RWB

Yes, as well as Omaha, Seattle, Dalles Oregon, and a bunch of other spots that wanted government jobs. The Dales story has been told many times. However, prior to WW-II there was an active proposal to build a new mint in Indiana (the Mid-West Mint). Treasury had an option on land and started blueprints. The details are in my book "Saudi Gold, etc...." Here's a paragraph: The subject of a new mint was discussed with Secretary Morgenthau during his October 5, 1940 staff meeting. Morgenthau’s assistant, Harold N. Graves, had visited the Philadelphia Mint the previous week. It was already known that Philadelphia could not keep up with demand, and that several months earlier coins had to be shipped from the San Francisco Mint to the Eastern seaboard. During his visit he learned that there was considerable difficulty and delay in renovating the building to hold new equipment that was planned. Graves thought a new manufacturing plant might be necessary, probably in the West someplace.

I'll have to take a look ! Sounds interesting and it has the "Henri" seal of approval, too!

By the late 19th century expansion of railroads and growth of mid-west population and economies made it economical to produce coins at Denver. It was the only sizeable city between the Rockies and Mississippi and Treasury already owned land. As an Assay Office it received gold and some silver from upper mid-west territories along with the southwest. These combined to make Denver a good spot for a new mint, and also to eventually eliminate New Orleans - something Treasury had wanted to do for a decade. Express and Post Office rates also had considerable influence, since shipping coins was costly. The three mints supplied coins to specific geographic areas: Philadelphia - East of Mississippi; Denver - Central States; and San Francisco - Pacific coast. There was a little overlap around Chicago and New Orleans, mostly related to cost of transportation. There was also the intent to begin striking minor coins at SF and D - again to reduce distribution expenses, and provide more timely response to demand.

RE: "I'm not buying into the whole "got to have papers" to be a "real" Specimen or Special Strike coin since many of the early Proofs (proof dies) and Specimen coins (first strike) were struck on demand for many well-heeled collectors of the day as well as falling into the hands of mint employees' family and friends." This is a common confusion created by conflation of limited information and speculations. However, the "specimen" or "special strike" pieces I refer to were produced as mementos or souvenirs of some event or person, AND documented as such. The objection is TPGs giving these "different looking" coins a special label without documentation or explanation. Lots of coins from ordinary dies look "different" depending on when they were struck during the life of a die, and other details such as planchet hardness. While early strikes might "look different" they are entirely ordinary and were not specially made. (I've examined coins in the CT State Collection - Mitchelson. Many of these would immediately be given some special label by the TPGs -- Yet, we have clear documentation that they are just ordinary coins made from fresh dies, and were part of routine distribution to Museums and major collections of the time.) Early Master Coins were made under varying circumstances, and we have written records of some of their manufacture. The same applies to some restrikes of circulation coins, and pattern pieces. Master Coins were provided at face value to anyone who asked for them and would wait for the Chief Coiner to get around to it. (This is a continuing research project - but much remains to be investigated.)

Yes. That is a squirrel running down the trunk of an oak tree to harvest acorns. The upper portion is his/her/its bushy tail and the rest are its body and head pointing downward.

Agreed --- this coin definitely needs to be resting! It has obvious trauma and should not be expected to exert itself in retail commerce.

Understood. However, the letter attests to its being made for some special purpose and the coin is clearly "nicer" than others. They did not have any better equipment, although a die could have been polished. There weren't other options at a regular mint. Only Philadelphia had the ability to do really special things. To my skeptical mind, this coin has documentation supported by appearance to justify an individualized moniker. On appearance alone, it would not qualify. (It sold for over $400,000.)

This table shows the denomination and date struck of the first coinage from the real Denver Mint in 1906. Hope it will be readable.

I don't know. Could it have ended up in the Philadelphia Cabinet? (It does not appear in Comparette's 1914 "CATALOGUE OF COINS, TOKENS, AND MEDALS.") Possibly the Coiner? He gave one to his brother, why not himself. A "big deal" was made of striking a few 1905 bronze tokens and donating one to the state archives. But nothing mentioned about DE #6 or any of the first coins....quarters made Feb 15, 1906.

Unfortunately, this is common modern stuff where the whole production is called something special. I refer to true historical pieces.

Unknown. Recipients and the coiner, Tarbell, were prominent Colorado citizens. (Tarbell and others at the mint got into very hot water when one of the gold coins sent for the Annual Assay Commission failed. Much of the early gold coinage had to be melted and recoined.)

Collectors are likely familiar with my persistent objections to the use of words such as "Specimen" or "Branch Mint Proof" or "Special Strike" on TPG labels. These terms are usually meaningless and not supported by anything other that blind guesses and silly tall tales. However, there are coins which are legitimately entitled to be labeled "Specimen" or "Special Strike." Here is one of them. Notice not only the quality of the coin - sharply made and carefully handled - likely struck from new dies, but that it is accompanied by a document attesting to the coin's manufacture. Signatures on the letter match other routine correspondence for the signatories.

There are no standards. It's all opinion and guesses. Empirical standards and methodology have been proposed but no TPG cares enough to implement them.

The cheek has "rub" making the coin AU. Tilting and turning a coin to show all of its surface is a standard grading technique. That the wear is clearly visible (and photographable) at any angle proves the coin is NOT Uncirculated. (If there were real standards, grading this "MS-64" and selling it as such would be fraud. But with no standards it's just an expensive, false opinion.)

So what is that supposed to signify? The gold dust might be of slight interest since it is original from someplace in California -- or maybe Oregon. But it's of no research value since we don't know its source in CA.

Both coins are 1969-S cents. Neither coin is a doubled die.

"Hype"has no value. A specific provenance might add 5% if it's of interest, but that's mere opinion.

AU-58 based on field disturbance and slight abrasion (cause is irrelevant). Also, I like the large hand-made "O" mintmark -- nice touch.

No proof coins or mint sets were made with 1965-67 dates. 1964 came in the usual proof set and a normal mint set.

I recall a company selling these at the entrance to the Denver ANA. (I think they were supposed to be melted as scrap and not resold to a vendor....but that might be a figment of the altitude -- the convention was on the 2nd floor of the convention center. (I guess that's better then the 2nd floor of the sewage treatment plant.)

Counterfeiting laws have no relationship to who owns the design. The language used is something like the US words "likeness or a similitude" which also covers slugs and blanks when used in place of coins. (Years ago Iceland's 25 aurar bronze coins would operate US vending machines as if they were quarters. Customs confiscated bags/boxes of these from travelers intent on passing them as 25-cents.)

OK. At least I'm only partly crazy....

Has this post/topic been around before -- 1 or 2 years ago?

Henri/Quintus....There is a vast array of legitimate pattern pieces from around the world. American collectors rarely branch out beyond their own narrow borders. There are also, many other proposed designs that exist only in model form.