Boone 1937 Commemorative P-D-S proofs – technical corrections 1 1

[RWB]

Some members might have seen the recent announcements concerning a set of Daniel Boon 1837 Commemorative P-D-S proofs. Published information can be viewed here:

https://coinweek.com/auctions-news/classic-commemorative-coins-possibly-unique-matte-proof-1937-boone-half-dollar/

The coins are definitely interesting and possibly unique, but unfortunately parts of the published description are wrong or misleading.

First – the coins were struck on one of the Philadelphia Mint’s hydraulic medal presses. It appears the same obverse die was paired with a fresh reverse for Philadelphia, Denver and San Francisco.

Second – the dies were normal production dies but unused.

Third – the coins were struck once, not twice. There was no need to double strike since the medal press could easily bring up all the die detail with one “squeeze.”

Fourth – after striking, the coins were sandblasted to create the micro-sparkling surface typical of mineral abrasive.

Fifth – following sandblasting, the pieces were antiqued in a manner similar to silver medals. This produced the shading and enhanced sense of depth evident in the coins.

Sixth – the coins were NOT some kind of secret off-the-books production, nor were they sold to influential collectors. The sandblast & antiqued coins were normal approval pieces made by John Sinnock for review by the Mint Director and Secretary of the Treasury. They were intended to show the commemorative design at its artistic best, and in a medallic presentation consistent with the desire of professional artists. These were normal test/trial pieces which do not appear on production records because they were not made for distribution or sale. (They would probably be mentioned in Engraving Department records, but those are almost all missing.)

Seventh – similar antiquated sandblast proof pieces were made of all commemoratives during Sinnock’s tenure, and analogous pieces were struck during the terms of Charles Barber (except Columbian and Isabella) and George Morgan (1921 and 1922 Peace dollar proofs and antiqued pieces). These proofs and many others came from Sinnock’s estate after his death and have been floating from one collection to another since.

The exaggerations, misleading, false and outdated information promoted by some is very discouraging. When will this hobby, or what little remains of it, decide that basic truth and honesty are much more exciting than tall tales.

Edited August 10, 2020 by RWB
Correct spelling in title.

[leeg]

Thanks Roger for super info!

[RWB]

Personal comment:

To those who are not aware of it, "leeg's" work on classic commemoratives is far and away superior to ALL prior works. Swiatik and the others look like amateurs compared to what leeg has uncovered and explained.

[Henri Charriere]

19 hours ago, RWB said:

Some members might have seen the recent announcements concerning a set of Daniel Boon 1837 Commemorative P-D-S proofs. Published information can be viewed here:

https://coinweek.com/auctions-news/classic-commemorative-coins-possibly-unique-matte-proof-1937-boone-half-dollar/

The coins are definitely interesting and possibly unique, but unfortunately parts of the published description are wrong or misleading.

First – the coins were struck on one of the Philadelphia Mint’s hydraulic medal presses. It appears the same obverse die was paired with a fresh reverse for Philadelphia, Denver and San Francisco.

Second – the dies were normal production dies but unused.

Third – the coins were struck once, not twice. There was no need to double strike since the medal press could easily bring up all the die detail with one “squeeze.”

Fourth – after striking, the coins were sandblasted to create the micro-sparkling surface typical of mineral abrasive.

Fifth – following sandblasting, the pieces were antiqued in a manner similar to silver medals. This produced the shading and enhanced sense of depth evident in the coins.

Sixth – the coins were NOT some kind of secret off-the-books production, nor were they sold to influential collectors. The sandblast & antiqued coins were normal approval pieces made by John Sinnock for review by the Mint Director and Secretary of the Treasury. They were intended to show the commemorative design at its artistic best, and in a medallic presentation consistent with the desire of professional artists. These were normal test/trial pieces which do not appear on production records because they were not made for distribution or sale. (They would probably be mentioned in Engraving Department records, but those are almost all missing.)

Seventh – similar antiquated sandblast proof pieces were made of all commemoratives during Sinnock’s tenure, and analogous pieces were struck during the terms of Charles Barber (except Columbian and Isabella) and George Morgan (1921 and 1922 Peace dollar proofs and antiqued pieces). These proofs and many others came from Sinnock’s estate after his death and have been floating from one collection to another since.

The exaggerations, misleading, false and outdated information promoted by some is very discouraging. When will this hobby, or what little remains of it, decide that basic truth and honesty are much more exciting than tall tales.

Meticulous scholarship. Impeccable credentials. Unassailable facts.  Impressive!

[VKurtB]

On 8/3/2020 at 11:42 PM, RWB said:

Some members might have seen the recent announcements concerning a set of Daniel Boon 1837 Commemorative P-D-S proofs. Published information can be viewed here:

https://coinweek.com/auctions-news/classic-commemorative-coins-possibly-unique-matte-proof-1937-boone-half-dollar/

The coins are definitely interesting and possibly unique, but unfortunately parts of the published description are wrong or misleading.

First – the coins were struck on one of the Philadelphia Mint’s hydraulic medal presses. It appears the same obverse die was paired with a fresh reverse for Philadelphia, Denver and San Francisco.

Second – the dies were normal production dies but unused.

Third – the coins were struck once, not twice. There was no need to double strike since the medal press could easily bring up all the die detail with one “squeeze.”

Fourth – after striking, the coins were sandblasted to create the micro-sparkling surface typical of mineral abrasive.

Fifth – following sandblasting, the pieces were antiqued in a manner similar to silver medals. This produced the shading and enhanced sense of depth evident in the coins.

Sixth – the coins were NOT some kind of secret off-the-books production, nor were they sold to influential collectors. The sandblast & antiqued coins were normal approval pieces made by John Sinnock for review by the Mint Director and Secretary of the Treasury. They were intended to show the commemorative design at its artistic best, and in a medallic presentation consistent with the desire of professional artists. These were normal test/trial pieces which do not appear on production records because they were not made for distribution or sale. (They would probably be mentioned in Engraving Department records, but those are almost all missing.)

Seventh – similar antiquated sandblast proof pieces were made of all commemoratives during Sinnock’s tenure, and analogous pieces were struck during the terms of Charles Barber (except Columbian and Isabella) and George Morgan (1921 and 1922 Peace dollar proofs and antiqued pieces). These proofs and many others came from Sinnock’s estate after his death and have been floating from one collection to another since.

The exaggerations, misleading, false and outdated information promoted by some is very discouraging. When will this hobby, or what little remains of it, decide that basic truth and honesty are much more exciting than tall tales.

Tall tales help one's "marketing plan". It's no more complicated than that.

[Henri Charriere]

"When will this hobby, or what little remains of it, decide that basic truth and honesty...."

Stinging words that resound in my head as I mourn the unconscionably premature passing of a hobby, once dominated by coin collectors and coin shops, now almost the exclusive domain/province of investors, auction houses and TPGS. Remember when the hobby managed perfectly well with just Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Fine, VF, EF, and UNC, and Proof grades? Some fifty years, if memory serves. But UNC just wasn't good enough. "Almost" UNC crept in. Then UNC itself was split into Choice, Gem and Brilliant strains. That, too, proved insufficient. The earthshaking Richter, pardon me, Sheldon Scale, was introduced and with it ten, count 'em, TEN! gradations for UNC alone, now rechristened, whoa Nelly: "Mint State."  Proof was proof, period. But Proof -- not a grade, but a unique process -- was not immune to dissection. Hence "Proof-like," which, to quote Shakespeare again, is nothing more than "wagging thy tongue in noise so rude against me," i.e., an artificial construct and an abomination, pure and simple. (Even "Business Strike" doesn't sit well with me, truth be told.)  To all who have been forced to weather my obscenely long, often rude, crude and vulgar rants, my apologies, but RWBs eloquent words -- "When will this hobby" -- have struck a raw nerve within me. We need to get back to basics and keep things in perspective or the commodities brokers running amok among us will destroy every vestige of decency and integrity this pursuit, quaintly known as coin collecting or numismatics, once enjoyed. Peace out.

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

"When will this hobby, or what little remains of it, decide that basic truth and honesty...."

Stinging words that resound in my head as I mourn the unconscionably premature passing of a hobby, once dominated by coin collectors and coin shops, now almost the exclusive domain/province of investors, auction houses and TPGS. Remember when the hobby managed perfectly well with just Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Fine, VF, EF, and UNC, and Proof grades? Some fifty years, if memory serves. But UNC just wasn't good enough. "Almost" UNC crept in. Then UNC itself was split into Choice, Gem and Brilliant strains. That, too, proved insufficient. The earthshaking Richter, pardon me, Sheldon Scale, was introduced and with it ten, count 'em, TEN! gradations for UNC alone, now rechristened, whoa Nelly: "Mint State."  Proof was proof, period. But Proof -- not a grade, but a unique process -- was not immune to dissection. Hence "Proof-like," which, to quote Shakespeare again, is nothing more than "wagging thy tongue in noise so rude against me," i.e., an artificial construct and an abomination, pure and simple. (Even "Business Strike" doesn't sit well with me, truth be told.)  To all who have been forced to weather my obscenely long, often rude, crude and vulgar rants, my apologies, but RWBs eloquent words -- "When will this hobby" -- have struck a raw nerve within me. We need to get back to basics and keep things in perspective or the commodities brokers running amok among us will destroy every vestige of decency and integrity this pursuit, quaintly known as coin collecting or numismatics, once enjoyed. Peace out.

Pretty odd talk for a guy who does competitive registry sets, or at least one, and each point, or star, or +, means more points and a higher registry score.

[Henri Charriere]

This dialogue reminds me of that scene in the restaurant where Joe Pesci grabs that waiter by the tie, and says "You embarrass me in front of my friends, and you don't think you're being out of order?" (Goodfellas, 1990) The simple unvarnished truth is I was at home recovering from major surgery -- and had been warned not to make any important decisions (under the influence of painkillers, oxycodone) was surfing the internet when, out of curiosity, I decided to see how coins I had purchased 50 years ago had held up in the interim... one thing led to another, and all of the sudden, a lovely little gold rooster caught my eye, and I made up my mind, then and there, she was to be mine, no matter how high the bidding went. I kept my promise, and then suddenly encountered another, another, and then an encapsulated one! I bought, I believe three, and only then discovered there were only 16 in the entire series. Every rooster I encountered was a challenge and I took every bid as a personal affront. I waited until three minutes to post time, bid furiously, and that's alI I remember.  Many of the earlier ones resided in France, Germany -- even Serbia. I didn't buy these roosters, I paid a ransom to obtain their freedom. So, as far as I am concerned this was not the actions of a sane man. One day every slot was filled and then the upgrades began. Truth be told, VKurtB -- and you will never hear this from another collector, I was purchasing upgrades BEFORE I received the lower grades! Would you buy a coin before receiving the first of that date which was still in transit from an overseas location?  One time my shipment, a real doozy comprised of three upper echelon grades, sent via FedEx, was seized by Customs which issued something akin to an Interpol Red Notice demanding action on my part within five days. Did I submit to their unseemly interrogation which included divulging my full name, DOB and Social Security number over the wire? What would you do if at the slightest hint of resistance they informed you the shipment was being returned? I didn't like it, but I submitted -- even as the questioning took a personal intrusive turn. So, yes, my friend, I plead guilty with an explanation. Now, you embarrass me in front of all my friends and you don't think you're out of order? Set registry? I am guessing I had most of the pieces prior to discovering there was a set registry and recorded their arrival en masse in the order of their arrival. Thank you for honoring me with your query. If it had come from the likes of Ratzie33 or RichieRich2020 I would have been gobsmacked like Gleason in the Honeymooners: "HAMADAHAMADAHAMADA!" 

[Insider]

19 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

"When will this hobby, or what little remains of it, decide that basic truth and honesty...."

Stinging words that resound in my head as I mourn the unconscionably premature passing of a hobby, once dominated by coin collectors and coin shops, now almost the exclusive domain/province of investors, auction houses and TPGS. Remember when the hobby managed perfectly well with just Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Fine, VF, EF, and UNC, and Proof grades? Some fifty years, if memory serves. But UNC just wasn't good enough. "Almost" UNC crept in. Then UNC itself was split into Choice, Gem and Brilliant strains. That, too, proved insufficient. The earthshaking Richter, pardon me, Sheldon Scale, was introduced and with it ten, count 'em, TEN! gradations for UNC alone, now rechristened, whoa Nelly: "Mint State."  Proof was proof, period. But Proof -- not a grade, but a unique process -- was not immune to dissection. Hence "Proof-like," which, to quote Shakespeare again, is nothing more than "wagging thy tongue in noise so rude against me," i.e., an artificial construct and an abomination, pure and simple. (Even "Business Strike" doesn't sit well with me, truth be told.)  To all who have been forced to weather my obscenely long, often rude, crude and vulgar rants, my apologies, but RWBs eloquent words -- "When will this hobby" -- have struck a raw nerve within me. We need to get back to basics and keep things in perspective or the commodities brokers running amok among us will destroy every vestige of decency and integrity this pursuit, quaintly known as coin collecting or numismatics, once enjoyed. Peace out.

Dear Quintus, 

I've lived through the excellent capsule history of U.S. Coin grading you have posted.  IMO, most of the changes you wrote about have been good for the industry although they may have been taken too far in a few cases in an attempt to be more precise.  The problem is THE STANDARDS were changed!    

 

[MarkFeld]

8 minutes ago, Insider said:

Dear Quintus, 

I've lived through the excellent capsule history of U.S. Coin grading you have posted.  IMO, most of the changes you wrote about have been good for the industry although they may have been taken too far in a few cases in an attempt to be more precise.  The problem is THE STANDARDS were changed!    

 

The "standards" are also somewhat subjective and inconsistent.

[leeg]

On 8/4/2020 at 11:52 AM, RWB said:

Personal comment:

To those who are not aware of it, "leeg's" work on classic commemoratives is far and away superior to ALL prior works. Swiatik and the others look like amateurs compared to what leeg has uncovered and explained.

Thanks Roger.

I learned from the best.

 

[Conder101]

32 minutes ago, Insider said:

Sheldon Scale, was introduced and with it ten, count 'em, TEN! gradations for UNC alone

And that wasn't enough so + grades were added.`

[Insider]

2 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

The "standards" are also somewhat subjective and inconsistent.

There never were STANDARDS in the "wild west!"   Then when the ANA published theirs, most professionals ignored them!   As to inconsistent...In 1972 I devised the "True" Technical System of grading that we used for internal records at the first and oldest  coin authentication service in DC.

That system was "bastardized" when the service moved to Colorado because the only guy to move knew virtually nothing about grading or coin authentication.  He was added to the staff as an unnecessary expense to  the ANA to spy on our Director and report  directly by phone to Old Cracked Eye who knew much less about authentication!   

The "true" Technical System was carried over to the FIRST TPGS at INSAB in DC when ANA left town.   The system was very strict and precise because the ONLY thing we did was asses the condition of preservation of the coin from the way it left the dies.  All the variables suck as eye appeal. strike, value, etc were removed.  WE DID NOT PRICE COINS.  All the system did was to let us be able to ID the coin WHENEVER it was seen again no matter how many years went past AS LONG AS IT REMAINED IN THE SAME CONDITION.   We considered it to be "archival grading."  Our grading was done using a stereo microscope and OUR MS COINS WERE MS!   In some cases they may have been ugly as eye appeal did not count at all.   We did not price coins.  That is what the commercial coin market is for.

So you see, our standards DID NOT CHANGE.   

Some of you heard this story before...v.short version.   

The FIRST coin grading service (INSAB) was threatened with a potential law suit by a major auction company because we graded a "gem" gold dollar that was bought and auctioned as a MS-65 (highest possible grade at the time because 70 was never used) AU-58 because of a loss of luster from cabinet friction on its relief.  We refused to change our standards or stop grading coins FOR FREE.  Thankfully, before we were sued, the the ANA started the SECOND TPGS and charged a fee for grading.  We never heard any more about it and then we started to charge money for our grading OPINION. 

  

Edited August 6, 2020 by Insider

[Henri Charriere]

I wonder where my esteemed colleague, VKurtB, stands on this.  It was he who, utilizing his Toolbar for added emphasis, lambasted my use of a 30-power loupe (in lieu of a five-or ten-power hand-held lens) as NEVER done. And here we have (the rather aptly named) INSIDER casually confiding that no less than a "stereo microscope" was employed routinely for grading.  This is arguably the most interesting and informative recitation I have come across since I stumbled into this chat room. (I am not even going to ask who Old Crack Eye was.) Thank you so much for sharing your memoirs!

[MarkFeld]

2 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I wonder where my esteemed colleague, VKurtB, stands on this.  It was he who, utilizing his Toolbar for added emphasis, lambasted my use of a 30-power loupe (in lieu of a five-or ten-power hand-held lens) as NEVER done. And here we have (the rather aptly named) INSIDER casually confiding that no less than a "stereo microscope" was employed routinely for grading.  This is arguably the most interesting and informative recitation I have come across since I stumbled into this chat room. (I am not even going to ask who Old Crack Eye was.) Thank you so much for sharing your memoirs!

Like it or not, when I graded at NGC from 1991-1998, I very rarely used magnification stronger than 5-10 power.

[Alex in PA.]

  I have this to say about that.  Very educational and the conversation brings back memories.   

[gmarguli]

59 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Like it or not, when I graded at NGC from 1991-1998, I very rarely used magnification stronger than 5-10 power.

Next you'll be saying that you didn't spend 2-3 minutes per coin to grade it. 

[Henri Charriere]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

Like it or not, when I graded at NGC from 1991-1998, I very rarely used magnification stronger than 5-10 power.

You were grading on an assembly line. I am conducting autopsies. Like that all-seeing eye on The Great Seal of the one-dollar bill, nothing escapes my gaze. 

[MarkFeld]

31 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

You were grading on an assembly line. I am conducting autopsies. Like that all-seeing eye on The Great Seal of the one-dollar bill, nothing escapes my gaze. 

I wasn’t grading in an assembly line - it was nothing like that. Back in those days, we weren’t even grading moderns, yet. I also spent close to half my time in quality control checks of the coins, grades and information on the grading labels, after the coins were encapsulated.

[MarkFeld]

43 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

Next you'll be saying that you didn't spend 2-3 minutes per coin to grade it. 

Not usually!😉

[Henri Charriere]

12 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I wasn’t grading in an assembly line - it was nothing like that. Back in those days, we weren’t even grading moderns, yet. I also spent close to half my time in quality control checks of the coins, grades and information on the grading labels, after the coins were encapsulated.

I apologize for my hasty conclusion, and do so politely.

A woman at a TPGS (ah, what the hell: PCGS) felt obligated to describe the ENTIRE process involved in their hermetically sealed room which left me with the impression that all those cryptic notations left all over my encapsulations, as well as the black coffin in which they were entombed, were the product of a series of internal checks and balances (circa, 2020, the present). Have things changed? Have turn-arounds grown? With the explosion in ERs and FSs and all manner of labels, I would imagine so.  We are rapidly approaching a time when the numismatic collector series of coins will likely come with a certified chronometer reading: No. 9 off the press. And those higher numbers will command an incrementally lower premium than their older-by-minutes hatchlings.

[Alex in PA.]

7 hours ago, Conder101 said:

And that wasn't enough so + grades were added.`

Quite so Conder101.  The coin dealers were not satisfied with the monies they were getting on the Sheldon Scale Grading System so they got creative.  Hence, we, the average coin collector (not to be confused with dealer) were blessed with

+ and * and PL DPL Cameo Ultra Cameo BN RB RD etc. etc.  They're really pushing to get some more in such as 'Semi Prooflike'.  And with each one of these designations the 'collector' was bestowed with additional cost.  Now I don't begrudge a person to make his fortune but once in a while I would have like to have seen the average run of the mill kid collector get a break.  These are just my thoughts and my humble opinion.  Proof Like - Nope.  If it isn't a Proof coin it isn't.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Alex in PA.

[MarkFeld]

29 minutes ago, Alex in PA. said:

Quite so Conder101.  The coin dealers were not satisfied with the monies they were getting on the Sheldon Scale Grading System so they got creative.  Hence, we, the average coin collector (not to be confused with dealer) were blessed with

+ and * and PL DPL Cameo Ultra Cameo BN RB RD etc. etc.  They're really pushing to get some more in such as 'Semi Prooflike'.  And with each one of these designations the 'collector' was bestowed with additional cost.  Now I don't begrudge a person to make his fortune but once in a while I would have like to have seen the average run of the mill kid collector get a break.  These are just my thoughts and my humble opinion.  Proof Like - Nope.  If it isn't a Proof coin it isn't.

There’s no push for a “semi-prooflike” designation, though it can be accurate and helpful to describe a partially reflective coin as semi-prooflike. And believe it or not, it need not be about money, either. 

The Prooflike designation for Morgan Dollars has been around for decades, as have color designations for copper coins.

There’s plenty to gripe about, without exaggerating or nitpicking.

Edited August 6, 2020 by MarkFeld

[Alex in PA.]

I wonder how I knew it would be you.  

[MarkFeld]

3 minutes ago, Alex in PA. said:

I wonder how I knew it would be you.  

Maybe because you realize I don’t like exaggerations. Regardless, if anything i posted was inaccurate, please go ahead and set the record straight.

Edited August 6, 2020 by MarkFeld

[MarkFeld]

Getting back to the subject of this thread...I’m surprised that the coins aren’t better struck.

[bsshog40]

47 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Getting back to the subject of this thread...I’m surprised that the coins aren’t better struck.

I agree, but as Roger pointed out, only struck once. Pretty good detail for one strike though. 

[MarkFeld]

9 minutes ago, bsshog40 said:

I agree, but as Roger pointed out, only struck once. Pretty good detail for one strike though. 

But there are a great many coins struck once which display much better detail. Perhaps it was something to do with the post-strike process, which obscured details?

[bsshog40]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

But there are a great many coins struck once which display much better detail. Perhaps it was something to do with the post-strike process, which obscured details?

You would know that better than me Mark. Good point though!

[RWB]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

But there are a great many coins struck once which display much better detail. Perhaps it was something to do with the post-strike process, which obscured details?

Sandblasting always suppresses some of the finest detail - depends on the grit used, duration, angle and experience of the person in the Medal Department doing the work.... might even change depending on whether the worker had post-lunch (oops -- they called it "dinner") heart burn from bad salami. Acid pickling was worse because it lacked the sparkle of sharply cut metal facets.

Also, the original hubs were reduced from models (usually bronze casts) and instructions were not to touch-up with hand engraving. The results are not as crisp and sharp as manually finished hubs. The product has less life and character the the old hubs. (Look at the Pilgrim half. Using 5x magnification and a little patience you can see where manual touch-up was done by Morgan.)