• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

anyone know anything about these Martha Washington restrikes?
1 1

31 posts in this topic

Slimy imitations of stock designs often used when testing alloy and other coin changes by the US Mint. These are not restrikes of anything - they are little medals sold at outrageous prices to the unaware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RWB said:

Slimy imitations of stock designs often used when testing alloy and other coin changes by the US Mint. These are not restrikes of anything - they are little medals sold at outrageous prices to the unaware.

Various effigies of Martha are used for all experimental strikes in recent years. All the replacement metal strikes in new alloys of stainless steel to replace 75/25 cupronickel have been with Martha effigies and “replacement” legends using the same fonts as the current  5 cent pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RWB said:

Slimy imitations of stock designs often used when testing alloy and other coin changes by the US Mint. These are not restrikes of anything - they are little medals sold at outrageous prices to the unaware.

Why would they not be considered restrikes of test pieces?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Why would they not be considered restrikes of test pieces?

A "restrike" must, by definition, be made from an original die, and struck at some later date. One cannot copy or imitate something and call it a "restrike."

Where does the adulteration of terminology stop? Shall we have "Specimen Restrike Imitations" or other garbage?

They are little rip-offs foisted on the ignorant.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RWB said:

A "restrike" must, by definition, be made from an original die, and struck at some later date. One cannot copy or imitate something and call it a "restrike."

Where does the adulteration of terminology stop? Shall we have "Specimen Restrike Imitations" or other garbage?

They are little rip-offs foisted on the ignorant.

Were these pieces produced from different dies than the test pieces?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, e1cnr said:

I saw these for sale and wonder if anyone knows anything about them more than in item description? I saw NGC has graded them.

 

https://www.govmint.com/2pc-2019-50-cent-martha-washngtn-1759-ngc-ms70?ad=765BS&msclkid=00ccdcbf227b15ce9e1c83c18ec063c1

Don't know if you noticed but that's not the US Mint.

It's a private mint that claims to have obtained a single, uncancelled "obverse" die once used to make test 'coins' for the Sacajawea dollar issue. They have paired that with a die of their own concoction and are stamping out rounds with the pair.

They're certainly nothing like the 1804 Restrike US dollars, but then the hobby seems to accept the term "restrike" for the '1861' Confederate Cent and others, even tho they were privately made. But I believe those used both dies, not just one.

I couldn't find info on whether or not they had added anything to the design on the one die they say is original.

These certainly aren't actual pattern or test pieces...  At best they are a, 'partial restrike done outside the US Mint', (IMO.)

The company states a limit of 100 pieces will be struck, (200 pcs in another spot, but perhaps they mean the 2-pcx set,) ...but unless/until they cancel the die, that is simply marketing hype.

Edited by ProfHaroldHill
added issue limit info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ProfHaroldHill said:

Don't know if you noticed but that's not the US Mint.

It's a private mint that claims to have obtained a single, uncancelled "obverse" die once used to make test 'coins' for the Sacajawea dollar issue. They have paired that with a die of their own concoction and are stamping out rounds with the pair.

They're certainly nothing like the 1804 Restrike US dollars, but then the hobby seems to accept the term "restrike" for the '1861' Confederate Cent and others, even tho they were privately made. But I believe those used both dies, not just one.

I couldn't find info on whether or not they had added anything to the design on the one die they say is original.

These certainly aren't actual pattern or test pieces...  At best they are a, 'partial restrike done outside the US Mint', (IMO.)

“Partial restrike done outside the US Mint” sounds accurate to me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RWB said:

A "restrike" must, by definition, be made from an original die, and struck at some later date. One cannot copy or imitate something and call it a "restrike."

Where does the adulteration of terminology stop? Shall we have "Specimen Restrike Imitations" or other garbage?

They are little rip-offs foisted on the ignorant.

Don't drag Dan Carr into this. ;) lol jk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gmarguli said:

 

364755_1.jpg?yocs=m_

 

Not wanting to take the thread on a tangent, but if the reverse of those is identical to the 1795 US coinage, and they are being offered "in commerce", they must bear the word COPY 'incuse' to the surface.

The "clearly marked date of manufacture", which can be used instead of COPY, (unless they changed the HPA,) has not been interpreted by a court as meaning the "YEAR of manufacture".

In fact, there's a thread over at CU/PCGS forums somewhere way back when, where an HPA civil suit is discussed. In that case, the replica US Silver Eagle rounds that the plaintiffs filed against, all had the current year on their face, (just like the real ones!) Yet the defendants were essentially forced to stop making them, and they agreed to destroy the dies. Did their lawyers not try to show they were compliant due to the DOM being on each replica?

If "year of manufacture" alone is indeed held to be HPA compliant, then anyone can order high-quality, (actual 1 oz silver, or it's fraud,) fake ASE's from one of the mints in China, and sell them without mentioning they are replicas. 

HPA doesn't say you have to disclose anything in marketing text or speech, only that you must mark them COPY (or have indicated the date of manufacture,) before offering them for sale.

 

 

Edited by ProfHaroldHill
clarified 'they' in sentence 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MAULEMALL said:

I understand what Mark is saying.

Say I struck you with my fist. But then I pulled my 9 and smacked you with that..

Technically it is a restrike..

No. They were not made by using existing US Mint dies and striking pieces at some later date. NO US Mint Dies were used for these medals, so the CANNOT be "Restrikes."

They are little medals at large prices for the ignorant.

Let's not further degrade numismatic terminology - stretch the truth, or outright lie. If people want to buy them, that's fine. But DO NOT call them something they are not. DO NOT try to mislead and deceive people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RWB said:

No. They were not made by using existing US Mint dies and striking pieces at some later date. NO US Mint Dies were used for these medals, so the CANNOT be "Restrikes."

They are little medals at large prices for the ignorant.

Let's not further degrade numismatic terminology - stretch the truth, or outright lie. If people want to buy them, that's fine. But DO NOT call them something they are not. DO NOT try to mislead and deceive people.

Do you mean that the US Mint contracts out the testing, and that the one die they mentioned never saw service at the US Mint?

That would make the term restrike, inappropriate, wouldn't it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ProfHaroldHill said:

Do you mean that the US Mint contracts out the testing, and that the one die they mentioned never saw service at the US Mint?

That would make the term restrike, inappropriate, wouldn't it...

The US Mint does not contract testing with anyone. Original MW test dies are strictly internal under Mint control. They were certainly not used to make the little medals advertised as "restrikes." That part of the advertising is fraudulent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RWB said:

The US Mint does not contract testing with anyone. Original MW test dies are strictly internal under Mint control. They were certainly not used to make the little medals advertised as "restrikes." That part of the advertising is fraudulent.

are you saying the die pictured in this CoinWeek article is not from the mint?

 

https://coinweek.com/us-mint-news/non-cancelled-martha-washington-obverse-die-offered-for-sale/#:~:text=The first known non-canceled Martha Washington die was,is listed in standard references as Judd %232180.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, e1cnr said:

That’s my question, as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photo does not have enough detail, such as dimensions, die number, etc. to authenticate from a photo.

The modern US Mint never legally releases uncancelled working dies, hubs, masters, etc. If it is authentic, then it had to have been stolen.

If we presume the obverse die is authentic, the medals do not have a reverse from a US Mint die. Since a "restrike" has to be made from original, official dies, the medals are still not true restrikes -- at best they are hybrids, or mules, or bastards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RWB said:

The photo does not have enough detail, such as dimensions, die number, etc. to authenticate from a photo.

The modern US Mint never legally releases uncancelled working dies, hubs, masters, etc. If it is authentic, then it had to have been stolen.

If we presume the obverse die is authentic, the medals do not have a reverse from a US Mint die. Since a "restrike" has to be made from original, official dies, the medals are still not true restrikes -- at best they are hybrids, or mules, or bastards.

Thanks, Roger. I like “restrike hybrid mules”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MarkFeld said:

Thanks, Roger. I like “restrike hybrid mules”.

Well, that has a certain "bucolic" lilt to it....A little "Green Acres" twang.

Ultimately, TPGs and product makers will do what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RWB said:

 

Ultimately, TPGs and product makers will do what they want.

Well they been grading comic books and sports cards for decades so...:whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2020 at 5:51 PM, ProfHaroldHill said:

Don't know if you noticed but that's not the US Mint.

It's a private mint that claims to have obtained a single, uncancelled "obverse" die once used to make test 'coins' for the Sacajawea dollar issue. They have paired that with a die of their own concoction and are stamping out rounds with the pair.

They're certainly nothing like the 1804 Restrike US dollars, but then the hobby seems to accept the term "restrike" for the '1861' Confederate Cent and others, even tho they were privately made. But I believe those used both dies, not just one.

I couldn't find info on whether or not they had added anything to the design on the one die they say is original.

These certainly aren't actual pattern or test pieces...  At best they are a, 'partial restrike done outside the US Mint', (IMO.)

The company states a limit of 100 pieces will be struck, (200 pcs in another spot, but perhaps they mean the 2-pcx set,) ...but unless/until they cancel the die, that is simply marketing hype.

GovMint is a mail-order / phone sales operation that typically sells at 50% over retail. They do not mint anything but sell stuff from around the world.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 10/8/2020 at 9:17 PM, ProfHaroldHill said:

The "clearly marked date of manufacture", which can be used instead of COPY, (unless they changed the HPA,) has not been interpreted by a court as meaning the "YEAR of manufacture".

The part allowing for marking with the year of manufacture is in the section for the marking of political collectibles, the section relating to the marking of coins specifies that they must be marked COPY and says nothing about date of manufacture.

§2101. Marking requirements

(a) Political items

The manufacture in the United States, or the importation into the United States, for introduction into or distribution in commerce of any imitation political item which is not plainly and permanently marked with the calendar year in which such item was manufactured, is unlawful and is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.].

(b) Coins and other numismatic items

The manufacture in the United States, or the importation into the United States, for introduction into or distribution in commerce, or the sale in commerce of any imitation numismatic item which is not plainly and permanently marked "copy", is unlawful and is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.].

 

The Smithsonian pieces pictured in this tread might get around the HPA but they do skirt the edge of the definition of an "imitation numismatic item" and an argument could be made that they should be marked.  The Smithsonian "restrike" Confederate cents and the unissued proposed $100 Union design by George Morgan they made DO in my opinion violate the HPA

On 10/8/2020 at 6:06 PM, MarkFeld said:

Why would they not be considered restrikes of test pieces?

From the description in the ad only the obv die turned up in private hands, so the reverse die for these medals would HAVE to be a different die than was used on the test pieces.  So it is from a mint die and a private company die, so it isn't a restrike.

On 10/8/2020 at 11:23 PM, RWB said:

The US Mint does not contract testing with anyone. Original MW test dies are strictly internal under Mint control. They were certainly not used to make the little medals advertised as "restrikes." That part of the advertising is fraudulent.

The original dies back in 1965 were strictly internal, but I was under the impression that they DID use some outside firms for testing in 1999 and provided the MW dies.  The testing for replacement alloys currently underway are using a different MW design and that I believe is all being done internally.

If this Martha Washington die is actually an official US Mint die then I would agree it would be considered to still be government property and it's use for these medals could be considered conversion of government property for private use/gain which would be illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2020 at 11:10 PM, RWB said:

No. They were not made by using existing US Mint dies and striking pieces at some later date. NO US Mint Dies were used for these medals, so the CANNOT be "Restrikes."

They are little medals at large prices for the ignorant.

Let's not further degrade numismatic terminology - stretch the truth, or outright lie. If people want to buy them, that's fine. But DO NOT call them something they are not. DO NOT try to mislead and deceive people.

If an obverse die was made at the Mint and sent to a company to make test pieces the die is a genuine US Mint die.

If ANYONE gets hold of that die and strikes something, it is a piece made with a genuine obverse Mint die.

We can call it anything from a trinket to junk.  That does not change what it is.  What it is not is a "Slimy imitation". 

Edited by Insider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2020 at 8:10 AM, RWB said:

The photo does not have enough detail, such as dimensions, die number, etc. to authenticate from a photo.

The modern US Mint never legally releases uncancelled working dies, hubs, masters, etc. If it is authentic, then it had to have been stolen.

If we presume the obverse die is authentic, the medals do not have a reverse from a US Mint die. Since a "restrike" has to be made from original, official dies, the medals are still not true restrikes -- at best they are hybrids, or mules, or bastards.

If I gave you a die number, you could tell me about the die?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2020 at 10:10 AM, RWB said:

Since a "restrike" has to be made from original, official dies, the medals are still not true restrikes -- at best they are hybrids, or mules, or bastards.

So I learned something new today.  I tend to steer away from restrikes but didn't know the requirement for designation.  Does that also mean the many "Thaler restrikes" should carry a different terminology?  Considering that original dies are probably long gone and the modern "restrikes" have different obverse details than the original (2 or 3) versions.

Precision of language is important so if they should be called differently I'll do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Does that also mean the many "Thaler restrikes" should carry a different terminology? "

They are official government copies or reproductions for commercial use. Same for certain British sovereigns.

Then there are "novodels" or official imitations made for sale to collectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure which part Roger is saying is never done outside the mint, but if we’re talking about the entirety of the process, his statement is untrue. The tests of the new “nickel” stainless steel alloy have all been STRUCK inside the Philadelphia Mint, but all the pre-strike preparation has been done by vendor/partners. The alloys have been created and the ingots poured at Carpenter Technologies of Reading, PA, and all of the rolling down to strip have also been done there. The punching of the blanks was done by a washer maker in Ohio, who didn’t understand why they were being asked to punch circles without an inner diameter. Only punched blanks of a brand new stainless steel alloy were shipped to the Philadelphia Mint for test strikings, which I have personally held in my hand.

They have amazing detail for a stainless steel coin. Amazing relief as well, which up until now was the bugaboo with stainless steel. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1