I have been on a hunt for some of these for some time now, really ever since I missed the auction closing for a complete set of foil pressings of the Ted Naftzger collection. My understanding is that they are made with a modified notary press with a medium hard rubber replacing the typical stamp. They place the coin between two small sheets of aluminum, press down, then place them in plastic 2x2s. They are very fragile, and it seems that these have received a bit of damage over time, but still a fascinating part of the hobby that I don't think is really in practice anymore since photography is so prevalent and much easier to share. I'd love to get my hands on a complete set, but for now, I'll just enjoy these. I know that the ancient collectors also did this for may years. Post em if you got em.
I really don't know. I offered a guy thirty bucks for this set and he went for it. I think they are typically pretty cheap, but I just don't see them come up for sale very often.
Here is the one I have. Received it as a gift during my Early US Copper class at Summer Seminar in 2012.
I haven't made any of those in YEARS. Yes pressings used to be a common thing but they died out when digital photography and the internet made sharing images so much easier. Rod Burris used to modify the old desk style Notary presses for making these. I still have mine.
Huh, that is weird. I guess its a good way to get a "copy" of a very rare coin or a scarce variety. Does it do any damage to the host coin? I should hope not if these are prestigious coins from a famous collection. When were these made? How much do they sell for? Did collectors prefer these pressings, or electrotypes? Could you make a pressing of an electrotype, or would that lose too much fidelity? Tell us about the Dan Holmes collection and why it was special. So many questions!
This was commonplace from my understanding, and I think that if done carefully that it wouldn’t damage the coin, but I’m sure accidents happened. Judging by the 2x2 holders, I’m guessing in the 60s though the 80s, but I don’t really know. @Conder101 would probably have this answer and some of your others. I’ve seen a few collections of a hundred or so pieces sell for about $200 if the collector wasn’t really known, but the full set of the Ted Naftzger collection went for about twenty each by the time bogging was done. I’d prefer genuine, electrotypes and foil pressings in that order and I’d assume that is what most would also prefer. I don’t think a lead filled electrotype would work with this method. Dan Holmes is one of the greatest large cent collectors of all time. He had I believe every Sheldon die paring in different die states with the exception of just two or three pieces. Including the “non-collectible” coins.
Having zero knowledge of this - why not? Well, I can certainly respect that! I don't collect large cents, so I can't really appreciate what an undertaking it is - but if it's anything like half dollars, that is a truly noteworthy accomplishment.
Aluminum is harder than lead, so I would assume that the process would deform the electrotype as the pressing was made. I’m not sure though, just assuming based on the fragile nature of electrotypes. EAC guys are definitely a unique group, but Bust half collectors aren’t too far behind.
Here is a good article on Dan Holmes, done by CoinWeek... https://coinweek.com/people-in-the-news/in-memoriam/in-memoriam-dan-holmes-1938-2016/ I have all four of the catalogs from when his collection was sold. A terrific LC reference.
I know it was still somewhat common in the early to mid 80's and much more commonly done earlier. For the most part making electrotypes went out of fashion in the early 20th century. It really isn't the easiest thing to do. The foil pressings let you have a record of your own collection, you could get pressings of famous or high grade pieces you didn't have or die stages that you didn't have. The plastic 2X2's made the pressing easy to handle or mail. So you wanted to get an attribution confirmed. You could mail the coin and risk losing it, you could get of cameras and shoot a roll or two , have the developed and printed an hope to have some good enough to send, or you could quickly make a pressing put it in a 2X2 and mail it. Remember this was an era when there really wasn't much in the way of good reference images to compare your coin to. The pressing also had the advantage of being three dimensional like the coin, which is better than a two dimensional image. One of the real problems with the pressing was getting the coin out with damaging the foil impression. The foil really conforms to the surface of the coin and it's like a vacuum seal. Some of the pressings up above were obviously damaged in trying to remove the coin. You could make pressings of electrotypes, but you would want to keep the pressure lower than you would doing one on a copper coin. Do multiple light pressings rather than one hard one. I have all FIVE. Dan's first sale was in September of 2009. At EAC in May of that year Goldberg Auctions had "prototype" catalogs for that first sale that they were distributing to attendees at the convention. That catalog was not in the same format as the one finally decided to use for the sale. I got one and Dan signed it for me. The only way to get that catalog was to be at EAC that year. They also had all of the Holmes early dates there for viewing plus the unique 1793 NC-5 on loan from the ANS collection. The only time EVERY early date variety has been in the same place at the same time.
The detail just astounds me. I assumed that there must be some kind of vacuum device employed to bring such incredible detail to these. An old notary press with the seal replaced by rubber is it..... And I just may have one of those old notary seals laying around my office.
I added a few more to the set. I like the addition of the NC-1 and NC-2 1801s, I have about a hundred from Dans set now, but these are the first NC ones to pop up. It’s also pretty cool to have a pressing of the coin featured on his personal pressings card.
