Every now and then while doing what I do, searching and researching, I run across one of those things more than worth mentioning. This is a prime example - http://www.stacksbowers.com/BrowseAuctions/LotDetail.aspx?AuctionID=6014&Lot=13167&LotID=373701 A unique 1922 Peace Silver Dollar, Modified High Relief Production Trial. This coin and several others from the Raymond T. Baker (past director of the US Mint) estate, are on the numismatic market for the first time ever. These coins are worth looking at, studying, and saving the information for your own future use. Coins like these present us with unique learning opportunities. The above link is only for the 1 coin, but at the bottom of that page you will find links to several other similar coins from the Baker estate. They are all worth study.
Interesting, but did they mess up the ad? The 1922 coin is the one pictured, but, they say, "As soon as the initial trials for 1922 began, likely January 5th, a sample from the slightly modified dies was collected and sent with an example of the 1921 coinage to Mint Director Baker. The 1921 is the coin offered above.".
It's a very different coin with that kind of relief, isn't it? I assembled a date set of Peace Dolalrs, many years ago, and I remember searching through hundreds of coins to find ones that had better strikes in the hair area. In many cases, I chose coins for the set because, whatever the detail, it was the best I could come across. The attached article is also quite interesting. That coin marked "3200" in India ink, as the last piece struck from failing dies is quite fascinating. And, if you've ever had any doubts about the bias TPG's exercise in the case of rare, important coins, notice that PCGS did not give this coin a details grade. MS65. Not that it matters at this level of collecting - whoever is bidding on that coin is clearly interested in its numismatic and historical value, certainly not its eye-appeal.
No, they didn't mess anything up. You have to realize that this is an electronic version of the printed catalog. The coin referred to by that last sentence you quoted, is a 1921 - in the catalog. The '22 high relief is lot #13167, the '21 is lot #13166. If you scroll to the bottom of that page - you'll see it.
Not sure what you are referring to, these particular coins have never before even been seen in public let alone sold.
So if these were samples sent the mint director, I have two questions about that: 1. were they ever legal tender? 2. why were they considered his personal property? didn't they belong to the mint? If they did, then ......... dt
No, they weren't. Coins only become legal tender when they are released by the mint. And these weren't. Now there were other coins from these trial runs that were released into circulation by the mint. If you read the articles attached to those coins you'll see that. And they were legal tender. Yeah, they did belong to the mint, technically. But it was kind of a common practice, accepted even, that coins like this were given to the mint directors and if they chose to keep them then nobody had a problem with it. Same kind of thing happens even today.
Wow - so every now and then it's resulted in a huge windfall for their estate, huh? That's very interesting, very important subtle difference between this case and the ultra rare, never circulated 1933 double eagles that a mint employee pocketed - with the rather vague difference of this one being given to the "mint" - but not the employee directly - and the other supposed to be destroyed - except for two -one privately held coin and another in the Smithsonian - how odd.
So, it was okay for him to take some 'samples' home, but not for Israel Switt to buy them [the 1933 Double Eagle]? No one ever proved that any gold was missing, so how could he steal them?
Are you the official welcome party? Nice. I don't think I've ever been welcomed into the world before. Thanks.
Frank your comment is a point that has been raised, discussed, and beat upon until the proverbial horse is dead. And not just here on this forum, but everywhere. Buy yet nobody ever seems to see or understand the difference between the two situations. The only difference I could ever see is the obvious - coins that were struck as patterns, trial strikes, and unofficial strikes, are looked differently by the govt. than are coins struck for commerce but yet never officially released. The former is OK for collectors to own, buy and sell, the latter is not. I say this is obvious because that is what has actually happened, and happened repeatedly for decades. But the question that remains is why they are looked at differently ? Nobody has ever come up with the answer to that.
Doug: Agreed, this is beating a dead horse. And the Swifts have gotten a raw deal. As I recall, from somewhere, the mint needed some particular coin(s) for their cabinet, I think it was the gold Union patterns, and they traded 'boxes' of patterns for the coins. There was never an official 'pronouncement' that the patterns were legal to own, but just a generally accepted practice. That said, then why are the 1974 aluminum cents illegal to own/possess/hold? They were given out to members of congress with no comment about returning them. In retrospect, the mint demanded their return, but an unknown number of them (estimated at 12) were not returned. The mint (like the government in general) just makes up their rules as they go along.
I believe the law was changed in 1896, pattern coins after that date are not legal to own but the the law is typically ignored. If it wasn't all the pattern Saint-Gaudens, 1916, peace dollar and Martha Washington pieces would be liable for confiscation. (And possibly still are if the government decides to.)
