No way this is legal, Daniel should be hung for counterfeiting. Sorry, couldn't help myself, this was way to civil for a Carr thread. I really like his work, but a 64-D Morgan? I understand the Peace, but the Morgan makes no sense to me.
This was first announced this summer. http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-co...gan-dollar-and-the-1964-peace-dollar.all.html http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-co...-dollar-tooling-at-philadelphia-mint.all.html
Just read that after your first comment regarding the hub discovery. It's amazing that there are still things to learn about the modern mint. Why would they do the Morgan though?
There is so much that remains unknown. Maybe someone like RWB will uncover Mint correspondence in the future that may shed light on it. It was a complete surprise to everyone.
I have the feeling somebody was thinking about retaining collector interest when regular coinage was dropping the silver content. Wouldn't have been possible to strike Morgans as circulating coinage without Congressional involvement, but they could have done it as a bullion coin.
The whole "1964 dated silver dollar" mess started and ended between August 1964 and May 1965. That's not a lot of time to think about getting a new design ready for striking. That leaves two fairly obvious choices for the design of the coin, right? See http://www.pcgs.com/news/1964-d-peace-dollars-do-they-really-exist
Right. My point was that since the act authorizing them was only passed in August 1964, that gives the Mint a fairly limited amount of time to strike 45,000,000 dollars. That includes time to prepare hubs and dies, do test strikes, etc. Commissioning a new design would only have added to the time it took. Had they done that, we wouldn't have the fun of 50 page threads about a certain member's overstrike tokens.