Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Vess1, post: 26048365, member: 13650&quot;]As you get older sometimes you start to think about and appreciate the nuances and details of the past, more than you used to.&nbsp; Wanted to share some common info that maybe people don&#039;t stop to appreciate on these old classic commemoratives.</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp; Some will know this, but guessing many do not.&nbsp;&nbsp; The collaboration of our most historic engravers that are more traditionally known for their work on our circulating coinage.&nbsp; To me, it adds a level of interest to some of them, beyond just a low mintage or attractive design.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; First, a condensed version of the history at the US mint.&nbsp;&nbsp; I start here because our first classic commemorative was collaborated on by two of them.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; It&#039;s good to learn something new every day, if you can.&nbsp; &nbsp; I knew of Charles Barber but today I learned that it was William Barber, his father that was the chief engraver at the mint initially with George T. Morgan (designer of the Morgan dollar) working beneath him.</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Barbers were a family of generational engravers with no formal training but had learned from their fathers.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; William hired his son Charles to the mint with no engraving experience.&nbsp; He desired to train him on the job, in hopes that he would eventually replace himself as chief engraver.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Charles of course later went on to produce the Barber design we all know well.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; William passed away in 1879 (the second year of the Morgan dollar) and there was heavy debate over who should be the next chief engraver: the elder Morgan or, Charles.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Charles ended up with the appointment but many felt Morgan should have gotten the position.&nbsp;&nbsp; It&#039;s clear to see why George and Charles did not get along.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Charles would hold the position for 38 years until he died in 1917, at which point George T. Morgan became chief engraver at the age of 72.&nbsp; &nbsp; He continued work at the mint until he became ill and passed away at 79, Jan. 4th 1925.&nbsp;&nbsp; At this point he was succeeded by John R. Sinnock, designer of the Roosevelt dime and the Franklin half dollar. </p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Here is the first US commemorative with another interesting story and what I feel was a very cool design for the World&#039;s Fair in Chicago, called the Columbian Exposition, being the 400 year anniversary of Christopher Columbus arriving in America. </p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [ATTACH=full]1656185[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; The expo took place in 1893.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; The 1892 having a mintage of 950,000 and the 93 version 1,550,405.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Charles Barber having engraved the bust of Columbus on the obverse and George Morgan having engraved the reverse with the Santa Maria, Columbus&#039; flagship over two hemispheres.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; These were sold for $1 each at the World&#039;s Fair and many went unsold.&nbsp; &nbsp; A substantial amount were released into circulation or sent back to the mint to be melted.&nbsp; &nbsp; From there, not much interest in them.&nbsp;&nbsp; Before the internet, people in later years likely didnt even know they existed and just continued purchasing them as a novelty if they happened to stumble upon one at a shop or see it in a catalog. </p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; The earliest records PCGS has on this one were sales at $8 to $40 through the 1970s.&nbsp; For a MS-65!&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Then investors entered the high end coin market and started convincing everyone to invest in rare coins.&nbsp;&nbsp; By 1984, the value of this coin shot up to $1k.&nbsp;&nbsp; By 1989-1991, the value shot up to between 5 and $6k!&nbsp; &nbsp; This was at a time when gold was only $350 an ounce!&nbsp; &nbsp; So it&#039;s apparent somebody lost their shorts.</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Soon after the market collapsed back down to regular levels and values returned to somewhat normalcy supported by actual collectors.&nbsp;&nbsp; By 2006, the value of a 65 had dropped to 7 to $800 and now today, apparently even fewer are interested and it has settled back to $350 for this same coin.&nbsp; At a time when gold is $2,726/ounce.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Hard to believe the roller coaster, value wise, this one has went on.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO compared to similar mintages these are really cheap now for the historical significance and given the inflation that has transpired, but I digress.&nbsp;&nbsp; I recently picked this one up so it&#039;s not for sale.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp; These have so many nicely toned examples in affordable grades.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ive got a ring toned 64 in my collection as well.&nbsp; Was thinking about doing a grade set since they did circulate.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; [ATTACH=full]1656192[/ATTACH]&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; Census wise, the 1892 in MS-65, NGC lists: 958 and PCGS: 930.&nbsp; &nbsp; Between the two, a total of 977 grading higher.&nbsp; Figured I&#039;d throw that info in since discussing the relative values.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in