Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Gold Dollars from the 1880s, Proof vs. Proof-Like
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="kaparthy, post: 4502443, member: 57463"]<font face="Georgia">The coins are pretty. The design is nice and the Proof (or PL) appearence does it justice. We have had this discussion before. It is not clear that the coins were needed. The low mintages suggest that they had little demand. They did find a place in commerce after the War Between the States when the economy expanded and the average laborer's wage was a dollar a day. The other end of that spectrum is the Morgan dollar, also pretty in Prooflike, and also a useless make-work for the Mint. The coins of commerce in America of the time were the Cent, the Half Dollar and the Half Eagle. Others (half cent, 5-cent/half-dime, dime, 25 cents, quarter eagle) were needed to fill in the spaces for convenience. The other experiments, the 3-cent, the 2-cent, the 20-cent, were interesting and perhaps justifiable in theory. Mostly, the Mint's economic theories were as crude as the astronomy and physics of the time. They did the best they knew how and you have to give them credit for that.</font></p><p><font face="Georgia"><br /></font></p><p><font face="Georgia">The standard reference now is the Whitman book by Bowers. </font></p><p><font face="Georgia">[ATTACH]1116563[/ATTACH] </font></p><p><font face="Georgia"><br /></font></p><p><font face="Georgia">On the matter of "a letter from Breen" in his time, it was the 3rd party opinion. I know that Walter Breen takes a lot of criticism, as do third party graders today. The fact remains that he and they were and are recognized authorities. You can disagree with their findings (or opinions), but you need facts, specific facts, not just general facts -- "They were wrong once about something else; so, I feel they are wrong here." The book above by Q. David Bowers with David Akers makes estimates of early Proof populations, often citing Danreuther in support, but relying on Breen, also. Just to put that in context, Bowers says, page 64: <b>Walter Breen (<i>Encyclopedia,</i> 1988, page 477) stated that "at least seven" are known but did not reconcile that with his earlier comment that about half a dozen were struck (</b><i><b>Major Varieties of US Gold Dollars,</b></i><b> 1964).</b> In 16 years, Breen went from 6 to 7 for his "opinion" of their population. Nobody else was working at his level. Another "physics fan" I worked with held Breen as the originator of the scientific method in American numismatics. </font></p><p><font face="Georgia"><br /></font></p><p><font face="Georgia">If you like pretty coins, we have many discussions here. </font></p><p><font face="Georgia"><br /></font></p><p><font face="Georgia"></font>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="kaparthy, post: 4502443, member: 57463"][FONT=Georgia]The coins are pretty. The design is nice and the Proof (or PL) appearence does it justice. We have had this discussion before. It is not clear that the coins were needed. The low mintages suggest that they had little demand. They did find a place in commerce after the War Between the States when the economy expanded and the average laborer's wage was a dollar a day. The other end of that spectrum is the Morgan dollar, also pretty in Prooflike, and also a useless make-work for the Mint. The coins of commerce in America of the time were the Cent, the Half Dollar and the Half Eagle. Others (half cent, 5-cent/half-dime, dime, 25 cents, quarter eagle) were needed to fill in the spaces for convenience. The other experiments, the 3-cent, the 2-cent, the 20-cent, were interesting and perhaps justifiable in theory. Mostly, the Mint's economic theories were as crude as the astronomy and physics of the time. They did the best they knew how and you have to give them credit for that. The standard reference now is the Whitman book by Bowers. [ATTACH]1116563[/ATTACH] On the matter of "a letter from Breen" in his time, it was the 3rd party opinion. I know that Walter Breen takes a lot of criticism, as do third party graders today. The fact remains that he and they were and are recognized authorities. You can disagree with their findings (or opinions), but you need facts, specific facts, not just general facts -- "They were wrong once about something else; so, I feel they are wrong here." The book above by Q. David Bowers with David Akers makes estimates of early Proof populations, often citing Danreuther in support, but relying on Breen, also. Just to put that in context, Bowers says, page 64: [B]Walter Breen ([I]Encyclopedia,[/I] 1988, page 477) stated that "at least seven" are known but did not reconcile that with his earlier comment that about half a dozen were struck ([/B][I][B]Major Varieties of US Gold Dollars,[/B][/I][B] 1964).[/B] In 16 years, Breen went from 6 to 7 for his "opinion" of their population. Nobody else was working at his level. Another "physics fan" I worked with held Breen as the originator of the scientific method in American numismatics. If you like pretty coins, we have many discussions here. [/FONT][/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Gold Dollars from the 1880s, Proof vs. Proof-Like
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...