Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="SuperDave, post: 2687058, member: 1892"]They're posted on Page 3 of this thread. The Philadelphia Mint's archived records are accessible to the public. You can go see what they recorded about these dies any time you want, as long as you make an appointment. They're ten miles from me as the crow flies; I ride public transportation to them. That's what the people who quote Mint records have done - they've gone to the National Archives and read the records in person. The difference between your coin and the "new" 1909 non-VDB Proof die: There was a plausible explanation for the need for a new die pair for 1909 non-VDB. The Mint records 4 shipments of 1909 non-VDB Proofs: 852 on August 17, 810 on August 26, 500 on December 8 and 180 on December 24. It's reasonable to believe, due to their absolute scarcity, that the "new" dies only struck the December shipment(s); had they struck any of the earlier shipments as well, the proportion of "new" die examples would be far higher. Since there were no shipments between August and December, it's also reasonable to assume the Mint had decided that 1909 Proofs were "done" and retired the dies. Good reason to create new dies for the later runs, and it should be mentioned that the dies for the "new" Proofs were not as sharp as the originals, showing evidence of having been created by relatively worn hubs - just as you'd expect from dies done by hubs which had created a bunch of working Business Strike dies. And this is important: The same obverse die which struck all of the 1909VDB Proofs also struck all but the "new" 1909 non-VDB Proofs. The same obverse markers are on both versions. There was no need for a "new" 1909VDB Proof die. If I'm parsing that thread correctly, shouldn't there therefore be three known obverses for 1909 (the first three of Albrecht's obverses)? Or have none been found with the die-cracked Albrecht #2?[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches