important ?  

...its not a question of importance, its more likely a probable conclusion of cleaning house for scrap, scurious metals into a more accurate n efficient means of accountability, the Coiner more likely than not did this on a routine basis, there wasnt a mandate as to when such accountable metals had or should be coined or in which denominations, such routine activities would not be recorded as to why done but an accounting of the activity would be recorded hence the recorded coining of 24 dimes in April i believe...n where would those 24 dimes go?...into the bags of the most recently coined dimes, 1893-S dimes, n whoosh out into circulation to be discovered by some discerning bank employee or into the general population...hence, why 15 r unaccounted for n why 2 r in very circulated condition...there never was any mystery bout the probable circumstances of production just the ones that were fabricated to create a mystery once their existence became known...Daggett himself most likely never even was aware of their existence, if memory serves, he wasnt even perfoming duties at the mint during said time frame, im sure there r employee time sheets or absence reports in the mint archives to ascertain if he was or wasnt but not really important to the issue, there r no actual facts tying him to the dimes, just conjecture conceived decades later....

[RWB]

In any normal calendar year, dimes would have been made in large quantities for circulation. But in 1894 where was an excess of dimes on the West coast, so none were ordered by the US Treasurer. The Treasury was on a strict Fiscal Year base while the mints operated on both Fiscal and Calendar years. When people asked how many such-and-such coins were struck in year YYYY, they were as likely to be told FY as CY quantities and from all mints combined.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/22/2023 at 8:04 PM, RWB said:

In any normal calendar year, dimes would have been made in large quantities for circulation. But in 1894 where was an excess of dimes on the West coast, so none were ordered by the US Treasurer. The Treasury was on a strict Fiscal Year base while the mints operated on both Fiscal and Calendar years. When people asked how many such-and-such coins were struck in year YYYY, they were as likely to be told FY as CY quantities and from all mints combined.

Could a Mint make 2 coins at once...or were all the presses focused on one coin only and doing it ASAP ? 

I'm assuming there were multiple presses that could strike nickels, dimes, Double Eagles, Morgan Dollars, etc.

[zadok]

On 8/22/2023 at 8:04 PM, RWB said:

In any normal calendar year, dimes would have been made in large quantities for circulation. But in 1894 where was an excess of dimes on the West coast, so none were ordered by the US Treasurer. The Treasury was on a strict Fiscal Year base while the mints operated on both Fiscal and Calendar years. When people asked how many such-and-such coins were struck in year YYYY, they were as likely to be told FY as CY quantities and from all mints combined.

...in this case, depending on whom one asked and at what time asked, one could get two or more different answers...so the question would need to be precise because the dimes could be answered as being minted in FY93 or CY94...i would assume that most questions submitted on this subject occurred relatively soon after the end of 1894 when collectors wanted to ascertain mintage production, possibly one could get different answers depending if the question was posed to the branch director SF or the US Mint director...i can certainly believe that questions posed to the US Mint director could reasonably be answered in FY production numbers, im not certain that branch mint directors would know totals for all branches but certainly would know their own official production numbers...i guess this subject begs for the question, "were the dimes reported in FY or CY totals?"...im certain its in the official mintage reports...the letter at the start of this thread reflects the acting director answering in terms of CY numbers, was this carried over for the official report?...interesting questions....

[RWB]

The usual process was not to coin gold and silver at the same time, but if necessary they could do this.

Minor coins were struck "in the cracks" between the "real" money.

[RWB]

On 8/23/2023 at 1:29 PM, zadok said:

so the question would need to be precise because the dimes could be answered as being minted in FY93 or CY94...i would assume that most questions submitted on this subject occurred relatively soon after the end of 1894 when collectors wanted to ascertain mintage production,

Not quite. June 1894 was in both calendar and fiscal year 1894. FY 1895 began July 1, 1894. The year "1893" was already over.

Coinage was reported monthly so the data could be used for either FY or CY.  Annual reports were the most common source, as were newspapers - many in larger cities printed regular US Mint coinage reports. Official journals aggregate mintage for both types of years.

Edited August 23, 2023 by RWB

[zadok]

On 8/23/2023 at 7:30 PM, RWB said:

Not quite. June 1894 was in both calendar and fiscal year 1894. FY 1895 began July 1, 1894. The year "1893" was already over.

Coinage was reported monthly so the data could be used for either FY or CY.  Annual reports were the most common source, as were newspapers - many in larger cities printed regular US Mint coinage reports. Official journals aggregate mintage for both types of years.

...dimes supposedly minted in april 1894, obviously within CY94, so april 1894 was within FY94 or FY93??...how did US Mint director account for the 24 dimes? in his FY93 or FY94 totals?....

[Hoghead515]

This may be a dumb question but would it be possible for them to accidently put in dies made for 1894 S dimes while they were close to the end of the 1893 S run? Then realize what they done after a few strikes and instead of destroying them went ahead and put them in the bag of  1893 S dimes? Ive not heard much about these but it sure is interesting why so very few were struck. And it interests me why 2 of them have been found in circulated condition. 

[VKurtB]

In mints today generally, not all denominations are struck concurrently. At Philadelphia, cents and quarters are always being struck, but others take turns.

[RWB]

On 8/23/2023 at 8:01 PM, Hoghead515 said:

This may be a dumb question but would it be possible for them to accidently put in dies made for 1894 S dimes while they were close to the end of the 1893 S run? Then realize what they done after a few strikes and instead of destroying them went ahead and put them in the bag of  1893 S dimes? Ive not heard much about these but it sure is interesting why so very few were struck. And it interests me why 2 of them have been found in circulated condition. 

The dimes were struck in June. When dies for the following year were received, the boxes were opened by the Coiner with a Superintendent's representative, counted, checked for date and mintmark, then resealed. They were not opened again until the start of the new year and after all old dies had been collected, counted and boxed.

Edited August 28, 2023 by RWB

[zadok]

On 8/28/2023 at 4:43 PM, RWB said:

The dimes were struck in June. When dies for the following year were received, the boxes were opened by the Coiner with a Superintendent's representative, counted, checked for date and mintmark, then resealed. They were not opened again until the start of the new year and after all old dies had been collected, counted and boxed.

...other sources have referenced april???....

[Conder101]

On 8/21/2023 at 10:07 PM, zadok said:

additionally, why these dimes r continually referenced as proofs is not easily substantiated either, i have personally observed 5 of the 9 mentioned n none closely approximate proof coinage.

Describing them as "Proofs"  is a relatively recent thing.  In older sales (probably 1960's or earlier) they were not called proofs.  The same was true with the 1913 V Nickels.  They all used to be considered business strike quality as well, though sometimes called proof like.

 

On 8/22/2023 at 8:06 AM, zadok said:

.hence, why 15 r unaccounted

Flynn accounts for most of them as being destroyed in various assayings.  It's been awhile since I've reead his book so I can't be more precise.

[RWB]

On 9/4/2023 at 7:02 AM, Conder101 said:

On 8/21/2023 at 10:07 PM, zadok said:

additionally, why these dimes r continually referenced as proofs is not easily substantiated either, i have personally observed 5 of the 9 mentioned n none closely approximate proof coinage.

Describing them as "Proofs"  is a relatively recent thing.  In older sales (probably 1960's or earlier) they were not called proofs.  The same was true with the 1913 V Nickels.  They all used to be considered business strike quality as well, though sometimes called proof like.

 

On 8/22/2023 at 8:06 AM, zadok said:

.hence, why 15 r unaccounted

Flynn accounts for most of them as being destroyed in various assayings.  It's been awhile since I've reead his book so I can't be more precise.

Neither coin mentioned were/are proofs. The modern mis-description is a lie used to hype the price without objective evidence or facts.

3 coins were destroyed during routine assays, leaving 21 "at large." 2 more were claimed to be used for internal SF Mint assay, but there is no record of this actually happening.

[Mike Meenderink]

So this entire thread has been about the 24 dimes that people have known about for over 100 years. Some found some not. Wow. That's a unique story. Never heard of such a thing in regards to coins. BAHAHAHAHA yawnnn

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/4/2023 at 7:02 AM, Conder101 said:

Describing them as "Proofs"  is a relatively recent thing.... The same was true with the 1913 V Nickels....

According to one source, Wikipedia, all five 1913 Liberty Head V Nickels are referred to by individual pedigree, as "Specimens."

[VKurtB]

On 9/12/2023 at 8:37 PM, Henri Charriere said:

According to one source, Wikipedia, all five 1913 Liberty Head V Nickels are referred to by individual pedigree, as "Specimens."

Not “crimes”? Huh. Striking 5 utterly unauthorized coins for surreptitious purposes. Sounds like crimes to me. 

[RWB]

On 9/12/2023 at 9:37 PM, Henri Charriere said:

all five 1913 Liberty Head V Nickels are referred to by individual pedigree, as "Specimens."

That's a reasonable title. Polishing up a die does not make a "proof" coin. Same for 1894-S dimes, 1804 dollars, etc.

I also agree with Kurt that these five are likely the result of criminal activity -- far closer than the "not really missing or stolen" 1933 DE.

Edited September 13, 2023 by RWB

[zadok]

...here is a hypothetical scenario for u to chew on...lets say i have in my possession 5 liberty head nickels dated 1913 that my grandfather kept in a safety security box n that he worked at a certain branch of the federal gov't in philadelphia in the first quarter of the 20th century...they have remained undisclosed this past 113 years n i want to have them certified n graded, sound familiar?...remember there r already 5 such nickels in acknowledged existence, what would the feds do bout this turn of events?...just curious bout forums best guess opinions?....

[Henri Charriere]

@zadok :  They would likely do the same thing they've done before anytime something "highly irregular' is submitted: consult legal counsel.  If it's any consolation, I would vouch for you. 🤣

Edited September 15, 2023 by Henri Charriere
Correct misspelling

[Conder101]

If someone came forward with several more 1913 V nickels there probably wouldn't be any problem.  Just like the last two 1943 copper cents that turned up recently in the hands or family members of people that worked at the Philadelphia mint in 1943.  The 1913 V nickel and the 1943 copper cents have already been accepted as being legal to hold.  There was never a government pronouncement that they were government property.  The 1933 double eagle, the 1974 aluminum cents have been declared government property so they are automatically considered "stolen" even before any explanation can be brought forth to explain how they were acquired.  They are "Guilty until proven innocent", and you can't prove them innocent because they have already been declared guilty.