RWB

If the director's comments about deliveries is taken literally, is it possible that 1891-) VAM 1A and 3A are the same thing? (I realize that VAMs are not consistently die pairs or different varieties.)

There are enough surviving Morgan and Peace dollars to make them affordable and provide a wide base of die varieties. Gold coins and most 19th century pieces have high attrition rates so there are not enough of clear, interesting varieties to satisfy the interests of potential collectors. Large coppers and half cents were once in the same availability category as silver dollars, which made their collection by die variety feasible in the 19th century.

I put them under my pillow at night in hopes of them hatching.

Almost 3 years ago I posted the following letter which demonstrated that one of the most popular Morgan dollar die varieties was first identified in 1891 during the US Mint's normal "special assay" tests. Recently, I located a second letter about this coin which provides more detail. This is from Mint Director Leech to the Superintendent of New Orleans Mint. In it, the Director does not mince words about his displeasure, calling it "a gross piece of negligence" among other things. Following is a transcription from the fair copy found at RG104 E-235 Vol 62: September 26, 1891 Sir: Enclosed herewith I return two silver dollars, sent to this bureau for special assay test, from delivery No. 188. Your attention is directed to the fact that upon the reverse of these coins, near the loop in the wreath, the letter “E” is plainly visible, and on one of them part of the letter “B” and the letter “R.” It is evident that the dies have been permitted to come in contact in the press without an intervening blank, as the letter “E” has been transferred to the die from the “E” in the word “Liberty” on the fillet on the head of the obverse side. You will also notice that the coins are fractured, which will be explained by the contract of the die faces. This defect runs through the deliveries in the latter part of August up to and including the deliveries of September 5th. Evidently all the coins struck with this pair of dies contain the letter “E.” It is hardly necessary for me to say to you that this is a gross piece of negligence. It is of the first importance that the coinage of the United States should be free from defects of all kinds. This will call for criticism and will be commented upon unfavorably. In this connection I would say that there have been repeated complaints to the Bureau and to the Treasurer’s office in regard to the edges of the dimes being struck at your Mint. I have exhibited these coins to the Secretary to let him see the character of the work now being turned out from the coining department of your Mint. I will thank you to make a thorough examination in regard to this matter and report to this bureau in writing how it was that the imperfection upon the dollars was not discovered, and who is to blame. These two pieces will be returned to this bureau with your report. I will also thank you to report to me whether the Coiner of the Mint gives that personal attention to the supervision of the business of his department which is required by Section 1, Article 29 of the regulations.

This is just another name for a lie.

Agreed. That is a major problem for printed text when markets now flow on a river of electrons, not printers' ink.

The book's prices are only one source, and are "snapshots" in time. However, they are a more reliable value point than various lists because they are specific. If the collector does additional research into the same kind of sources, his information will be much higher quality than published lists. It can also aid in understanding why two coins of the same date, mintmark and grade can sell for significantly different prices.

Published values are always estimates and guidance, unless they some from a specific source such as a seller or an auction. Use the lists to help understand the range of possible retail value and to build a mental correlation between that range and the actual condition of a specific coin. This can be a chore, or it can be part of the fun of hunting for that elusive creature called "Best Value."

There's also the commercial meaning of "Choice About Uncirculated." The seller/grader definition goes something like, "It's all About my making money, so my Choice is to grade the coin Uncirculated." Every TPG does this same thing and the example Sandon mentioned of Coin World's market test remains valid, but possibly with increased emphasis. Some of the basic problem can be attributed to failure to experiment with and/or adopt new technology. But most of it sits squarely on abrogation of standards and inconsistency. I'm pleased that the jimbo got a significant "upgrade" on the label. He will benefit from that typographical boost.

The coin, judging only from abrasion visible in the photos, was correctly graded the first time. Only the label changed (for grade) and now someone in the future will be deceived by the TPGs' inconsistency. My comment is in no way directed toward the poster - he did nothing untoward. Just my minority opinion on "grading."

Do you mean that "Yukon Gold" potatoes contain real gold -- just like the "Golden dollars/"

Tokens were among the earliest numismatic items subjected to study and cataloging. The fad moved from England and the continent to America.

RE: "The Case For $3,000 Gold" The case looks like one of these:

They will add the new privy mark -- a flying pig wearing lipstick.

This means it was hit by a cable car full of tourists, rather than struck at the San Francisco Mint building.

The assorted VAM lists are individual compilations - the titles are personal descriptions and not decided based on popularity, visibility or cause. EagleRJOs comment about visibility is entirely accurate - readily visible varieties appeal to a wider scope of collector.

Is not a counterfeit a "variety" of some sort, by definition? The fake clearly identifies itself as a legal U.S. coin. It would, absolutely, be accepted in payment at any retail business. Complaining about the date on this or any other fake is simply a red herring -- and excuse to redirect away from the piece's total falsehood and illegality. People have confidence in the validity of money in circulation. Counterfeit coins and currency damage public confidence and create real, persistent problems. The number of people who would reject this fake as counterfeit is trivial - and that includes most coin collectors.

Awww......I won't even ask......

Thanks to all who tried to figure this one out. It is a frustrating example of what easily happens when confronted with counterfeit coins. This piece is devoid of any indication it is not a legal tender of the United States -- even though that is required by Federal law. Nearly all posters quickly identified some of the primary indicators of counterfeits: poor definition and sharpness, sloppy lettering, positional errors, rim and edge overrun, missing or irregular details. That bodes well for members' ability to identify common characteristics of fakes from China or almost any other place. But, it also emphasizes the difficulty in taking the next step by calling this (or any other fake) what it really is -- and doing so without regard to its origin. That might come from a scarcity of caution when examining a common coin design, a willingness to "believe" accumulated narrative, or possibly a form of justification of counterfeiting merely because it "looks OK." This example was produced and sold to the unwary by an American company in Colorado. Here's a photo taken directly from the company website: That it fooled everyone here who looked at the reverse photo is clear indication of the danger of counterfeiting, and of hobby organizations that retain those engaged in such activities as members. I won't start any similar threads. Just be careful and aware.

Very good in its day, and still useful. However, 40 years out of date for identifying modern fakes and those who make them.

0.859375 (412.50 grains). 1.50 grains tolerance (+/-) - Min legal weight 411.0 grains 26.72955 grams. 0.097198 grams tolerance. Min legal weight 26.6324 grams. 900 fineness, 003 tolerance (+/-) [silver = 0.897 to 0.903, no range for copper] Density of alloy = 10.337 g/cm^3

The infidelity of TPGs now makes "AU" just another fuzzy label....another opportunity for shysters to send off their EF coins (bought at EF offers) for relabeling as some version of "AU." This produces a huge asking price increase for no change in coin quality. Consumers get LESS than they paid for. A legitimate "AU" coin shows only the slightest trace of abrasion and/or luster disturbance, Imagine a bank clerk pulling new quarters from a bag in 1900, counting out $10 and dropping them into a paper wrapper. That afternoon, one coin is slipped across a marble counter to a customer. That could be a real "AU" coin. Any additional abrasion or handling results in some form of EF or lower grade until it bottoms out as a "slick" identifiable as silver alloy about the diameter of a US quarter.

Yes. Anyone could make their request through a member of Congress or the Executive branch. Business people were often members. Treasury wanted people of high repute and prominent if different parts of the country. This enhanced credibility in the Commission and thus in American silver and gold coinage.

The commission was for a cent and double eagle/all gold coins. The DE remained largely as designed in 1906. The cent obverse became the Eagle obverse and the private inaugural medal reverse (A.S-G and Weinman) became the Eagle reverse - both at President Roosevelt's insistence. Dies and pattern half eagles using the DE design were made, but the coins were destroyed after TR accepted sunk relief touted by Bigelow. The HE dies are at the Philadelphia Mint die vault #2.

I caught only the last half of the 1932 Eagle sales show (thanks for the date correction!), but I noticed the use of ebay prices, too - there was also a disclaimer about them (in red) at the bottom of the screen. As for the book, I appreciate knowing what he used it for. It's published material so referenced quotes are OK. I'll check this week and see if sales went up. None of them sounded familiar, but they are verbal claims in the same category as "rare" and the fuzz about "MS-62" being something special when it isn't. This part is completely unknowable since no tracking by date was done, and the quantity of gold coins has been persistently confused with combined coins and gold certificates. (My DE book has the quantities divided - most existing gold coin was in Treasury vaults.)