Toured the Denver Mint on Thursday 0

[cladking]

On 6/28/2024 at 6:12 PM, RWB said:

I have little doubt the report is correct, but we have only this one knowledgeable observation for guidance. Abrasion of coins tumbled together is an obvious conflict. Were the cobs ground into a saw duct-like consistency? Similar tumblers were used in the 19th century US and Britain to artificially abrade coins to estimate their circulation life before falling below legal tender weight.

Curiously Coin World reported a similar device to a cement mixer was used to knock down high rims they called "finning" on (mostly) 1974 Ike dollars.  I have opened fresh BU Ike rolls from this era and found all coins that looked like they had been through such a process.  

[Henri Charriere]

On 6/28/2024 at 4:40 PM, CaptHenway said:

.... I was there. You were not.    TD

🐓:  What did you say these six potent words were likely preceded by?

Q.A.:  My guess:  "I do not care who said it, where he read it, or what his sources of information are... I WAS THERE. YOU WERE NOT!"     (Exclamation point mine.) Six little words spoken in a whisper with devastating effect. There's no come-back from that. Remember the time I told you, "Don't trust anyone who can't remember where he was when Kennedy got shot?" Same thing... though the analogy may elude you.

***

OVERVIEW:

For the most part, I have to take @cladking's observations at face value. I had no idea anyone was looking for anything out there from the 1980's to date. But as a great believer in the saying, Water seeks its own level, whether what he says, re scarcity of Gem coins (whether extracted from Mint sets or circulation) is true or not, all is conjecture in the face of supply & demand, and Fair Market Value. The only way his steady drum-beat of assertions can be proven or refuted is with a census of everything that is out there, and that's not going to happen anytime soon. 

Great eyewitness testimony and a great read!  Carry on, gentlemen!  

 

Edited Saturday at 02:45 AM by Henri Charriere
Correct spell-check.

[ldhair]

There was an interesting thread a while back on a different forum. I can't find the thread. There were images of wood/saw dust struck into the surface of Morgan dollars. I had never seen that before. 

[CaptHenway]

In 1975 when the Bicentennial half dollars were issued I arranged to have my bank order me a mint-sewn bag of them. When they arrived a fellow Coin World staffer and I took them to my apartment where I spread some newspaper on the kitchen table and dumped out part of the bag. We went through them coin by coin looking for errors and die varieties.I did find two partial collar strikes (what we used to call a "railroad rim" error) which I later sold to Fred Weinberg. When we were finished we dumped the other $999 worth back into the bag.

 

Our hands were filthy, almost black from the oil on the brand new coins. Had to use dishwashing liquid to get them clean. 

[RWB]

On 6/29/2024 at 10:58 AM, CaptHenway said:

Our hands were filthy, almost black from the oil on the brand new coins. Had to use dishwashing liquid to get them clean. 

Had a similar experience with bags of Ike dollars. Black metallic dust - very fine - took some scrubbing to get it off hands and from under fingernails. Didn;t feel "oily" to me  -- felt more like graphite.

[RWB]

On 6/29/2024 at 8:38 AM, ldhair said:

There was an interesting thread a while back on a different forum. I can't find the thread. There were images of wood/saw dust struck into the surface of Morgan dollars. I had never seen that before. 

Basswood sawdust was commonly used for drying planchets. The Philadelphia Mint even shipped the stuff to Carson.

May 21, 1892

Superintendent,

Mint U.S.

Philadelphia, Penna

 

Sir:

Referring to your letter of April 2^nd, in explanation of the entry in your statement of earnings and expenditures for the quarter ended December 31, 1891, of eleven dollars and ninety cents ($11.90), for sawdust furnished the Carson Mint, you are informed that this amount should not appear in this statement. As the amount was to reimburse you for the basswood and labor in converting the same into sawdust, you are informed that it should have been deposited in the Treasury as proceeds of material sold. In order to reimburse your appropriation, the proper way would have been for your to have rendered a bill to the Department when an account would have been stated, and the amount transferred on the book of the Department from the appropriation for the Carson Mint to those of your Mint.

            It will therefore be necessary for you to deposit this amount in the Treasury as proceeds of material sold.

            Respectfully yours.

            Robert E. Preston, Acting Director of the Mint

[CaptHenway]

Never thought about graphite, but where and how would it be introduced onto the coinage? At least oil has a reason, and even an expectation, to be there.

[VKurtB]

On 6/29/2024 at 10:38 AM, RWB said:

Basswood sawdust was commonly used for drying planchets. The Philadelphia Mint even shipped the stuff to Carson.

May 21, 1892

 

Superintendent,

 

Mint U.S.

 

Philadelphia, Penna

 

 

 

Sir:

 

Referring to your letter of April 2^nd, in explanation of the entry in your statement of earnings and expenditures for the quarter ended December 31, 1891, of eleven dollars and ninety cents ($11.90), for sawdust furnished the Carson Mint, you are informed that this amount should not appear in this statement. As the amount was to reimburse you for the basswood and labor in converting the same into sawdust, you are informed that it should have been deposited in the Treasury as proceeds of material sold. In order to reimburse your appropriation, the proper way would have been for your to have rendered a bill to the Department when an account would have been stated, and the amount transferred on the book of the Department from the appropriation for the Carson Mint to those of your Mint.

 

            It will therefore be necessary for you to deposit this amount in the Treasury as proceeds of material sold.

 

            Respectfully yours.

 

            Robert E. Preston, Acting Director of the Mint

 

I've planted a basswood in my "back half acre".

[cladking]

On 6/28/2024 at 9:41 PM, Henri Charriere said:

...whether what he says, re scarcity of Gem coins (whether extracted from Mint sets or circulation) is true or not, all is conjecture in the face of supply & demand, and Fair Market Value. The only way his steady drum-beat of assertions can be proven or refuted is with a census of everything that is out there, and that's not going to happen anytime soon. 

I don't believe this is strictly true.   

Anyone can look at these coins and sample them.   It's harder today than it was 40 or 50 years ago because every sample is at least slightly contaminated with better coins, or more likely, worse coins.  with experience it's easier to see the nature of these contaminations and their causes.  But if only one in a hundred 1969 quarters is a true Gem (under all that tarnish) then it's reasonable to assume that this is related to the scarcity of nice coins made for circulation.  You still aren't likely to find even a single '69 roll made for circulation but if you could sample a roll from 100 bags you'd find that Gems are far far scarcer in circulation.   Of course, in a hundred rolls from a hundred bags you would find many very clean specimens but I am defining "Gem" as a well struck coin from good dies that is clean.   If there were a hundred bags there might not be a single Gem in them but, as I suggested, finding even a single original roll will not be easy.  

Probably more than 50% (much more in some instances) of every Gem the mint made each year went into mint sets.  40,000 Gems in 2,000,000 mint sets are a lot easier to find than 40,000 sprinkled among 500,000,000 coins made for circulation.  Your odds of finding one made for circulation are very very low and they were very very low in 1969 as well.   

Supply and demand says these coins are very common and even the Redbook lists it at only $10, but Redbook doesn't sell these.   If they did they'd have to buy one first and this might drive the price up.  

Nice specimens of most moderns are far more difficult to obtain in any grade than most collectors imagine.  Try finding a nice attractive '69 quarter in circulation!!  Most of these that were made no longer exist at all anywhere at all and the survivors tend to be very low grade AND cull.  Sampling will prove this since while mint sets can segregate by quality there is almost no such force acting on old quarters.  The date isn't that hard to find with a couple in almost every box but the coins are ugly.   They are poorly made, gouged, bent, stained, heavily worn or some combination of these.  Nobody paid any attention and they just got used up.  Nice examples in VG or F are unusual and for a coin that appears only a couple times in 50 rolls that makes them kindda tough.  There are still a surprising number of VF's (probably from mint set destruction in the last quarter century) but these will be scratched up.  Since XF's and AU's were gone by the time of the states quarters when people started noticing old quarters there won't be any of these in peoples' coin jars and piggy banks.  

There  are just not a lot left except the tarnished ones in the few remaining mint sets.   These are mostly well struck by new dies like all mint set coins but they are all banged up and have lots of chicken scratches which are planchet defects that weren't obliterated by the strike.  They appear as a crescent around the periphery.  

Collectors have always had some feel for how many of a given coin exists.  Of course we never did agree.   If you collect these coins you will develop a feel and be able to spot good deals.   

[Henri Charriere]

@cladking :

I can't make hide nor hair of your basic premise which appears to be extrapolated, like that of a magician's sleight of hand, out of thin air.

Let's suppose everything you say is true, how does one make use of your conclusions?

Now what?  Granted, you have spent a considerable amount of time, over a vast stretch of time, testing and re-testing your hypotheses, and each time the throw of the dice comes up snake eyes.  To my knowledge, no one has challenged your assertions and, tellingly, no one has asked you to cite any hard evidence you've used to support your thesis, possibly because there is none, which would make sense because you are simply an eyewitness reporting what you have seen. The only question I have is, how does this translate into something a collector can use? What is the practical application of this knowledge?

Just a moment... who's the threadmaster here?... Oh for Chrissa -- you want to help me out here, Kurt?  What is YOUR position on this?  I'm lost here! I don't dabble in U.S. coins, but I want to know if any of this holds water with you?  What is anyone here supposed to think? 

[cladking]

On 6/29/2024 at 6:59 PM, Henri Charriere said:

The only question I have is, how does this translate into something a collector can use? What is the practical application of this knowledge?

Any "practical use" would be to the mint and FED.  The FED mostly has this information and either doesn't care or has already acted and continue to act on it.  The mint could have improved quality at any time yet chose to do things as they did.  So long as the mint has to make pennies in huge numbers with the number of presses they have available they can not slow them down and make better dimes and quarters.  

There's nothing very "practical" about coin collecting.  Of course one of my primary interests has always been the distribution of coins and the random walk they take in circulation.  Without keeping a keen eye on this I'd not know many of the things I do and much of this knowledge may well have practical applications; I'm still researching. 

Some might expect me to say that everyone should run out and buy clads for investment and I've said such things in the past but, frankly, I always added that coins make lousy investments and there are no certainties with any collectible.   It's been 60 years now and it might be another 60 before collectors discover these coins.  If you buy them in the meantime you'll lose all your money to opportunity costs and then still have to pay high taxes on the "profits".  I suppose it might be "practical" to watch these markets and at the first sign dive in but then in the real world it's often too late at the first sign because the coins are gone and this is what generated the first sign. 

No, I've sold an awful lot of coins (mostly into strength)   and I continue to "sing their praises" chiefly because collectors tend to not know the situation and I still believe these are the greatest collectible in 100 years.  I think people should know about them and talking about and learning about coins is the primary reason most of us are here anyway.  Moderns are underreported, undercollected, and underloved.  As a contrarian and generalist I try to fill vacuums.